Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

One Step Closer to Star Wars Holograms

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the help-me-obi-wan dept.

Communications 122

An anonymous reader noted a USC research project that is coming ever closer to bringing the classic Star Wars communication holograms from Tatooine to Earth. There's nifty video and some high resolution pictures of Tie Fighters projected into 3-D. Still no clear way to project it from an astro mech droid, but I'm sure that's coming.

cancel ×

122 comments

Wow. Just... WOW! (2, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678100)

TFA is amazing. It doesn't go into great detail into how the thing works, but it gives an ok general outline, and the video is cool as hell (glad they imbedded it here).

I can't wait until these replace standard monitors and TV sets. The only drawback is saying goodbye to flat TVs, but that's a small price to pay.

I WANT ONE!!!

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (1)

tehniobium (1042240) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678210)

Granted it looks cool, and I too want one :D

Of the top of my heads, here are some problems

The energy needed to power it might be rather big (20Hz spinning of a 40 inch mirror?)

Things aren't filmed in 360 degree, so some angles will probably be useless for most videos.

Who wants to sit BEHIND the action? People will only use one side as they always have.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (-1, Offtopic)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678242)

ok this is what happening,

my parents are out with family friends, and theyll be back any minute so i need your help

see, i volunteer on my sister's softball team (im 22 the girls are 15) and whatever, i met this girl, her name is Alison, and were going out for a while. We have a lot in common, and sometimes i help her with homework. i helped her with her english essay and she still got a D... this is because her teacher is a prick... anywayz

so she came over like an hour ago, and i really want to lose my virginity, so i ask her to have sex
"no no i cant, its not right" she said, but i told her "dont worry, i know what im doing, ill be done in like 10 seconds, plus ill give you 2 n64 games if you say yes."

So then I gave her Diddy Kong Racing and Ken Griffy Jr. Baseball and we went up to my room. she is a bit confused and scared. then i think to myself- yo i need lube, right? cuz i heard other people saying you need to lube up her clit otherwise it wont fit in properly. ok so i have no lube, but i really want to lose my virginity, so i grab some butter from the fridge, but its cold and it wont melt, so i microwaved it for 8 minutes and i put it in a glass and poured it on her cooter, and now shes saying i burned it.

i dont know what to do, my parents are going to be back any minute and shes crying in the bathroom plz help you guys are really smart please help me.

any idea how to shut her up? should i give her another n64 game?

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (0, Offtopic)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678330)

Congratulations. You win the WTF troll award.

Incidentally the first not racist gay bashing troll award also.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32680596)

Sorry to disappoint you, but that's a pretty old one. Surprised you haven't seen it by now, given your 600K-range user ID.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32678334)

Try orajel. It has benzocaine which is a numbing agent. Numbskull.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (-1, Troll)

TheDawgLives (546565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678502)

OK, here's your problem. You gave her the wrong games. You need to swap them out for Mario Kart and Donkey Kong Country. Girls go crazy for those games. Also, do your parents have an ice maker? If so, take some ice up to her. You should be good to go after that.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (-1, Troll)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678776)

First off, don't answer any questions, not even when the police show up. Their only job is to build a case against you. Then get a lawyer, and hope you get a light sentace for statitory rape. Also, don't forget you will now be registered as a sex offender.

Secondly, Diddy Kong Racing was trash for a racing game, no wonder she is crying. And N64 is 2 generations ago. Give her your DS with Mario Kart and Nintendogs. That should make her happy, maybe she will drop charges.

MOD PARENT INTERESTING! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32679612)

I want to see how this pans out. :)

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32680878)

A 22 year old virgin who hasn't watched enough porn to have a clue of what he's doing? I smell ... a ... TROLL!

    If it's real, you won't be a virgin for long. Attempted statuary rape (trying to have sex with her), solicitation of a minor (asking her for sex), indecent liberties with a minor (getting her naked), solicitation of prostitution with a minor (paying her for sex), and sexual battery (burning her pubic area).

    Bring some lube to prison with you, you'll need it. :)

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682172)

It's not real, dumbass. You're like the Cmdr Taco of slashdot commenters.

Responding to trolls is as bad as posting two-year-old spinning mirror holography articles. Which is like being the Cmdr Taco of slashdot.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678308)

Spinning mirror 3d is fun, but not practical in any way.

That said, if someone did develop holographic movies, there would no ling be a 'behind the action' place to sit. It will be filmed so that everywhere has some action.

Hell, maybe people can put there own person viewing angle anywhere they want.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678440)

The energy needed to power it might be rather big (20Hz spinning of a 40 inch mirror?)

Once the mirror is spinning at speed, the only energy input required would be to fight friction and wind resistance. I haven't done any calculations, but I don't think would require that much energy to keep spinning the mirror. I think the hardest thing would be to make a large mirror that won't break under centrifugal force.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (3, Insightful)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678738)

Since you clearly want that thing in an enclosed box (I prefer my TVs to be of the less then lethal variety) It would seem to make sense to make that box a vacuum or at least low pressure, they were making some pretty massive CRTs right at the end of that tech so I imagine that this wouldn't be a problem. Ultimately thought I think that this just isn't practical and probably never will be, it doesn't scale very well, 60 fps would likely shatter the mirror, in most applications nobody would actually care to sit at the back and frankly it's a big spinning mirror in the middle of your office or living room.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32680140)

they were making some pretty massive CRTs right at the end of that tech

My forty two inch flat screen Trinitron (CRT) weighs 215 pounds. One of its advantages is it's damned hard for a burglar to walk off with.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (1)

Bazards (1081167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678504)

I don't think I would want 40" of glass spinning at 20Hz in my living room. Shrapnel.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (1)

drakaan (688386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32679032)

...makes me wonder if it would work somehow with splitting mirrors to slice up the projected beam and a large number of smaller mirrors (something like a holographic DLP system). Hmm...what would the mirror array need to be shaped like?

Maybe a holographic refraction system with the projector in the middle of a cylindrical array of refractors?

They'll figure out a way to commercialize this sometime in the next 10 years, I'm sure.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32679108)

But you can put it in a solid glass cylinder and spin it, you get more mass to spin but next to no air resistance and shattering would not be very likely

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (5, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32679660)

Actually, some of the first color TV designs used spinning mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_TV [wikipedia.org]

I don't think I would want 40" of glass spinning at 20Hz in my living room. Shrapnel.

That's what a bunch of engineers at RCA thought, when they pushed for an all-electronics solution, without mechanical stuff.

So call me when this thing works without high speed movable parts.

Oh, and disclaimer, my father worked for RCA, and told me a lot of funny stories about the birth of color TV. During one of the first tests, transmitting a color picture of a fruit bowl from RCA's research site in Princeton to New York city, one of the engineers painted the banana blue. The folks at the receiving side fiddled with their color adjustments, and announced: "Well, the banana looks ok, but all the colors on the other fruit are wrong."

Of course, they had tried to adjust on the banana first. Even back then, nerdy geeks did nerdy pranks!

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (2, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32680906)

So call me when this thing works without high speed movable parts.

That's probably what a lot of people said when power tools were invented. I've read about the attempts at different technologies to produce color televisions, including the mirror one. I think the problem with the mirror then would have been the huge size of the box; early CRTs (even in the '50s) were a lot deeper than later CRTs, and you would have had to have the CRT and the spinning mirror.

It seems to me that you could have a true holographic video screen if you could have a high enough resolution, backlit with lasers illuminating the difraction pattern on the screen. They may well be possible now, but I remember in a physics class in the late seventies even holograms using photographic film looked grainy. It was still cool having the film wrapped around a beaker with a laser shining on it, and the photo of the dice inside were true 3-D, you could look at any angle. This video reminded me of that.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32681336)

I don't think I would want 40" of glass spinning at 20Hz in my living room. Shrapnel.

That's what a bunch of engineers at RCA thought, when they pushed for an all-electronics solution, without mechanical stuff.

shhhh you use something every day that does 2000-9000hz per second... your car engine (we just call it RPM there). Or even 20-200hz a fan on your computer or in your house to cool things off.

Also making something reflective does not have to be a glass mirror. Mylar plastic, polished metal, even the junk they put on CDs...

Now where it breaks down is what they were 'faking' which was the camera the were filming tied back into the computer displaying the images. So that way it could tell what angle you were looking from in the vertical axis. It would distort it in the proper way so the 1 person looking at it thru the camera and it would look correct. Notice how 'small' they made it? That is because it would probably start to warp and distort at a much bigger size.

That is one of the reasons it failed. As depending on how you look at it things can get distorted. So you can get the effect to work for 1 person it does not work with 2 or more.

Also to your point spinning parts = returned units = higher cost to manufacture and fix. Also I bet the noise of a flat mirror surface spinning at 30-60hz is quite incredible to hear. Much like a fan....

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (2, Informative)

ManlySpork (1542827) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682092)

Hz= /second RPM = /minute Just a small correction.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682374)

So you can get the effect to work for 1 person it does not work with 2 or more.

Actually I think it would work just fine for as many persons as you want, as long as they are in different directions, ie. one is not looking over other ones head. Just do some eye tracking with a bunch of webcams to get the eye levels of all wathcers.

In Soviet Russia, the 3D TV watches you.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682562)

During one of the first tests, transmitting a color picture of a fruit bowl from RCA's research site in Princeton to New York city, one of the engineers painted the banana blue. The folks at the receiving side fiddled with their color adjustments, and announced: "Well, the banana looks ok, but all the colors on the other fruit are wrong.

The engineer was Dr. George H. Brown, head of the color television program at RCA. There are a lot of interesting stories in his autobiography, "and part of which I was" published by Angus Cupar Publishers (1979, 1982).

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32681116)

It just sucks that glass with a silvered backing is the ONLY reflective material in existence....

How about some polished stainless steel as a mirror?

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (2, Interesting)

jlf278 (1022347) | more than 4 years ago | (#32679366)

"Who wants to sit BEHIND the action? People will only use one side as they always have."

which side is BEHIND the action when you are watching football in a stadium? There are certainly some good applications for this technology. Though just having a feature to watch replays at whatever angle you want would be a great addition to plain old flat panel tv.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (1)

mldi (1598123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32680998)

"Who wants to sit BEHIND the action? People will only use one side as they always have."

which side is BEHIND the action when you are watching football in a stadium? There are certainly some good applications for this technology. Though just having a feature to watch replays at whatever angle you want would be a great addition to plain old flat panel tv.

One word: cheerleaders.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (1)

Kepesk (1093871) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678306)

Yeah, this is pretty cool, but when are we going to get to the Star TREK holograms? Now that would really be something.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (2, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678500)

I'm counting on the porn industry to invent that.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32680856)

really you're absolutely correct. That's where the most demand will be. Better watch out for those 3D facial scenes. Imagine how ppl will be ducking away from the flying jizm coming at them in 3D.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (2, Informative)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32681688)

So this is a volumetric style display. It can only display objects within its volume. However full volumetric displays this display has only natural horizontal parallax. It can fake vertical parallax using head tracking. It does have one conceptual advantage over proper volumetric displays, namely that it does not require that you can always see through to the back of he shape, but it should be able to emulate that if desired.

- - - -

Let me attempt to create a classification system for 3D display technology.

Volumetric refers to any technology that is restricted to displaying an image within some fixed size area. It cannot show things like stereoscopic movies. Volumetric displays have natural parallax in both directions, so can be observed correctly by any number of viewers. They can be viewed from any direction, except that equipment may obscure the views from some direction.

Some examples:

A pseudo-volumetric display is one that can only display in a fixed volume, but fails to meet the one of the requirements of a volumetric display, such as having only natural parallax in one direction, not being viewable from all directions, or only being able to display points on the exterior of the volume.

Examples:

  • The display of this article, since it lacks natural vertical paralax.
  • This Sony 3d display that lacks natural vertical parallax: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAS55_RngoQ [youtube.com]
  • Certain types of holograms meat this definition. they have natural parallax in both directions, but can only be viewed from a limited number of angles.
  • The following device based on a a structure of rotating LEDs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLygWkHo9nw [youtube.com] This is pesudo-volumetric only because this particular device can only show things on a sphere, and a ring around the sphere. It also does not let you see the far side of the shape. It is entirely possible to build a full volumetric device using the same technology.

Now we have the remaining technology. These pretty much always use one or more flat screens, but that is not a requirement.

A very familiar technology is 2D projection . This is the projection of a 3D image on a 2D surface. This is what we used to mean when we talked about 3D video games, for example. I don't think any examples are needed here.

Now before I go on to talk about additional display types, I should define some terms.

Autosteroscopic indicates that a display gives a stereoscopic image without the need for glasses, goggles, etc. There seems to be no standardized term for the opposite, whIch i will call variosteroscopic

Semi-Immersive means that the view changes depending on the observers position. I mean this beyond parallax. Think of a display acting like a window, so if you stand to the far left or far right you can see different things, while only parallax would give stereoscopy, but you would see the same image from both sides of the display.

Fully-immersive has not just a single window, but surrounds you, or seems to, anyway. VR goggles that track head movement and rotation can supply this kind of display. Volumetric displays that can be walked through also qualify. Later I will discuss how the holodeck fits in.

Now we can get on to our display types.

Variosteroscopic, non-immersive displays. These should be very familiar. They are what movie theaters currently use. It requires glasses, but like volumetric displays, any number of people can view it at once. Some more complicated displays like headset displays can also act as this type of display. This should require no examples.

Autostereoscopic, non-immersive displays also exist. These generally use technology like lenticular lenses and parallax barriers. They may use head tracking to avoid requiring one fixed view position. They generally only work for one person at a time, although there are ways to a small number of simultaneous viewers, but it adds costs and complication. The new 3DS uses a display of this type.

Monoscopic, semi-immersive is a display technology where the images themselves are 2D so you have no depth perception, but through head tracking, or some similar mechanism, you get different views depending on the angle you view the screen from, so by moving your head back and forth, it can be possible to determine depth. Often these displays are only set-up to support left-right semi-immersion, so moving your head up and down does not change the image. These displays generally only have the effect work for a single person, but it is possible to support some small fixed number of viewers.

Examples:

  • the DSi game entitled "DS 3D Hidden Picture" uses this technology.
  • Rational Craft's winscape [rationalcraft.com] system uses this sort of technology using a wiimote for position tracking.

variosterioscopic, semi-immersive is simply a combination of the previous with some variosteroscopic technology. I am not aware of any such displays existing. It would also only be able to support one or some small number of viewers.

autosteroscopic, semi-immersive displays. Some forms of holograms work in this fashion, including semi-immersion in both directions. I'm not aware of any other display type that actually can do this, but it is possible to simulate this in the horizontal direction using parallax barrier technology by having enough static views visible from different angles.

variosteroscopic, fully-immersive are VR goggles with movement and rotation sensing. There may be other ways to implement this technology but that is the form that springs to mind.

autosteroscopic, fully-immersive is a display equivalent to the display portions of the holodeck, (although it is not essential that the image be visually indistinguishable from reality, like holodeck is). For more on the holodeck, please read the next section.

- - - -

Now I've gotten to the holodeck. This is the holy grail of 3D display technology. The holodeck as depicted in Star Trek included much we are not concerned with here, like AI, or the ability to interact with the simulated objects. For my purposed here, a precursor to the holodeck where one can just walk right through objects and that may be visually distinguishable from reality is sufficient. The holodeck then is an enclosed room, but during a simulation it can appear to be much larger. The holodeck can function like a volumetric display. that can be walked through. (Picture having it show some 3d object floating in the middle of the room, with the rest of the room unchanged.) But it is not merely a volumetric display. Objects that appear far enough away to be outside the physical room are still shown, and are just as 3D as objects within the confines of the room. Thus the display is not volumetric by the definition I am using, since it is not limited to showing 3d objects within a defined volume. However, creating a real-world holodeck display could utilize some volumetric display that can be walked through. Have the volume fill up the room, and then have each of the walls , the ceiling, and the floor be auto-stereoscopic semi-immersive displays. Sure it would not be nearly as convincing an illusion as the tech the holodeck in the show uses, but it would still be an amazing experience.

Re:Wow. Just... WOW! (1)

Have Brain Will Rent (1031664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682132)

FWIW: I only had time to quickly skim a bit of the article but it seems similar to a system I saw at a Siggraph conference about 25 years or so ago which iirc used a speaker covered with reflective Mylar to bounce a laser in the right direction to produce a 3D display. The speaker was used to modulate the surface of the Mylar film. There may also have been a spinning mirror involved to direct the beam to particular parts of the mylar - it's been too long to remember and I don't have my proceedings handy and it may have been a demo not a paper.

Old news... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32678152)

The display was shown at the SIGGRAPH 2007 Emerging Technologies exhibition in August 2007 in San Diego, California, where it won the award for "Best Emerging Technology".

Way to keep up, Slashdot.

Actually if I felt like searching I'm sure I could find this same story posted years ago.

Re:Old news... (4, Informative)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678790)

The display was shown at the SIGGRAPH 2007 Emerging Technologies exhibition in August 2007 in San Diego, California, where it won the award for "Best Emerging Technology".

Way to keep up, Slashdot.

Actually if I felt like searching I'm sure I could find this same story posted years ago.

I think this tells us something about the internet as an informational medium. Old news, but how many of us heard of it for the first time today? I know I never saw the 2008 posting, nor would I have frequented whatever site that link is from. Makes you wonder how many things, neat or otherwise, are simply lost to a digital wasteland.

Re:Old news... (2, Funny)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682422)

I think this tells us something about the internet as an informational medium. Old news, but how many of us heard of it for the first time today? I know I never saw the 2008 posting, nor would I have frequented whatever site that link is from. Makes you wonder how many things, neat or otherwise, are simply lost to a digital wasteland.

Hey, now, around here you're supposed to get viscerally angry when a non-optimal event occurs. Check that introspective, mellow attitude at the door, mister!

Re:Old news... (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 4 years ago | (#32679708)

This was on ./, I remember reading about this years ago. This method had been used as far back as the 50's if I remember... *yawn*

Re:Old news... (1)

LordByronStyrofoam (587954) | more than 4 years ago | (#32680616)

Yes, it's been done before. This is an incremental but important improvement.

I developed the drivers and application software for the US Navy's 3D Volumetric Display, at Naval Ocean Systems Center in San Diego around 1992. The system used acousto-optical devices (bragg cells [wikipedia.org] ) to steer a laser's beam at a two-bladed 13 inch diameter helix that rotated at 600 rpm, giving a 20Hz refresh rate. The display was limited to about 4400 voxels per image because of the time the cells required to stop vibrating at one freqency and start vibrating at another.

This new system projects frequently changing fully-formed images at the mirror, so has improved on the simple wire frame images we could render.

The technology has since progressed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682080)

...to display realtime 3D scanned video:
http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/3DTeleconferencing/ [usc.edu]

As seen on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32678202)

I saw this a couple of years ago, here on /.

Re:As seen on... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#32680114)

Yes, but now the 3D star wars holograms are being done with open codecs, HTML5, and CSS instead of old-style tables.

Nothing new (4, Informative)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678284)

The ol' spinning mirror used to fake a real 3d display trick

Re:Nothing new (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678606)

I don't see how a spinning mirror is really "faking" it though. Don't get me wrong, it is old, but essentially all a display has to do is look the park, right? Why would a spinning mirror not be a real 3d display?

Re:Nothing new (2, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678742)

Well, because there is only horizontal parallax, and not vertical parallax for one thing. If you had an image of a pair of dice behind a playing card you could move left or right to look behind the card to see the dice, but you could not move up to look over the card to see the dice.

Re:Nothing new (1)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678922)

They demonstrate vertical parallax in the video.

Re:Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32679244)

They are tracking the cameras vertical position and compensating the image accordingly. There is no true vertical parallax.

Re:Nothing new (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 4 years ago | (#32679932)

It's just tracking with the camera. You'll notice that the image stays the same (you don't get to see the "top" of the TIE fighter) when they go up and down with the camera.

Re:Nothing new (1)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 4 years ago | (#32680062)

The head image........ yes, you do.

Re:Nothing new (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682476)

The way the system works is by projecting a series of 2D image onto a rotating mirror. When the mirror is at position 0, they display image 0, which is what a viewer from angle 0 would see. They then shift the mirror by 1.25 degrees to position 1, and display image 1, which is what a viewer from angle 1 would see. They proceed in this fashion, displaying 288 2D images each to one of 288 different angles. Because your eyes are horizontally separated, you see the mirror from two different angles. Your right eye may be at angle 79, while your left eye is at angle 80. Your brain merges these two images to form a 3D image.

Now, consider the image reflected at angle 0. The mirror is only spinning, it is not tilting as it spins. Therefore every point along the vertical at angle 0 would receive the same image. It would not matter if you were squatting, standing, or on your tippie-toes. Everyone at the same angle gets the same image. Since this is unacceptable, what they do is track where people's eyes are at, and recompute the image. The eyes of the person at angles 42 and 43 are at 1.8m from the ground. Okay, rotate the image for an appropriate view. The eyes of the person at angle 67 and 68 are at 2.3m? Recompute the image for that height. Oh, we have a father and son standing at angle 92 and 93? FAIL.

Re:Nothing new (1)

xonar (1069832) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678968)

Well, because there is only horizontal parallax, and not vertical parallax for one thing. If you had an image of a pair of dice behind a playing card you could move left or right to look behind the card to see the dice, but you could not move up to look over the card to see the dice.

"but you could not move up to look over the card to see the dice." It seemed to work just fine in the video.

Re:Nothing new (2, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32679572)

It seemed to work just fine in the video.

"Seemed" is the operative word there. What they do is track the viewer's height and rotate the image along a horizontal axis to simulate vertical parallax. If you have two viewers, say a boy and his father, standing side by side, this system will display the proper image to both just fine. It projects one image to the boy, then at a later time in the scan cycle, it projects a different image to the father. However, if the boy is standing in front of his father, the system has to project two images at the same point in the mirror's scan cycle. It can't do that. Either they both see it from the boy's perspective, or they both see it from the father's perspective.

Re:Nothing new (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678622)

The ol' spinning mirror used to fake a real 3d display trick. Yes, Max [wikimedia.org] , the old spinning mirror used to fake a real 3d display trick. We're thinking of having one installed in your other shoe.

not fake (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678736)

The spinning mirror combined with the assymetric diffuser gives each viewpoint in the horizontal plane a different image just like a real 3d object would. The place where I get lost is they claim they also have a way to make the vertical viewpoints 3d correct. I don't see how.

Cutting edge 2007 technology! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32678296)

Glad to see it's on the fast track to the marketplace with the whole second ./ posting in three years....

Re:Cutting edge 2007 technology! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32680136)

What is this 'dotslash' that you speak of?

Video is from 2007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32678300)

Seriously... 3 years old.

How's it done? (1)

RedMage (136286) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678322)

With mirrors! Seriously, I saw a "tank" 3D system back in the late 80's/early 90's hooked up to an E&S display system.

Re:How's it done? (0, Offtopic)

OnlyJedi (709288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678516)

I still remember being a kid in the early 90's, and playing games like Time Traveler [wikipedia.org] and Holosseum [wikipedia.org] in arcades. Apparently they were very successful financially, though they didn't last too long.

Re:How's it done? (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 4 years ago | (#32679824)

I remember Time Traveler!

Well, I remember the damn thing always being broken when I could talk my parents into taking me to the arcade... Just read those Wiki articles, and it turns out I wasn't the only one: Holosseum was a conversion for the cabinet cuz their LD players sucked :P

But it isn't crude enough (1)

Silly Man (15712) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678340)

But it is way too clear and doesn't flicker at all!

So, you're suggesting that these (1)

aoeu (532208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678356)

are not the droids we're looking for?

Dup! (3, Informative)

spribyl (175893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678400)

Possibly of a dup from a couple of years ago. I would verify can't be bothered searching or getting to the site.

Re:Dup! (5, Informative)

NewmanKU (948325) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678538)

This was posted back in 2008. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/27/1551232 [slashdot.org]

Re:Dup! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32678684)

Worse is the summary: "Still no clear way to project it from an astro mech droid, but I'm sure that's coming." As an optical engineer, can I just say HOLOGRAMS DON'T WORK THAT WAY.

Re:Dup! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32679060)

And there are comments saying it was an old story even then.

Re:Dup! (1)

ninjacheeseburger (1330559) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678754)

The video was posted to youtube in 2007 and now has a million views, so yeah this is old.

Nice one, but where's the audio? (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678472)

The video notably has no audio track, which keeps you from hearing the WHIRRRRRRR being pumped out by the spinning mirror. Compare this demo to, say, this demo [youtube.com] of a motorized laser system.

.

Vuvuzelas (2, Funny)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32680664)

If you view it on Youtube they've conveniently added a button that adds the sound of vuvuzelas, if that makes it more authentic.

DIY (1)

sh00z (206503) | more than 4 years ago | (#32681584)

here [vuvuzela-time.co.uk]

Old idea is old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32678542)

The IR laser plasma blossoming display is much cooler (except for the blinding infrared radiation). It has potential at least, since it works in a given volume without the need for a top surface or spinning mirror.

True glasses-free non-face-tracking non-volumetric non-parallax (which is limited to two views, as in the 3DS) 3d in a flat-screen might be possible with a super high refresh (plasma at 600hz for example) and moving multi-prism lenticular layer (or a spinning prism column over each pixel row), that would, for say 32 different angles, give a different offset picture 1/32nd of the time. This would require stacking RGB subpixels vertically though or you'd get a rainbow effect. It would also require a mechanical layer, unless an LCD-like effect could be found for adjusting refraction of light at the pixel scale, that worked at ~600hz.

And, if you wanted it 3d in two planes, you could maybe use laser emitters and DPS for each pixel. This would need ~24000hz refresh rate to give you 32 x 32 angles. What do you mean it would be too expensive? heh

IMHO 3d is a fad. Not even a new one.

I can see it now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32678578)

while the video is VERY impressive, i can't help but see the danger in something like this. Let's be for real, this thing better have some sort of glass barricade around it or people will be getting their fingers cut off pretty quick. :P

Yeah, and we'll have lightsabers too. (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678580)

Light goes until it stops and hits something. Those free-floating projections from the movies are, based on current knowledge, impossible. And so are fucking lightsabers.

Re:Yeah, and we'll have lightsabers too. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32678636)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeqIZyUMDP4 [youtube.com]

IR lasers focused in a cone by spinning mirrors cause localized ionization of air at a given point. This point emits light. It works. It just isn't practical (what with being blindingly dangerous without IR safety glasses) yet.

Re:Yeah, and we'll have lightsabers too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32678990)

That is impressive and convincing, but I still look forward to something better.

Re:Yeah, and we'll have lightsabers too. (1)

N1tr0u5 (819066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678638)

Presumably once we figure out one, then we'll figure out the other, eh?

Re:Yeah, and we'll have lightsabers too. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678770)

Those free-floating projections from the movies are, based on current knowledge, impossible.

Key here is "based on current knowledge." A hundred years ago a netbook was impossible, based on knowledge at the time. Now days true holograms require a screen with diffraction patterns and a laser, but the photons could hypothetically bounce off of other photons, or phase with them to brighten/kill them if we could aim the photons precisely enough. R2D2's head could have an array of lasers around its head pointing upwards, while another laser in the center of its head pointed at the beams pointing upwards. Of course that woud have the hologram on R2's head rather than beaming it to a table, but that's a minor point; think the holographic tennis instructor in Total Recall rather than R2D2.

I think it will be doable, and I don't think it will take a hundred years.

Re:Yeah, and we'll have lightsabers too. (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 4 years ago | (#32679008)

Those free-floating projections from the movies are, based on current knowledge, impossible.

No, they're not. The MIT Media lab was building them about a decade ago [mit.edu] .

Re:Yeah, and we'll have lightsabers too. (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#32679038)

Those free-floating projections from the movies are, based on current knowledge, impossible.

No, they're not. The MIT Media lab was building them about a decade ago [mit.edu] .

Those require a diffuser and a limited point of interest. They are not "Star Wars holograms".

Re:Yeah, and we'll have lightsabers too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32679090)

Ah, just like the naysayers of the horseless carriage. If the world was run by people like you, we'd all still be living in caves, pick lice off each other. Anyways, a lightsaber isn't light. Even if it were, light is a wave. It could simply be 1/2 a cycle with a very large amplitude, and a very fast frequency. So, you get a very tight arc that appears to be a straight line. See, that's called imagination. You should try it. Maybe you could leave mommy's basement and contribute to society.

Impractical and old (1)

thygate (1590197) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678624)

It uses a high speed spinning mirror and requires head tracking, not very practical imo. Second, this is already quite old, the first time i saw this exact setup was at least a few years ago.

Not new, but nevertheless cool (2, Insightful)

tibit (1762298) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678654)

They have done some cool things to achieve the effect. Key problems to overcome were:

1. The mirror isn't. A regular rotating mirror would allow viewing from a narrow range of heights. The mirror they use is diffuse in the vertical direction, while acting like a regular mirror in horizontal direction.

2. How to get a fscking fast projector: they use a regular DVI stream, but encode multiple one-bit images into the components. That way a 16-bit-per-pixel stream gets you 16 binary frames per each DVI frame. With 200Hz refresh rate, that is 3200 monochrome frames per second. To decode the stream, they use a custom FPGA-based decoder between the DVI input and the DLP chip.

3. How to render the source material so that it looks good -- and do it in real time, too. They overcome various sources of distortion,

All in all, methinks this is worthy of re-publishing, even if it's stale. Very cool technology.

Well, that was quick... (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678662)

Who here clicked on the link and then imagined their sweating web admin saying "It's a trap!"

No one ever expects the slashdot site ignition...

Re:Well, that was quick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32679504)

Who here clicked on the link and then imagined their sweating web admin saying "It's a trap!"

No one ever expects the slashdot site ignition...

Actually, our admin is sweating b/c of all the days to get /.'d, today is the day the entire lab is moving down the street.

Oh, and here's a newer, but still out of date video of them doing live video conferencing. It's in color now, but this shows it pretty well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hg-m_wT9qQ

Utter Fail (1)

abbynormal brain (1637419) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678772)

"One step closer to Star Wars holograms" ... pshaw.

Where are the vertical distortion lines?! (sigh) ... OK, here is how you can make up for the utter fail:

1. ADD the vertical distortion lines
2. As the surface begins to spin up, add a stall complete with Millennium Falcon stall sounds, then, when it reaches full speed add a Wookie roar.
3. Send me one ... for free (holds breath)

So... (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678888)

When do we get 3D, POV, interactive porn?

Not NEWs (2, Informative)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32678974)

I saw this two or three years ago on the Discovery Channel.

Re:Not NEWs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32681134)

No doubt. The autopsy guy on CSI New York has had this in his lab for two seasons now. Another example of reality mirroring CSI. LOL

COOL for a Brute-Force kinda hologram (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32679048)

I'm not interested until I can safely move my hand through the image.

Mirrors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32679062)

No, you're looking for this http://www.hvrl.ics.keio.ac.jp/paper/pdf/Ishikawa-AsiaGraph.pdf

"Fake Space Labs"? (1)

RJBeery (956252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32679104)

Check the credits...not quite what I was hoping but the illusion is still pretty cool.

Message from the emperor coming in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32679130)

Execute Order 66!

Frankly, I was never impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32679288)

Star Wars communication holograms weren't exactly impressive anyway. Monochrome with loads of glitches? Please. Even in the Star Wars universe the geeks of the day were probably saying these free-standing 3D hologram things were nothing but a cheap gimmick. Give me a full-colour wall-sided 2D or 3D display anyday (which they apparently also had). Of course, had they done that people would have realized Darth Sideous == Senator/Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine as early as Episode I, and it could have saved a lot of hassle.

Yes, you're reading that right: the Star Wars fascination with those hokey holograms was the ultimate downfall of the entire Republic.

Interactive Content Manipulation... (1)

Bonewalker (631203) | more than 4 years ago | (#32679790)

was very cool, but I was really hoping to see the 3d image force-choke the guy holding the controls.

There were no holograms in Star Wars (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32679818)

Holograms are not projected.

Re:There were no holograms in Star Wars (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682656)

Holograms are not projected.

Well, depends on the definition... Technically speaking, hologram is projected to the retina of the eyes. You need the light source, which is reflected or filtered by the image creating material, goes through a lens system so that it is in focus when it hits the surface it's being projected to. If lens is in human eye and surface is retina, it still sounds like projection to me.

Also, I'm not sure if Star Wars 3D projection technology has been explained in imaginary technical detail, but if not, then it could very well be a "true" hologram created out of the air with force field (instead of some kind of real 3D shape being projected into the air, or some kind of force field mirror trick similar to TFA thing, or whatever).

next step up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32682028)

OP article is old. Sony has a color version prototype that was shown last year.

http://www.physorg.com/news175446089.html

I wonder why (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682140)

They don't spin one of those DLP chips instead. Presumably all that would be necessary would be to Illuminate it then.

I want a PROJECTED hologram. (1)

Restil (31903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682200)

While the big spinning mirror thing in a box is really cool, it suffers from the same problem all holograms do, especially when comparing it to the R2-D2 style of hologram. That is, it's entirely contained within a projection medium. The neat trick would be getting a 3D projection onto an unoccupied space. From what I've read on the subject, this isn't really possible (unless there is sufficient particulate matter in the air to provide something to project onto). I suppose it might be possible to use creative optics to create the illusion of a projected hologram, but it would be difficult to provide the same illusion to everyone watching, from every angle, using the same projector.

-Restil

Re:I want a PROJECTED hologram. (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682452)

Io2 [io2technology.com] has been going on about their thing for years. I think they're just a projector and a sheet of ionized air or water vapor or something. It's still kind of nifty but they don't seem to have made much progress with them recently.

Slashdot is getting to be the wayback machine (1)

entertainment (749138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32682748)

This is older than my grandma. Also somehow slashdot thinks I have bad karma for speaking r e a l i t y. Mod me down please to the evil troll diety level...

Re:Slashdot is getting to be the wayback machine (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32683220)

I've seen this video at least a year ago on YT.
If I had any points left, I'd mod you up. But you know better than to care about that. The points model is supposed to filter out bad messages, and deliver good ones - but often fails.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...