Beta
×

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!

Real 3D Display; 3 Years Out?

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the obi-wan-come-back-in-a-few dept.

Displays 191

Bob the Super Hamste writes "Fortune magazine is reporting that the company Zebra Imaging is producing a 3D hologram table that will project a 360 degree 3D image that doesn't require glasses. Funding for this project is being provided by DARPA for battle planning. The company expects it will take at least another three years for the table to be ready for commercial applications."

cancel ×

191 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751274)

You're telling us that it is at least 30 years old then?????????

But.. (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751276)

.. Cant you allready do this with an xbox and kinect?

Re:But.. (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751340)

No, you can't. You could theoretically use a Kinect to figure out where the image should be projected, however you're not really solving the problem of having an image that can't be viewed from multiple angles and it would only work if the viewers were sitting next to each other at which point you might as well just manually adjust it yourself..

Re:But.. (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751448)

Re:But.. (1)

TarMil (1623915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751524)

Kinect is used for the capture, but the display technology is probably similar to the one presented in TFA.

Re:But.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751566)

The kinect isn't the hard part of this setup:

Both the Kinect and the processing chips are commercial products, readily available for a couple hundred dollars. However, the holographic projector itself is a different matter. It's a complex system custom-built at the Media Lab more than a decade ago by students of Stephen Benton, a pioneer of holographic imaging who died in 2003, which can display images much faster than the special photorefractive screen developed for the display demonstrated last year at the University of Arizona.

The holographic projector is. Saying the "kinect" can be used to do this is like saying that cars run on fresh air (they do--but also on gasoline; the gas is the hard part).

Re:But.. (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752142)

You could theoretically use a Kinect to figure out where the image should be projected, however you're not really solving the problem of having an image that can't be viewed from multiple angles and it would only work if the viewers were sitting next to each other at which point you might as well just manually adjust it yourself..

Displays which track the user's point of view have been built, and they are very neat. [youtube.com] (Although the tracking device was rather bulky back then.) The effect only works for one viewer at a time, of course. Someone must have done this with a Kinect by now. The tracking has to be very smooth, or you lose the illusion.

Re:But.. (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751698)

Since when was kinect display 3D holograms or anything?

r2-d2 (0)

h2k1 (661151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751302)

George Lucas used it on Star Wars...

Re:r2-d2 (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751474)

Let the wookie win.

Re:r2-d2 (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751768)

Oh, well according to popular opinion, that means a holographic projector cannot be patented, then.

Re:r2-d2 (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752160)

No, I believe that means that George Lucas would hold the patent.

Re:r2-d2 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751850)

OK, George Lucas referenced it in 1977 and 2001 was made in 1968, so by my calculations Apple shouldn't be claiming ownership over it until 2019 by the earliest. But only if they can figure out how to create a device that sucks buttons out of nearby devices.

They're calling it a "Stage" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751312)

Apparently the Royal Shakespeare Company has shown a lot of interest in this technology.

Hogel? (2)

Eowaennor (527108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751320)

What the heck is a "hogel"?
Voxel is the correct term for the volume represented by a 3D pixel...

Re:Hogel? (2, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751364)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogel [wikipedia.org]

"In opposition to 2D pixels, hogels contain 3D information from various perspectives."

Re:Hogel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751384)

What the heck is a "hogel"?...

I think that was something in Jim Henson's Labyrinth.

Re:Hogel? (1)

Dan Posluns (794424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751488)

"Hoxel" would at least sound like it wasn't constructed from a pig or something.

Re:Hogel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751632)

It's a fancy name for a tensor. [wikipedia.org] It contains information for all angles, but can be extracted in regard to specific vectors.

-www.awkwardengineer.com [awkwardengineer.com]

Re:Hogel? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751558)

It's a low-rez 3d pixel - see minecraft!

Re:Hogel? (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751870)

It's a low-rez 3d pixel - see minecraft!

You mean a Voxel? Which is exactly what Parent said?

Re:Hogel? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751586)

My understanding is that Hogel is just a Voxel with additional information - specifically, information about how it should appear from different viewing angles. For example, making a building "hide" behind another building, rather than being fully translucent, would require Hogels, not just Voxels.

Re:Hogel? (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752386)

My understanding is that Hogel is just a Voxel with additional information - specifically, information about how it should appear from different viewing angles. For example, making a building "hide" behind another building, rather than being fully translucent, would require Hogels, not just Voxels.

Voxels are also used in 3D medical imaging such as CT and MRI. There's more than spacial location attached to those. Information is encoded to allow for programs to know what type of material was imaged. This allows the user to remove skeletal structures from the image. By doing this you can change (on the fly) if a structure is transparent, translucent, or opaque. I'm not sure I see how this is different.

Re:Hogel? (1)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751808)

What the heck is a "hogel"?.

Is it a bagel? Is it a hoagie? No! It's a hogel! Come on down to Hogel Hut, where we're serving up the best hogel sandwiches in West Brooklyn. Come on down! Please? I mean it. I put my life savings into the hogel business and if this fails, I'm ruined.

Re:Hogel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751848)

Its a buzzword for voxel. People love using prefixes and postfixes to create all sorts of nonsense in the modern tech world. Its totally extraneous.

Oblig XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751338)

Gotta hand it to DARPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751356)

Once again we find that when there's a military application on the line, the money will be spent on R&D no matter how crazy it might sound at the outset. We need a civilian agency for this sort of thing.

Re:Gotta hand it to DARPA (4, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751420)

No current federal politician will ever lower funding for defense. Their opponents will quickly use it to crucify them.

"X is making us less safe! Do you want the terrorists to win?"

Re:Gotta hand it to DARPA (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751752)

Once again we find that when there's a military application on the line, the money will be spent on R&D no matter how crazy it might sound at the outset. We need a civilian agency for this sort of thing.

The real money is going into developing Flash for it - I understand it requires developers who are clinically insane.

Re:Gotta hand it to DARPA (1)

Kazuma-san (775820) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751830)

Gotta love those guys in the military though. "We need a holographic display for erm.. battle planing. Yeah. And it needs hd resolution, hdmi plugs and must be hcpa certified"

More 3D (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751388)

Again - who gives a fuck? The "industry" has been trying to shove 3D down our throats for at least 2 generations - give it up already. Call me when you have a working holodeck.

Re:More 3D (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751430)

Nah I just want it on my iPhone X.
 

Re:More 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751442)

Again - who gives a fuck?

The actors, if the porno industry uses the system.

Re:More 3D (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751446)

This seems much closer instead of the fake 3D as I always hear people complain that it isn't 3d unless they can walk around it. Besides if you wanted a holodeck just have one of these as your floor but don't try to sit on the projected chair.

Re:More 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751568)

It is not a real 3D if you can't see different parts of the world when viewing in a different direction.
i.e. Can you peek under the skirt of the girl in a 3D movie?

Re:More 3D (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751662)

Indeed, though I feel the industry will call it something inane like 4D, because 3D has been done already. This is regardless as to what it truly is, such as true 3D projection with hopefully 360' viewing. Seriously, four-dee, I wouldn't put it past them.

Re:More 3D (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751716)

Well, if you go by the book, a 3D "movie" could be called a 4D image ... (But yeah, never a 4D movie)

Re:More 3D (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751846)

You mean by a book that uses the construct of time as the 4th dimension? Yeah... that's an interesting and overly convenient construct to sell books about quasi-science BS. Did they use String Theory as an excuse for things in there as well?

There are actual 4D geometric constructs, but they must be displayed in 3D space so they are extremely hard to comprehend. If you search around you can find 3D Rubiks cubes and games that do things like expand on 3D affine matrices to show 4D spacial movement in 3D. Playing these games will deepen your understanding of 4D by giving you an intense headache.

Re:More 3D (0)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752000)

A dimension is nothing more than a degree of freedom. There is no "the" 4th dimension. Space and time together consist of 4 degrees of freedom.

4D already exists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751764)

"4D" is 3D with certain immersive effects, such as moving seats, a spray of water to simulate being splashed, something in the chair that simulates something touching you from behind, etc. One that I've seen has a rubber hose that they shoot out between your feet to simulate a snake crawling under you.

Re:4D already exists... (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752152)

"4D" is 3D with certain immersive effects, such as moving seats, a spray of water to simulate being splashed, something in the chair that simulates something touching you from behind, etc. One that I've seen has a rubber hose that they shoot out between your feet to simulate a snake crawling under you.

Length, Width, Depth, Time... Moving seats/water spray/"a rubber hose that they shoot out between your feet to simulate a snake crawling under you."

I guess I am getting old when, "a rubber hose that they shoot out between your feet to simulate a snake crawling under you" counts as a dimension on a "nerd" website.

Now get your motherfucking rubber-hose-snakes-dimension off my motherfucking lawn! ;-)

Re:More 3D (0)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751872)

The 4th dimension is time. Just an FYI.

Re:More 3D (1)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752028)

There is no "the" 4th dimension. A dimension is a degree of freedom. Time can be described as "a" dimension.

Re:More 3D (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752132)

Sir William Rowan Hamilton [wikipedia.org] would disagree with both of you.

Re:More 3D (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751480)

I agree. Unless I can actually run around in the 3-D environment, there isn't much point in having things projected out of the screen. Sure it's interesting from a technology point of view, but it doesn't really help my gaming or movie watching experience.

Re:More 3D (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751590)

How about have this in your living room floor so that you are really immersed in the environment.

Re:More 3D (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751920)

The industry? People want 3d. They've always wanted 3D. There's no 'shoving' about it. Haven't you wondered why 3D has been a reoccuring gimmick and that each time it resurfaces with better technology it makes MORE money?

Re:More 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37752054)

The industry? People want 3d. They've always wanted 3D. There's no 'shoving' about it. Haven't you wondered why 3D has been a reoccuring gimmick and that each time it resurfaces with better technology it makes MORE money?

No, people want entertainment. 3D is just a gimmick and always will be. The people want a good story. The 3D is just eye candy that adds nothing to the movie experience. The newest batch of 3D are making more money, not because the tech is better but because they are tacking it into more movies that actually have a story beyond point pointy thing at audience. Take away the 3D from these movies and they are still good movies (or not as the case may be).

When the tech moves to the point that there is no screen and the movie happens in 3D all around you, then you got something. Until then, meh.

Re:More 3D (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752108)

The people want a good story.

No, the people want to be entertained. Sometimes they want a good story, sometimes they want a spectacle, sometimes they want to see something familiar.

They most certainly did not gererate billions in revenue by forcing theaters to project in 3D. Even the Lone Gunmen would scoff at that dumb theory.

Re:More 3D (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752170)

3D has been a reoccuring gimmick

I suggest you look up the words "reoccurring" and gimmick, and evaluate what you are trying to say. If people "wanted" it, there would be no need for "gimmicks" and it would not reoccur, it would have taken first time, like oh I don't know, clothes, electricity or internal combustion engines.

Re:More 3D (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752314)

If people "wanted" it, there would be no need for "gimmicks"...

No. If we had the technology to give them what they want, there'd be no need for gimmicks. If you have a smart phone in your pocket, you already understand this concept.

Re:More 3D (1)

catbertscousin (770186) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752042)

A working holodeck? You mean one that doesn't malfunction all the time? I know of several captains who'd kill for one of those.

Re:More 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37752222)

Psssssss call me when they have hard light holograms
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArnold_Rimmer&ei=GLydTs_PM8PKiQLS4tzjCQ&usg=AFQjCNFMzW0MWKWvPkVysme3vNyNh9tNig

Re:More 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37752362)

We all hate stereoscopic "3D", which requires glasses or fixed viewing positions, gives us headaches, and doesn't let us walk around the image to see all around it. Zebra is pursuing true 3D video and one of their key applications is letting city planners or commanding officers see the 3D detail in a scene from any angle.

See their patent # 7227674 for an idea of what's probably going on here. It looks like they're actually recording holograms real-time in photographic materials (rapidly exposing the material to a static patterns of interfering laser light per frame of video). This is an alternative to the other approach, which is to try to simulate said interference patterns in a massively-powerful computer and create an electronic screen that's capable of showing the calculated interference patterns at super high resolution (1um-scale) in real time. I think it's like the difference between optically recording 60 holograms per second and having one single "electronic hologram" that calculates and displays 60 fringe patterns per second that each look and behave as though they were recorded optically.

Whatever it is, I wish them luck and hope to get my own 3D D&D table in a few years.

i'll believe it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751390)

...when i see it

Re:i'll believe it... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751912)

This sounds like it might be one of those inventions that are forgotten after 3 weeks and never heard about again. Well, who knows.

Battle Planning? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751392)

But I want to play chess with it, like they did in Star Wars: ANH

Re:Battle Planning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751522)

If by chess you mean dejarik then sure

Re:Battle Planning? (1)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752120)

That wouldn't be too hard. The kinect already does 3D spatial movement recognition, you just need the 3D holographic display which is what this provides. So this plus the kinect = holographic chess.

A real hologram ? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751422)

Is this a real hologram ? I doubt it, from the looks of it. Does anyone know the technology actually employed ?

By the way, I believe that the 3-D term for a pixel is a Voxel. I have never heard of a hogel before.

Re:A real hologram ? (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751494)

Re:A real hologram ? (1)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751910)

That's not a technology, that's a term used to describe a 3d pixel (as opposed to 2d ones).

A better term, already used by the CG industry is Voxel [wikipedia.org]

Re:A real hologram ? (1)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752046)

I don't think voxels contain perspective information.

Re:A real hologram ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751552)

I seriously doubt that the hologram will be visible outside the rectangle of the table surface, even if with that solid angle things may appear "above" the surface.

Re:A real hologram ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751594)

Pixel -- Picture Element
Voxel -- Volumetric Pixel
Hoxel -- Holographic Voxel?

If we must have a third term, I vote for Hoxel...or rasberry (someone backronym that).

"Hogel", you're vetoed.

don't raise up what you can't put down! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751790)

Pixel -- Picture Element
Voxel -- Volumetric Pixel
Hoxel -- Holographic Voxel?

If we must have a third term, I vote for Hoxel...or rasberry (someone backronym that).

"Hogel", you're vetoed.

Watch it buddy, you almost raised the zombi of Theodor[1] Geisel! Talk about gibbering madness!


[1] I just realized his name is "The odor", hah.

Re:A real hologram ? (2)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751798)

From what I understood, they're planning to use phase shifters working in the optical range. How the hell they're going to do that is absolutely a mystery for me.

Creating 'holograms' in radio frequencies is easy, that's what phased arrays do. They're trying to adapt this for much shorter wavelengths - and this gets very hard.

Re:A real hologram ? (1)

nomel (244635) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752066)

Could it be something like light blue optics holographic pico projectors, but with some sort of layered setup?

See the page marked 750 for summary of tech...any ideas based on this?
http://www.nadya-anscombe.com/downloadlibrary/Tech%20Focus%20Nov%202010.pdf [nadya-anscombe.com]

Awesome magazine btw...includes e-ink subcapsules and why plasmas burn-in in that issue.

Re:A real hologram ? (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752176)

I'm interested in phase-modulation technology since I've seen one of the first computed holograms in 90-s. It looked a bit like the original 'pong' game would look now. I.e. extremely crude.

If we've advanced to a level where it's possible to actually produce useful images - it'd be great.

Re:A real hologram ? (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751838)

Yes. It's basically the same as the infinite depth of field cameras, only with an LCD array instead of a CCD array behind each lenslet in the lenslet array. The idea is to simulate the actual rays of light that would be generated by light reflecting off of a point in 3d space. I can go into more detail if you want.

Re:A real hologram ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37752384)

Please do.
Or, rather, put links.

Re:A real hologram ? (2)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751890)

Voxel is a pixel in a mapped 3D space, for a holographic display simply displaying voxel information you would run into the problem of being able to see things that are behind other things. Hogels have extra information that tells how light passes (or does not pass) through them at different angles - solving the problem of looking at a "solid" projection yet seeing what should be covered behind it.

Re:A real hologram ? (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752246)

Also, you have the added benefit of not needing to appropriately model the reflectance properties of surfaces in the environment as well as the positions are properties of the illuminants in the scene We all know ray tracing is slow. For example, this solves the problem of specular reflections, whereas a voxel representation effectively assumes diffuse reflection.

The race (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751468)

Here is the race to watch:

Which is faster to prototype / easier to bugfix / fails more gracefully / more reliable / scales better :

1) A 3-d display for air traffic control or military battle equiv

2) A computer / AI controlled air traffic control system or military battle equiv

Re:The race (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751928)

though even if we develop the AI first, it'll still be nifty to have the 3D display to watch what the hell the computer is doing, or to interface with the AI.

Plans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751476)

Christmas list in 3 years:
1. 3D Hologram table
2. A date for the beta holodeck
3.. ......

Simulating a window pane (1)

John.P.Jones (601028) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751516)

When talking about 'real 3D displays' I always think of simulating a window pane. Current displays represent each small area (pixel) by a constant color that emits photons in a basically directionless fashion. We would commonly refer to this as a raster display, but I'll call it a raster-scalar display to differentiate it from a raster-vector display (the difference being analogous to the difference between scalar and vector fields). A raster-vector display would then represent each small area by varying color intensities by emitting photons in quantized unidirectional directions so that receivers (eyes) at varying locations will pick up varied signals for the same (x,y) location on the display. (It is unfortunate the term 'vector display' is already used, hence the new terminology.) A raster-vector display would only provide depth beyond the pane of the 'window' but the type of display in the article is inverse of this, using holography to produce a kind of virtual 3d model above the plane of the display (or generally inside a cubical region of space). We can imagine that 6 raster-vector displays oriented in a cubical fashion (or less if we neglect the floor) could simulate the type of display in the article (think of a virtual 3d model enclosed in a cube of glass). I don't see an obvious way to simulate a virtual window pane with the holographic model display. In actuality, I'm not by any means sure that a raster-vector display can be built that reasonably approximates a real window-pane, while high dpi raster-scalar displays are certainly able to accurately approximate a sheet of paper.

Re:Simulating a window pane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751766)

Your "raster-vector" is a hogel. This device is the "window pane" you are talking about.

Imagine this with a non-static image:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp7BP00LuA4

3D Chess Table (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751564)

"I suggest a new strategy...let the Wookie win."

Holograms are not new (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751670)

Holograms have been used in shows for a while, the problem with them is tha they are too computationally intensive for realtime use. The article only talks about still images, so I guess this is not a 3D television, more like a virtual diorama.

A video game did this back in the 80's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751686)

I do not know how many of you will recall this, but back in the late 80's early 90's a 3D display had been created which may be similar to what they are doing.

It was for an a arcade game... Which I have managed to find the link to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Traveler_%28video_game%29

Is this the same concept, and if it is why has it taken over 20 years to adapt this?

Re:A video game did this back in the 80's (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751842)

That was not a three dimensional display. It was a 2D display that looked like the image was hovering over the table.

It's like saying a bottle rocket is the same concept as a Space Shuttle Booster.

Re:A video game did this back in the 80's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37752096)

It's like saying a bottle rocket is the same concept as a Space Shuttle Booster.

They are, unless "reaction motor" isn't a concept to you.

Yay another remaster of Star Wars then (1, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751750)

Might as well pass on the upcoming 3D star wars and wait for the holographic version where Darth Vader will be replaced George Lucas' neck.

Re:Yay another remaster of Star Wars then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751876)

In the 3D version, the Bartender shoots first.

not much information... (1)

excelsior_gr (969383) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751774)

The "article" sadly does not provide any meaningful information. Does anyone have any insight on how this thing works? Also, why do they name a 3D pixel a "hogel" (for holographic element) instead of the more usual (at least in other fields) "voxel"?

Re:not much information... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37751914)

A voxel is a 3d pixel. A hogel is a 2d pixel with different values for different viewing angles. Think holographic DVD art - from one angle the pixel looks different than from the other angle. The thing is, they want a high resolution (not just 2 or 3 different viewing angles), AND the ability to change the pixel on the fly, to enable holographic videos.

Re:not much information... (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751974)

Because people are very silly and like making up as many buzzwords as they can think of. So far I have yet to find a practical difference between Hogel (shouldn't it be hologel?) and voxel (which should technically be volgel, but that sounds awkward). Some people are saying that a Hogel stores "perspective information for multiple angles" but that would be easily calculated from voxel data... I guess a hogel is a voxel with levels of detail and separate angle images prerendered instead of rendered in real-time? That sounds awfully space intensive, to store every angle of every pixel in memory... I guess calculating 360 degrees of 60 fps rendering is monumentally time intensive, so you might want to prebake it, but I don't know how much you can do on just a pixel level... hrm..

Re:not much information... (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752118)

I think the issue is with occlusion. In order to do the conversion you are implying, occlusions would have to be resolved in real time (similar to a separate z-buffer for each angle). As you might imagine with this sort of application, space is cheaper than time. I think the primary concern has been with bandwidth, because you are right, that's a lot to pre-calculate and dump down a pipe.

The other thing to remember is that voxels in the sense you are describing don't really make sense. For instance, consider a specular reflection. When viewed from different angles the luminance stored at that "voxel" would need to change. Thus, the most direct representation is to represent the rays of light present, rather than the reflectance properties of the environment as well as the illuminants.

Re:not much information... (1)

nomel (244635) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752092)

I might be wrong, but I believe a voxel is like a 3d pixel in the information sense, where a hogel is closer to a physical display pixel.

Please, no ... (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751866)

The first person who utters the words "Minority Report" will be summarily stabbed in the face with a Buick. Please, people, get over yourselves.

Re:Please, no ... (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751934)

I was thinking Paycheck [wikipedia.org]

Re:Please, no ... (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751992)

Have you been stabbed in the face with a Buick, yet?

Re:Please, no ... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752168)

Minority Report.
And I've already had an 80's Chevy S-10 flatten me, so stabbing me in the face with a Buick won't be nearly as effective as you'd like.

Time Traveler (1)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751902)

Cool stuff. Reminds me of the Time Traveler [wikipedia.org] video game back from the early 90s. It was fascinating if crude technology back then and I have always been wondering why, with better technology, similar concepts weren't being used today. Well, I guess someone finally stepped up to the plate. Hopefully this will encourage some innovation and creativity in the field of holograms. (o:

So we are (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 2 years ago | (#37751998)

So we are 3 years from a holographic unit and 3 years + 2 months from the first holographic porno.

Meh (1)

ProzacPatient (915544) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752060)

I'll believe it when I see it since I've been seeing "breakthroughs" about volumetric display technology for awhile now.

So how does it work? (1)

mykepredko (40154) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752074)

I have RTFA but nowhere does it explain how it works - just some vague notes on how data is crunched.

Does the display look like the picture in the Fortune Tech page, with actual 3D images that appear before other things around it?

If this is the case, then this is a major innovation. Why isn't it being reported anywhere else?

myke

I'll wait six years (1)

Revek (133289) | more than 2 years ago | (#37752292)

I will wait until they have some sort of standard or at least a winner.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>