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!

A Kinect Princess Leia Hologram In Realtime

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the recreation-opportunities dept.

Input Devices 112

mikejuk writes with this snippet from I, Programmer: "True 3D realtime holography is not only possible — it makes use of a Kinect as its input device. A team at MIT has recreated the famous 3D Princess Leia scene from the original Star Wars — but as a live video feed! It's a great stunt but don't miss the importance — this is realtime 3D holography and that means you can view it without any glasses or other gadgets and you can move around and see behind objects in the scene. This is more than the flat 3D you get in movies."

cancel ×

112 comments

meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35044926)

thats not any good

Re:meh (4, Insightful)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045292)

Yes, but it's a proof of concept. Keep in mind that this is using off-the-shelf hardware. If someone picks this up and starts to work with it, then it's only going to get better with time. I'd imagine the first televisions would be similarly "not any good", and then think back when telegrams were the only way to communicate with others. Give it time.

Re:meh (1)

Zelgadiss (213127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35046230)

Err... the display they use isn't off-the-shelf though.

It would be really cool if they can get this to work at the fidelity of current TVs, but I got a feeling I would be long dead by then. :/

Oblitory Yoda comment (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35044930)

Nearly there, it is.

Re:Oblitory Yoda comment (3)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#35046846)

Long way to go, they have.

Soooo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35044946)

3 fps, 80 scanlines, in the wrong color, against a black background. Genius recreation guys.

Re:Soooo (0)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35044962)

In the next release her image will be replaced with Hayden Christensen in a George Lucas inspired M. Night Shyamalan-like twist.

Re:Soooo (5, Insightful)

Daniel Franklin (60786) | more than 3 years ago | (#35044982)

The first 2D electronic television displays had similar levels of performance. This is a tremendous achievement. If you want proper 3D - sans glasses - this is almost certainly how it will happen.

Re:Soooo (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045010)

Early mechanical systems are probably a better analogy. Once we committed ourselves to electronic television, it was basically immediately quite good (heck, British 405-line system was promoted as High Definition; there are some recordings on YT, looking decently good)

Re:Soooo (1)

burne (686114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048006)

The British Scophony system was a mechanical system. Drums with rotating mirrors, ultrasound waves through a parafine-filled quartz tube. Capable of projecting an image up to three meters across. Displaying the same 405-line system.

http://www.modulatedlight.org/Modulated_Light_DX/UltrasoundMod.html [modulatedlight.org]

Re:Soooo (4, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045266)

I dont really know if it would really work or not, but I've had this idea for an interferometer based "holo-tank" for over a year now.

(I really don't care if somebody steals this idea.)

The phenomenon of self-interference is the life-blood of traditional holography-- basically, one beam is split in a beam splitter, one of the resulting beams scans an object, while the other then interferes with the refracted light from the scanning beam as it exposes a photographic plate.

traditional holography [knowledgerush.com]

This stores the interference pattern on the plate, so that when it gets illuminated by laser light of the same frequency, a virtual 3D image of the scanned object gets produced.

That's basic holography; The idea I have in mind is quite a bit different:

Since this is slashdot at least some of you guys will be familiar with the micro-mirror arrays found in some modern DLP projection television sets, (For those that are not, here is an obligatory wikipedia link [wikipedia.org] .) and probably some of you already know about multi-mode lasers for use in frequency combs. (Another obligatory wikipedia link [wikipedia.org] .)

Essentially, you take the beam from a multimode frequency comb laser that is calibrated to produce a series of discrete frequency spikes within the visible light spectrum, and run it through a beam splitter, just like traditional holography.

However, instead of sending one beam to interact with a real object as the scanning beam, you direct BOTH beams onto DLP chips. These DLP chips reflect and refract the laser light so that the beams will have a very subtle phase incongruity when they intersect within a transparent medium. This causes the beams to interfere with each other and scatter at the point of intersection. By carefully controlling the beam lengths to be highly specific to the individual frequency spikes of the laser comb's beam, you can modulate the apparent "color" of the glowing 'dot'. (Or, at least I think you should be able to anyway.)

Now, if you "Scan" the two lasers over the DLPs, you should be able to use them to produce a purely computer generated holographic image, in something that would approach real color. (Would not be true real color, because of the discrete nature of the laser comb you are using.)

Due to issues of blinding people with the laser light, you would need to project the image inside of a transparent block of material, like high clarity glass or crystal, with some kind of beam trap at the far end-- however, this "tank" doesnt need to be very thick to theoretically produce a nice 3D object. I would think a mere quarter inch thick would be more than sufficient.

Re:Soooo (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35045254)

3 fps, 80 scanlines, in the wrong color, against a black background. Genius recreation guys.

You're sending slow-ass plain text from one computer to another and you call this thing ARPANET? Genius idea, guys.

Re:Soooo (1)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047506)

You're sending slow-ass plain text from one computer to another and you call this thing ARPANET? Genius idea, guys.

Really no points for him? Mod him insightful ppl, he's right.

It's usually a hater that starts bagging on proof of concept limitations in their specs.

3 fps, 80 scanlines, in the wrong color, against a black background. Genius recreation guys.

The air is fresher outside of the basement.

-AI

"real holography" (2, Insightful)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35044954)

"Real holography" my ass. Unless I'm misinterpreting the video, what they're producing is a ~15 FPS red blob, with no 3D except what's captured by the Kinect. You're still going to see a flat image on the screen (and those on the left and right of the theater will get the same image).

Re:"real holography" (5, Informative)

2themax (681779) | more than 3 years ago | (#35044988)

The article linked to in the article http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/video-holography-0124.html [mit.edu] explains the actual holographic video generation part in more detail. They are using arrays of lasers to make fringe/interference patterns. This IS "real holography", just very low resolution and framerate.

Re:"real holography" (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045144)

They are using arrays of lasers to make fringe/interference patterns. This IS "real holography", just very low resolution and framerate.

If it took three GPUs to do that, then I shudder to think how much processor power it would take to render a holotheatric release of Star Wars. I hope there's some room for optimization here.

Re:"real holography" (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045232)

They are using arrays of lasers to make fringe/interference patterns. This IS "real holography", just very low resolution and framerate.

If it took three GPUs to do that, then I shudder to think how much processor power it would take to render a holotheatric release of Star Wars. I hope there's some room for optimization here.

It would be worth working on, don't you think? Finally a use for really massively parallel computing.

Re:"real holography" (5, Funny)

azalin (67640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045622)

Don't you dare to give George Lucas an excuse for yet another starwars re-release!

Re:"real holography" (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35046738)

I think it's probably too lake to put the cat back in the tube at this point.

Re:"real holography" (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048012)

Cat...in the tube? O_o

Re:"real holography" (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045224)

So we are at the point where TV was done with arrays of light globes.

Re:"real holography" (1)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048234)

At this level of abstraction, the only difference between "arrays of light globes" and OLED display is the size of the pixels.

Re:"real holography" (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35044994)

They seem to be claiming that they were (or are) developing a holographic display device. Thats far more interesting to me than Princess Leia or the Kinect. Isn't that the red blob we see in the video? I assume that monochrome holograms will come before color holograms because of the difficulty of getting the interference patterns right when you have more than one wavelength.

Re:"real holography" (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045512)

...developing a holographic display device. Thats far more interesting to me than Princess Leia

The force must not be strong in you.

Re:"real holography" (5, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35044996)

What those people are doing is certainly "real holography" (not captured too well, the cameraman should move more)

It's just that obstacles are huge (to the point of being quite counterintuitive) - apparently, for a really good holography, you need a display with pixels smaller than a wavelength of light (coupled with memory and processing we're nowhere near yet)

But once we're there... oh boy. A display can look basically like a window. Much better than the gimmick of stereoscopy.

(some quick [wikipedia.org] details [wikipedia.org] )

Re:"real holography" (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35046928)

hey man, if i could get a lcd shutter flip down for my prescription glasses, id be pretty much there already. well, that and head tracking, so the point of view on the screen could change with my eye location. though i wonder why there not doing head tracking now, with the kinect or something.

Re:"real holography" (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048004)

I wouldn't - stereoscopy has very wrong parallax (vs. it just not being there in "2D" images; but shallow focus possibly nicely tapping into how we're used to all the blurs and doubling of objects in front and behind of focus place... ), forces eyes to maintain focus lock on the screen while convergence and spatial hints scream otherwise, for all the objects to be viewable the scene needs to have very deep focus (as is typical in this stereoscopic toy with ~dozen photos on a disk - which IMHO makes the scene, paradoxically, very flat - a feel somewhat similar to SNES platformers with several backgrounds), and you would need to keep your head mostly horizontal.

In contrast, holography can give rays of light basically just like they would be when coming from real scene. Anyone who held a "proper" hologram knows how phenomenal it might eventually be - you hold a flat photograph, but it appears like insides of a box with a real object inside!
(that said, changing view via cameras or accelerometers can be fun - there is a NDSi game like that (funnily enough, the method can't be used on the stereoscopic screen of Nintendo 3DS) ... but it's not the same league)

(and generally - through how many more golden eras of "3D"/stereoscopy we need to go? The one half a century ago even had polarizing glasses, too. Heck, the stereoscopic version of photography is barely younger than its "normal" sister, at ~150 years; quite easy and inexpensive to do for a long time. Did you make even one such photograph? Know anybody who did? Do you recollect any of the "great / cherished / monumental / eye-catching" photographs helping itself with stereoscopy in the impact they have on us?)

Re:"real holography" (4, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35044998)

It's a computed hologram. The idea has been around for a while as a way to make a true 3D display, but held back by two missing technologies: A ridiculously high resolution screen, and a ridiculous amount of processing power to drive it. They have solved both, the latter by the use of a multi-GPU computer. Impressive. It's not practical yet, but it's a good start. Throw maybe a hundred times the processing power at it, and an even higher resolution display so you can do blue and green laser holography too, and it could produce an image indistinguishable from placeing a real object behind the screen.

Re:"real holography" (1)

Casandro (751346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047542)

Well the problem here is that the input is just from a Kinect, so it's just a coloured "bedsheet" draped over the actual scene. You cannot look around the corner in this example. However once we have decent 15 inch image sensors that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

Re:"real holography" (1)

BlueTemplar (992862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045034)

I think they're actually showing a real hologram on their custom-made screen. But it's only a half-3D image that is reconstituted using the Kinect depth sensors. I can't see how you would be able to see behind an object since the Kinect only has a single camera. But even if real-time holographic image transmission is so far impossible, we might now approach something like it by using multiple cameras and reconstituting a 3D image from them. What is really interesting (and of course the article doesn't really give details about that...) is the holographic screen they managed to make, and how they combined digital and holographic technology. I didn't think this was possible, at least in this decade...

Re:"real holography" (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045122)

There's really no need (and way) to see behind objects with a holographic display in the form of quite typical screen - when it works more like a window (granted, Kinect certainly poorly registers sides of objects, that just makes it less than "half-3D")

Re:"real holography" (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045662)

Uh, use two Kinects [youtube.com] ?

Re:"real holography" (4, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045172)

And even worse, I don't think that's the real Princess Leia. The accent is a dead giveaway!

Re:"real holography" (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045242)

In Star Wars, they were happy to view blue staticy blobs for their Holos. Who cares about the color at this stage in the game?

Re:"real holography" (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045268)

The first thing that came to mind was: hey, Virtual Boy didn't look that bad after all!
I was expecting something that looked closer to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTXO7KGHtjI [youtube.com]
A blob, even holographic, is still a blob.
There are many other things wrong with the video (the "acting", no metal bikinis, no second kinect camera at a different angle etc), so I was pretty underwhelmed...

Wow (2)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 3 years ago | (#35044964)

That'll save Hollywood!

Re:Wow (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045238)

If you get a chance: read The Starcrossed [amazon.com] by Ben Bova,

Long way to go (1)

bobby1234 (860820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35044968)

But I guess it is a start!

Fake 3D ftw (5, Insightful)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045004)

I know people will hate me for saying this, but in a way, it's better if everyone sees practically the same movie. If we're all seeing slightly different views, then we won't all have quite the same experience. I think there's something to be said for having a particular view of the scene intended by the director.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (5, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045024)

Interesting point.

How about Real 3D porn?

Like walking around a coffee table and seeing the two chicks digging on each other, and *you* get to choose the angle you want to view it at?

There's more money in that to be made then pharmaceuticals.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35045096)

Considering how the porn industry failed at making any decent porn video games (the most 'developed' games I've seen are basically 'make your own movie' where you just make character switch to different pre-set positions), I think the porn industry will fail at using holographic 3D. The porn industry only knows how to make movies and they don't know how to get the viewer a bit involved in the action. Might as well just shoot the scene with 3 or 4 cameras at different angles and let the viewer choose which angle to view it from.

The japanese have done it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35045170)

The Japanese have mastered p0rn video games, check out j-list.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (2)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045560)

What Custer's Revenge wasn't good enough for you?

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045198)

Reminds me of my time at the geek compound. Except instead of two chicks, it was Cowboy Neil and Hemos.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045500)

Where do I sign up for the beta test?

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045772)

The only way 3D porn to really take off if they could do solid holograms, like in Red Dwarf.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048760)

>> Like walking around a coffee table and seeing the two chicks digging on each other, and *you* get to choose the angle you want to view it at?

From a technical point of view, I doubt that it would work: there would be 'gaps' in the view where the light hasn't reached..
Same thing as in the real life with shadows.

We never see the same movie anyway (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045046)

it's better if everyone sees practically the same movie

That's not even true of 2D movies though. Everyone notices different things in movies as it is, and directors often leave a lot of details to interpretation. Being able to walk around a scene is only going to change that a little. For a traditional theater though you're really only going to get a slightly different angle (if it gets to the point where you had large public 3D hologram theaters)

Re:We never see the same movie anyway (2)

Tuan121 (1715852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045246)

Eh, even a slightly different angle will make you miss that face in the dark background that is just around the corner.

Re:We never see the same movie anyway (1)

Zelgadiss (213127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35046274)

I wouldn't worry too much about it, I'm sure directors will find new ways to focus the audience's attention - not to mention tricks like the old close up will still work.

This complaint is similar to the one people made when cinema went wide-screen, it took film makers a while to adept, but it's no problem now.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (2)

mikaelwbergene (1944966) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045064)

A valid point, but does this mean that people who go to the theatre (you know, the one with real live humans) get radically different experiences?

I think a better way to look at it is as a separate medium which exists somewhere between theatre and cinema.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

RoadDoggFL (876257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045684)

How many stage performances feature a sniper's perspective through his scope? Of course some movies would be fine projected into real 3D, but cinema itself contains works where a single perspective is essential.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35045080)

I know people will hate me for saying this, but in a way, it's better if everyone sees practically the same movie. If we're all seeing slightly different views, then we won't all have quite the same experience. I think there's something to be said for having a particular view of the scene intended by the director.

No. You've got it all wrong. It just means that you have to keep paying to go see the movie over and over from different seats so that you can see it all.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045082)

I know people will hate me for saying this, but in a way, it's better if everyone sees practically the same movie. If we're all seeing slightly different views, then we won't all have quite the same experience. I think there's something to be said for having a particular view of the scene intended by the director.

Hmm, maybe, but also: Plays, Concerts, Live performances. In R/L no two people have the same perspective at the same time, yet these actual 3D scenes are fine.

Additionally, what if a director had the option of including elements that change a scene depending on viewing angle?

On one side of the theater people are "D'awww"ing over two lovers about to kiss for the first time -- On the other side of the audience people are on the edge of their seat in suspense because they can see that one of the lovers is holding a butcher-knife behind their back.

Say it with me: Replayability. It works for videogames, perhaps it might not be such a bad thing for movies?

Re:Fake 3D ftw (4, Insightful)

green1 (322787) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045278)

except plays and concerts and live performances usually do their best to simulate 2D in their inherently 3D environment, there's a reason the audience all sits on the same side of the performers and looks at them all from the "front" if 3D were really superior, we'd want to be sitting surrounding the performers, not all on the same side of them.

In your example of the couple kissing while one holds a knife behind their back, on a 2D movie screen we'd get just the perfect angle and timing to see both at just the right moments, on a 3D stage the actors usually do their best to replicate such by turning to intentionally show off the aspects they wish to portray, in contrast to movies the resulting motion, while necessary, often creates a somewhat "fake" feel to the acting which isn't necessary in the 2D plane of movies where the camera can take more genuine acting, and interpret it by moving the viewer instead.

Don't get me wrong, I love going to the theatre and watching real shows, there's an ambience you just can't get on a movie screen. But it's not for the 3D aspect of it. You get a better vantage point for most scenes on a properly shot and directed film than you can on any theatre stage.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045410)

While plays and concerts and live performances generally certainly try to work with the audience, not against it (which would be the case in allowing large part of the scene to be obscured for certain unfortunate part of the audience), it's IMHO not very precise to describe their efforts as "doing their best to simulate 2D" - experiencing an actually real 3D scene (not some visually wrong stereoscopic trickery, like in current wave of cinema "3D") is a large part of the experience, of being there

One which good holographic screen could reproduce, feeling essentially like a window.

(plus you know, while completely surrounding the scene is very rare, classic amphitheater-like arrangements aren't unheard of...)

Re:Fake 3D ftw (2)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045650)

I disagree. I think that plays, concerts, and related performances place their audiences on a single side of the performance area because it is cheaper and easier to provide a rich experience for the audience, not because a single vantage point makes for better art.

Consider theater in the round. From what I can imagine, the reasons for theater in the round being less popular than its viewpoint-restricted counterpart are mostly technical. It is harder to change scenery, there are no wings to hide actors and props, and acoustics are hard for any but the most intimate of audiences. Plus, it is harder to act when the audience is all around you. I also suspect that the typical arrangement of a proscenium dividing performers and viewers is optimal of the majority of performances (for the reasons I mentioned), which would explain the lack of venues with more rounded layouts.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045090)

Who's to say that movies as we understand them now will persist as technology like this becomes better and better. Theaters only exist because once upon a time it was impractical to show films in any other way. Modern technology has made them mostly pointless, but society has its own flavor of inertia that keeps things like theaters around long after they're useful.

By the time this technology reaches maturity and directors actively use if for film projects, I don't believe that movie theaters will be necessary for the viewing experience. It's entirely likely that 3D scenes will be devised for small room, or home viewing. If you can have great looking holograms, I don't think that creative individuals will choose to limit themselves to today's standards of cinematography. Hell, imagine a murder mystery where in order to solve it along with the protagonist, you have to look at things that would traditionally be off camera. Don't let today's limitations affect tomorrow's technology

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045782)

I disagree. You're only seeing the technology side. Movie theaters have a social function that home screens can't perform. There's a difference in terms of space (how many people have rooms to fit 15 or 20 people), being a public space (I can certainly think of many people I've went to the movie theater with, but would be uncomfortable letting them into my home), in terms of availability away from home, etc.

Going to the movie theater is much more than watching a movie.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

smellotron (1039250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045798)

Theaters only exist because once upon a time it was impractical to show films in any other way. Modern technology has made them mostly pointless, but society has its own flavor of inertia that keeps things like theaters around long after they're useful.

I don't think so. Maybe if the only intrinsic value of going to the theater is to view a film, then technology has made them pointless. However, not everyone has a THX-certified viewing/listening environment. Furthermore, most people consider "going to the movies" to be a social event, and no amount of technology will replace that in-person human interaction.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045860)

...However, not everyone has a THX-certified viewing/listening environment....

Also, a good holographic screen will be probably damn expensive for some time.

Re:Fake 3D ftw - Director's Version (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35045108)

Nobody sees the "same" fiction book as anyone else, since everyone imagines a printed scene differently.

I don't see a problem.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045180)

I was thinking about this exact point the other day. You think it's hard to keep a boom microphone off the screen now! People close to the bottom or the side of the image will be able to look up or around and see all sorts of things they weren't supposed to see. If they project (not quite the right word I know) the hologram onto a flat screen then it's like the screen is a window. Exactly like a window. You could put your face right up near the window and see way off to the side.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045206)

Ever heard of live theatre? Its pretty popular you know.

We use call that life... (1)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045248)

If we're all seeing slightly different views, then we won't all have quite the same experience.

You mean like a live performance, a baseball game, and everything else we experience in life?

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045258)

Yeah.... and that fact has completely ruined seeing live plays and Broadway musicals for all of us, too!

Oh, wait! ......

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045350)

it's better if everyone sees practically the same movie. If we're all seeing slightly different views, then we won't all have quite the same experience.

Exactly. That's why theatre plays and live shows have never become popular.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

laparel (930257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047070)

I know people will hate me for saying this, but in a way, it's better if everyone sees practically the same movie. If we're all seeing slightly different views, then we won't all have quite the same experience. I think there's something to be said for having a particular view of the scene intended by the director.

It just adds another dimension that directors can explore. What they'll release will still be what they intended, just like any other artist on any other medium.

Imagine what this new dimension could add to a "film". Depending on one's POV, one can get a different insight and experience. Talk about an opportunity for almost unlimited replayability.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047270)

If we're all seeing slightly different views, then we won't all have quite the same experience. I think there's something to be said for having a particular view of the scene intended by the director.

There is also something to be said for a new medium in which the director anticipates the scene being viewed from any angle and crafts it accordingly.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048334)

No it just means they won't be able to rely on many of the traditional methods of story-telling via film, and it seems likely that many new ones will be developed.

When we moved from plays to films, the art of story-telling developed (no pun intended). When we make the move between 2D to true 3D it will develop again.

Re:Fake 3D ftw (1)

FishBrain (769436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35049010)

Using that logic, plays are inherently inferior to movies.

Bah (3, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045008)

I watched the video. The summary is very misleading - it's talking about where this may, someday, end up. Looking at the so-called real-time hologram, without foreknowledge you wouldn't be able to guess what was being reproduced, even if you were given 20 guesses. Someday this may end up as something cool - maybe.

This is only news because hacking the Kinect is currently a trendy topic in certain tech circles - so any Kinect-related story is getting airtime, no matter how immature (speaking tech-wise) and non-newsworthy.

Re:Bah (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045236)

It's possible it looks a lot better in person. Still, the kinect thing seems a bit gratuitous: Why are they trying to do TWO hard things. Wouldn't it make more sense to start with, say, a computer generated spinning teapot first?

Re:Bah (3, Insightful)

Zelgadiss (213127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35046278)

I'm getting kind of sick of Kinect "related" news.

It's nothing more than a low res 3D camera - with fairly limited accuracy.

"A hologram of a human being" (1)

Mantrid42 (972953) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045026)

If you say so.

OMGYASWROTH (2)

aysa (452184) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045036)

Oh My God, Yet Another Star Wars Release over the Horizon. Hide those news from Lucas immediately!

Re:OMGYASWROTH (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045190)

Let me guess: Han doesn't shoot at all but he pays for bar man to clean up all the mess.

Re:OMGYASWROTH (1)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35046028)

No, Han is the bartender and doesn't fight OR drink.

Nailed the Accent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35045040)

Fresh off the boat Alderaanians, you can spot 'em from a mile.

Realtime? (3, Insightful)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045052)

What's the point of wasting CPU and bandwidth on real time?
Perhaps their demonstration would be more impressive if they focused on actually generating a passable pre-rendered video first.

Re:Realtime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35045260)

Yes, let's pre-render that real-time news feed.

Re:Realtime? (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 3 years ago | (#35046536)

Perhaps their demonstration would be more impressive if they focused on actually generating a passable pre-rendered video first.

The MIT Media lab did that about a decade ago. This is the follow-on to that work.

Wrong Leia (5, Funny)

TimHunter (174406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045086)

Came for Slave Girl Leia. Leaving disappointed.

Re:Wrong Leia (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35046358)

Agreed. I mean, I understand the cultural significance of the white robe, but c'mon people!

Better video (1)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045200)

I wish the video of the "hologram" was better. I didn't get any sense of 3d whatsoever. It looked worse then old mechanical TV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59_-Lj8uSO4 [youtube.com]

Re:Better video (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045286)

(why oh why does my place (& language) use for "television" what is a direct linguistic transfer of EN "televisor"?...)

Tom Cruise instead Carrie Fisher (1)

roger_pasky (1429241) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045214)

Tis is a great advance, but closer to "Minority Report" family videos (bumped 2D) than "Star Wars" holograms (360 degrees hologram). Nothing that can't be solved with more Kinects and more GPUs. Good job, young padawans!

Re:Tom Cruise instead Carrie Fisher (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045276)

Yes and no? "Hologram" has quite specific meaning; plus its not only eerily great to hold one (photo), the experience might translate fabulously to cinema, one day (considering how a good holographic screen would feel essentially like a window)

"Star Wars" (and lots of scifi) doesn't have holograms. Those are volumetric displays. Interesting in their own right to be sure, but probably much more limited in utility (just look how they are envisioned - videoconference-like or showing what is also in setting an infographic CGI)

Quick... (2)

Samah (729132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045272)

Someone call Uwe Boll!

Time Traveler (1)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35045480)

This might be real holography, but the illusory effect from the video game Time Traveler [wikipedia.org] is still more impressive at this point.

Re:Time Traveler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048380)

Your post would be more impressive if the link was to a real page.

Like Early Television? (2)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35046120)

This reminds me of some of the early attempts at television... also of equally lousy resolution due to bandwidth issues.

As mentioned in the article, true "holographic" representation of an environment would take an insane amount of processing and bandwidth. There are some "tricks" that can sort of simplify this issue after a fashion and still not require stereoscopic glasses or anything fancy on the part of the viewer, but even those have their limitations.

Making a credible Volumetric display [wikipedia.org] is the real trick... something several people have worked on to some degree or another. I can only hope that eventually something will actually happen with the technology but in the meantime it is still and experimental toy and not something for serious work... yet.

This attempt here is nothing more than the equivalent of Felix the Cat as used by Philo Farnsworth on some of the early broadcast television tests.

not Jenny Craig!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35046348)

please no realtime 3d as in jenny craig-style carrie fisher!!! i am insensitive , true, but really !! ....people.... think of our eyes.

shi% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35047060)

Looks like shi%.

I understand the importance, but maybe it was a little too early to make this public.

Hate to piss in their cornflakes, but... (1)

Sitnalta (1051230) | more than 3 years ago | (#35047698)

I realize that this is bleeding-edge technology, but I think they need to do a bit better than an amorphous red blob.

Stampede (1)

TM22721 (91757) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048254)

So how to prevent men stampeding in the theater to get a look behind the actress in the shower ?

What hologram? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35048332)

What hologram?

Maybe I don't get it? Or maybe this is still a works in progress.

But I don't see anything about a hologram here.

The guy just used the Kinect to "record" the outlines of "fake" Princess Leia, and displayed that on his laptop screen. It was still a 2-dimensional image on the laptop screen.

Yeah, that was nice, that the Kinect could trace the outline of her. But, may I ask, so what? Isn't a video the same or better?

Maybe this was just the first step of capturing the 3-D outline of a human, for the actual hologram projection itself?

My understanding of a hologram, is the ability to project an image in 3-dimensional format, in the air.
Is that the missing link here?

Um....yeah... (1)

HellYeahAutomaton (815542) | more than 3 years ago | (#35048488)

The 1990s called and Nintendo wants their Virtual Boy back.

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...