×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

112 comments

wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968700)

wow europeons - congratulations on implementing technology which has existed in Disney World for 3 decades.

Re:wow (0)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968712)

Europeans. And we founded you, eh?

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968750)

Europeans. And we founded you, eh?

EuroPeon... get it?

Re:wow (0)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968972)

Ah, good old pointless hating!

Re:wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37969028)

Ah, good old pointless hating!

Joking != hating

You're just mad because you were too dumb to get it the first time and had to have it explained to you.

Re:wow (1, Funny)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970740)

It ain't hatin, its just we in the USA got legitimate beefs!

/steps up to podium with giant American flag and puts his Patton helmet on/

Lets start with the Brits shall we? I mean there we go and bust our butts, not to mention give you TONS of killer hardware at below cost, just so we can save your tea swilling butts from them Nazis, and what do you do? You go to that dang blasted metric system invented by them Frenchies, a group that can't even do the wave at a football game because once their hands are up they start looking for a German to surrender to! But we got history so say your sorry and go back to Imperial units like God and the Queen intended and all is forgiven. But what you did weren't nuthin' compared to them dang Ozzies!

To the folks of the land of OZ...what did we do to you? Didn't we come down there and save your butts from the Japs and give you good stuff too? We thought you was actually nice guys, we save your butts, you give us Foster's followed by one of the best damned movies of modern cinema, i'm of course speaking of Mad Max. Sure you also sent over Olivia Newton John but you were probably just blinded by the cuteness, that's understandable. But then you go right out and do a double attack on the poor old unsuspecting US of A by dropping Paul Hogan and Yahoo fricking Serious on us!! WTF OZ? What did we do to deserve THAT much pain? You'd think we'd been mounting kangaroos on the front of our pickup trucks and stuffing koala bears! That was just...it was wrong and YOU KNOW IT! Now you come get every damned copy of Young Einstein and anything with Hogan in it and give everyone who was assaulted by that horror a Foster's and a nice apology and you too can be forgiven.

But you know who can NEVER be forgivin? God damned CANADA that's who! There they were pretending to be all peaceful and friendly and Bob & Doug lovable, give us bacon and CFL and hockey along with The Shat, so we think you're a nice bunch of folks and then BAM! You release that bitch harpy Celine Dion on us like a fricking Nazgul! And then when we were still reelin from that attack you hit us with Nickelback! WTF Canada! Y'all better consider yourselves on probation and keep those bioweapons safely locked up or we'll roll the tanks...of course it'll have to be summer though, we don't care for the cold.

So as you can see we have real reasons to dislike many of them other nasty countries. We've learned every time you try to play nice with folks the insult you or assault you! at least after we kicked their asses the Jerrys and Japs had the decency to just sell us quality goods and keep their caterwauling to themselves! Oh and the ONLY reason the Brits get off light is they did send us Python, and that lets them have a bigger "get away with shit free' card than everybody else. anybody that could give us dead parrot and cheese store sketches can't be bad, just confused.

Re:wow (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972120)

You charged us god damn Brits a flipping fortune for WW2. Without us bankrolling you for the following 40 years, you wouldn't be the powerful nation you are now.

And how do we get thanked?

You export your poor excuse for culture to us at every opportunity. Gee thanks buddy, can we have some fries with that too?

Re:wow (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972148)

It ain't hatin, its just we in the USA got legitimate beefs!

meh, You showed up for the last five minutes of wwII while we fought off the hun, it's only cause the japs gave you a spanking that you even bothered to get out of bed. Grand father used to say "the only thing the Americans don't have in their packs is an Ice Cream maker"

As for the, ahem, aussies they had to show you how to park your planes so they wouldn;t get blown up while they were parked on an airfeild, tsk tsk.

America invented the Nuclear Bomb and Canada responded with Bryan Adams, and for that America will always be cursed!!!

Now begone with thee lest we sik TISM onto you!

Yawn (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968716)

10 projectors and smoke... quick someone give them a patent.. lol

Don't quit your day job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968728)

And don't do drugs.

Re:Don't quit your day job (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968876)

And don't do drugs.

Oh. Damn. I mean, I was gonna, but you talked me out of it.

This is not a new idea. (2)

LikwidCirkel (1542097) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968760)

Similar things have been done with lasers for years. It's not really a new idea.. This guy just uses LCDs instead, which don't even seem to work as well. Watch the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Athens from a few years ago for some pretty decent 3D projections in space.

Re:This is not a new idea. (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968864)

A matter of flexibility. Lasers can't do complex shapes very well, while LCDs could. The downside is that you need a *lot* of LCDs. He doesn't have enough, but estimates that a hundred would be needed for a clear image - and keeping a hundred projectors in perfect alignment is quite a challenge in itsself.

phase (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37968974)

A laser can give out phase, which results in spatial cancellation of multiple (synchronous) rays. An LCD cannot. Don't see what this guy tries to achieve here...

Re:This is not a new idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37972138)

Keeping 100 projectors in perfect alignment is kinda silly. That's the sort of thing that feedback is for.

Re:This is not a new idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37972442)

Lasers can't do complex shapes very well, while LCDs could.

Oh really? [youtube.com] It looks a hell of a lot better than this 10 projector setup.

Re:This is not a new idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37970754)

link?

More impressive: (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968820)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmGy9zPrWTU&feature=related [youtube.com]

The smoke-and-projectors system looks like a nice prototype, but it's a long way from practical. Needs more projectors, and some way to maintain uniform fog distribution in a room.

Re:More impressive: (0)

Dwonis (52652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968930)

Needs ... some way to maintain uniform fog distribution in a room.

Or a way to measure the fog distribution in real time and adjust accordingly.

Re:More impressive: (3, Insightful)

optimism (2183618) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969068)

Needs ... some way to maintain uniform fog distribution in a room.

Or a way to measure the fog distribution in real time and adjust accordingly.

Or a way to redundantly re-state the quoted post.

Re:More impressive: (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969338)

Or no annoying, eye watering fog at all. Jusy sayin.

Re:More impressive: (1)

optimism (2183618) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969492)

Thank you Mr. Fog Machine...but of course that would eliminate slashdot...and then where would you be?

Just sayin.

don't cry, little one (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969798)

Wow. Where'd that load of butthurt come from?

Re:don't cry, little one (0)

optimism (2183618) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970092)

From your snark.

Unless of course you have a good alternative to using fog for a walk-through volumetric projection, in which case, you should speak the fuck up instead of wasting everyone's time with idiotic comments.

Re:don't cry, little one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37970946)

I smell a fog machine shill.

Come at me, bro (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973292)

Absolutely LOL! Way to overreact considering there were snarkier comments. Seriously, are you the special friend of one of the Smokapalooza developers? You should get off the internet if snark gives you the vapors to such an extent, or make sure there's a fainting couch next to your computer at all times.

Re:More impressive: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37969406)

> Or a way to redundantly re-state the quoted post.

Or a method of redundantly rephrasing the statement referred to previously.

Re:More impressive: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37969702)

I think he meant, adjust the brightness/darkness of the projection to compensate for the reality of the fog at that moment...

not redundant at all, actually an entirely different, and potentially extremely interesting, idea...

Re:More impressive: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971286)

presumably they meant to adjust the projected images to account for the non-uniform smoke distribution.
It would take a lot of cameras and some computations.

Re:More impressive: (5, Interesting)

jimshatt (1002452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969056)

Impressive, using a rotating mirror: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKCUGQ-uo8c [youtube.com]

Re:More impressive: (1)

Gortu (523033) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970194)

But not immersive, I wouldn't want to be nearby that 6000 RPM rotating mirror :-).

Re:More impressive: (1)

Man Eating Duck (534479) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971742)

But not immersive, I wouldn't want to be nearby that 6000 RPM rotating mirror :-)

Actually, from the stats displayed 0:26 into the video: Spin rate 15-20 Hz. I think that can be done safely, especially if you enclose it in a clear co-rotating cylinder to avoid air resistance.

Re:More impressive: (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971996)

The video mentions 15-20 Hz. That is 900-1200 RPM: still impressive, but not connecting-rod-throwing impressive.

Re:More impressive: (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969302)

Not 3D. Look closely: while it has 'depth', the depth resolution is 1: it's a 'thick' 2D display.

Re:More impressive: (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969628)

He should be using a machine to generate haze, not fog. It's been used in shows for decades to make cool lighting effects without needing to jump around with a fog machine.

Re:More impressive: (2)

binarybum (468664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969882)

"and some way to maintain uniform fog distribution in a room."

  I know some college buddies who have actually figured out how to do this- completely inadvertantly mind you. The fog itself in their case also has the added effect of neuromodulation-making a room full of people actually impressed (if not downright giddy) about 10 projectors sitting on the floor showing a cruddy light show.

Re:More impressive: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971982)

If their process involves burning the leaves of certain plants of the genus Cannabis, I believe I may have filed a patent on it while I was a student. If I got around to it. Not sure I can quite remember...

Re:More impressive: (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970470)

Think I prefer this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzEqXXVWiQE [youtube.com]

No smoke (that I can see) and no glass aquarium

Re:More impressive: (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971064)

Cool as that is, I can't see how it works - it appears to defy the laws of physics as I know them. This means either the designers have found something so clever I can't work it out, or the video is fake. If it works, it could render pole dancers obsolete.

Re:More impressive: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971236)

http://vizoo.com is watermarked on the video. It looks like it's a bigger version of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQSxqnayKhE&feature=related

And people are building their own too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=uYymN-PCawI

Several things that can be improved (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968854)

If by several he means everything..yeah.. that's a good point. I can't believe I just sat through that.

Add budget, get holodeck (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968898)

As a proof of concept, it works better than I thought it would for such a small number of projectors (probably why everyone who's already had the exact same idea has dismissed it without trying it). Using many more, dimmer, projectors (a bunch of those always-in-focus pocket laser projectors would be perfect) would minimise the brightness of the ghost beams and spread them over a wider area.

Re:Add budget, get holodeck (1)

Gortu (523033) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969828)

You are right on track. 100 projectors is the minimum number of projectors that make individual rays so dim as to make them invisible, so you only see the projected volume. You'd need 500 projectors, to get good rotational resolution.

A better way i dreamed up - with water guns (3, Interesting)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968924)

My best idea is to use a hundred pulsed water guns and a laser that can be precisely aimed on the fly. You emit downward-dropped, fast-moving squirts of water algorithmically timed so that when the drop reaches the "pixel" the laser also illuminates that spot, making a pixel appear in midair. If the guns are in a row, that's a 2D plane. You could do this with a 100x100 water guns to make a 3d system, where 2d is the box of water guns on the ceiling, and 3D is when the drop is illuminated.

Make sense? I so want to do this!

--
Every CS major knows the time/space tradeoff. Those majors never get taught the third tradeoff of the set: comprehension

Re:A better way i dreamed up - with water guns (2)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969078)

Like this [youtube.com] ?

It's very cool but seems impractical. Noisy, lots of water needed, and I think color is going to be tricky, as how are you going to reach a drop that's enclosed in different colored drops?

Re:A better way i dreamed up - with water guns (1)

kkwst2 (992504) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969480)

While cool, it is really note that close to what the GP is proposing. This is essentially just a defined pattern of water going through a sheet of light to make a pattern.

The GP is proposing a complex combination of water pattern with lasers to illuminate it to create a 3D image.

Re:A better way i dreamed up - with water guns (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972434)

If each drop emitter also has a laser emitter pointing down along the path of the drip, then you can individually illuminate each column of pixels. although, i think i like the term drixel for dripped pixel. Then you still have the problem of you can only illuminate one drixel in a column at a time, and your have a refresh rate that's tied to the acceleration of gravity. Also wind would screw this up, but as an art project it would likely be pretty cool.

Re:A better way i dreamed up - with water guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37969144)

Actually, I've pondered this myself (my PhD was on Laser Projection, mind you). There is an inherent problem with that and that is lighting up 2 points in space that lie on the same line. The light would hit the first drop of water, but not the second.

Another problem is that clear water refracts light, but does not diffuse it. You would need an opaque liquid. And still you would have the problem of reflection, since liquids are glossy and reflect light.

Moreover, this would have to be tightly encased so there would be no wind interference.

Re:A better way i dreamed up - with water guns (1)

Gortu (523033) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970178)

Thanks for your comments. What you mention is indeed a problem, and that is the non-uniform scattering of light in a droplet of water. Well, it turns out that this problem can indeed be turned to an advantage. You can use this to produce walls that are only visible from one direction but not the other, and this is indeed a good way for producing "opaque" objects, not "translucent" objects as you see in our demo. If you are interested, I'd be glad to have a discussion with you about these matters, mressl@gmail.com.

Re:A better way i dreamed up - with water guns (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971082)

You wouldn't need an aimable laser, you could just use a DLP projector. The main problem I can see with the system is that you would have a tremendous amount of input lag for the bottom half of the display until you could write an algorithm to predict where you can place water droplets early so they wouldn't obstruct view, but would probably be used/lit towards the bottom of the screen. You'd probably just need an engine that could keep track of a 100x100 grid and which items on the grid you could light up without lighting up other points on other grids. You'd probably have quite a few flickering voxels, depending on the number of DLP projectors.

Great idea; some thoughts (2)

subreality (157447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37971980)

I think that's a great idea.

Some problems:
  * Since water is transparent, voxels closer to you won't block ones farther from you. Everything will be translucent.
  * Reflections and refractions will cause unintended lighting.
  * Drop size and timing precision will limit resolution.

A few thoughts to make it work well:
  * The drops will take a while to fall. For playback this is fine, but for realtime use you'd need to release drops in case they might be needed. Thus you need a generic drop pattern to project onto.
  * A good pattern might be to drop the drops in regular waves / sheets sweeping away from the light source (assuming it's above the display; sweep toward it if it's lower) - IE, you're creating curved surfaces that are approximately facing the projector. The faster you can sweep the faster your refresh rate; it's limited by making sure the sheets don't start blocking each other.
  * Release the drops well above the top of the display. That way they'll be moving faster (less interference; better refresh rate) and a more consistent speed (instead of near-stopped at the top of the display; less curvature in the sheets).
  * Use colored drops! If you drop Bayer-pattern RGB sheets and use narrow-band color filters on the light source you might decrease the problems of reflections and refractions considerably - each voxel won't significantly illuminate its neighbors, and will only illuminate some of the drops on the next sheet.
  * If you use colored drops, arrange the nozzles in RGBG rows and use dedicated rows of drain-troughs to catch each color so they can be reused.
  * Use opaque pigments. It will reduce the refraction problems, but it will probably make the viewing angle narrower.
  * With multiple projectors and a really complicated drop pattern you could probably make an amazing display, but the math to find interfering drops gets hard.

Good luck!

High quality 3D (3, Interesting)

TuringTest (533084) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968960)

This approach by Sony shows much more promise in the short and medium term:

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

No walking through the image, though.

Re:High quality 3D (4, Insightful)

EdZ (755139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969290)

And only in one plane. Move up and down, and the image will distort rather than allow you to look down onto it or up under it. Not volumetric.

Re:High quality 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37972294)

So 2 people of different heights can't look at it at the same time? Pretty crappy.

Not slashdot worthy (1, Informative)

castrox (630511) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968978)

This video is lame. What did these guys accomplish? It is kind of hard to tell. 10 projectors + smoke. A guy claims there is a sphere -- well I do not see it. Now he says he is walking inside the sphere. Still do not see it.

What the hell is this?

Re:Not slashdot worthy (3, Informative)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969444)

What the hell is this?

it's a pitch to try and score some funding.

We need funding and are looking for people interested in participating in this. If you know someone, shoot!

Re:Not slashdot worthy (1)

ddt (14627) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970874)

What the hell is this?

I think that smoke is the kind you're supposed to be careful about inhaling.

Re:Not slashdot worthy (2)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970888)

The end of the video (in case you stopped watching partway through) gives some random philosophical musings as well.

Finally, we'd like to discuss as to why we are opening this up. The answer is actually very simple--because we have the power to do so. The world is not in a good shape and we believe there is a problem of power. There is imbalance with giving and receiving. We would like to add our two cents by showing things can be done different--that there is a way of giving things that benefits both the giver and receiver. That's why we're offering our consulting services to anybody who is interested in pursuing this endeavor. We also opened a blog at volumetricprojection.blogspot.com where we will be posting news related to this project.

Finally, a philosophical note. Never forget: you have power. And the enemy of this power of yours is fear. That's why we are constantly bombarded with bad news. That's why accepting things you don't like is giving away your power. We believe it is a good time to change things in the world, and we know you can be part of that. Also, do not use your power in an evil way. You can be assured evil things will come out. Use your power with goodness, and we'll live in a world where our grandchildren will be happy to live in.

So, we hope that this project will crystalize soon, and that all the changes that are happening in the world will not lead to an evil outcome. You can be part of a good change. Don't forget.

Personally, while I wish them luck in their endeavor, I also find their proof of concept very lame, and these philosophical musings ramble around some potentially decent points, but are out of place. They can sort of project very basic geometric shapes, if you're willing to put up with lots of smoke and very poor resolution, with poor color. It's not ready even for a YouTube preview, let alone a /. story.

WAT (2)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37968984)

While this HAS been done before for decades w/ "lasers" & the narrarator wasted too much time w/ obvious philosophies, the off-the-shelf projector use IS intriguing & it's nice to see someone finally implement it freely. Still, brightness/contrast is shit, light-bleeding is a BIG problem & the whole setup is useless w/o a fog machine. I'd still love to see a high-resolution color setup though...

Seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors. (1)

Georules (655379) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969034)

I think I saw this at a laser show in 1990. Using a projector instead of a laser isn't really that interesting.

Re:Seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37970518)

Yeah I imagine some guy saying "Using a liquid crystal instead of phosphor triad as a pixel is not all that interesting, best to scrap that idea".
You and everyone like you are fucking morons.

Re:Seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37972242)

The development of those technologies themselves are interesting. However, the application of one or the other in this 3d projection doesn't seem to show a significant improvement in results.

Must stop laughing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37969062)

What was the guy talking about at the end, what the hell was in that smoke? The same stuff that led him to believe what he was doing was new, innovative or of sufficient quality to go public? I think everyone understands how things like this work and how bongs work... all without consulting a pair of stoners.

ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37969138)

Talk about vaporware. It even includes a video of vapor.

Use eye tracking masks and choice of smoke/gas? (1)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969208)

Ok, interesting idea.

One way to make it better would be to use eye trackers. Then the image from each projector would mask out a small area around each users eyes. if you're going to have an installation using hundreds if not thousands of projectors, the expense of tracking the eyes in 3D space and calculating the appropriate mask for each projector shouldn't be too great. If you don't have the precision and time responsiveness necessary, just mask out the entire face using commercially available face recognition algorithms.

This should allow a much nicer experience as "glare" would be drastically cut down. (You're still going to get scattering from the light but at least it won't get you directly in the eyes). Maybe this would allow you to boost the brightness which might let you reduce the number of projectors (but obviously the more projectors the better).

Anyway I'm wondering what kind of smoke/gas might be used that wouldn't harm the users. If possible, a non-toxic smoke/gas that "glowed" upon being illuminated (like the paints used under UV light) would be best. Ideally you should find one with a non-linear response (it shouldn't glow at all unless the combined illumination from several intersecting beams turned it "on").

If no such smoke/gas could be found, how about other transparent but liquid or solid mediums? This would prevent the user from "entering" the volume (unless they wore a dive suit!) but still might make a useful 3D display. (Keep the eye tracking masks to avoid zapping the users watching from the periphery). Again, what would really make it great would be if the medium had a non-linear response to the projectors; any photo-chemists out there?

Needed: optically transparent medium which "glows" (quickly and reversibly) non-linearly in response to relatively (we're not talking high powered lasers) low light levels. Preferably non-toxic and cheap.

Re:Use eye tracking masks and choice of smoke/gas? (1)

im3w1l (2009474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969734)

What about a phosphorescent gas? That way there would be no glare.

LolWut? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969332)

Well, I for one welcome our new smoke filled virtual future.

But seriously, that was the assiest demo I have ever seen. Are they kidding? Maybe it's a viral ad attempt.

Get these guys a DF-50 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37969432)

Haven't these guys heard of a hazer? Maybe in 10 years they can catch up to the current U2 tour's tech.

A better version.. (1)

Stingray454 (1942828) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969602)

Smoke + a few projectors? Wasn't this done in something like the 50's? I like this approach more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfVS-npfVuY [youtube.com] Basically, they use lasers to excite atoms in the air in the room, creating small glowing plasma balls as pixels. Not by far ready for any commercial use (seems to be able to "draw" someting like 20 pixels per second), but at least it's "true" 3D projected in mid-air without smoke or mirrors.

Re:A better version.. (1)

Gortu (523033) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969830)

But it's not immersive, you can't go in there. And you can't project colored objects.

Re:A better version.. (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970056)

Hmm, neat idea, but my god, the g4tv presenter / production are mega annoying... I was wishing there'd be some sort of laser control malfunction and her head would explode... now that'd be youtube worthy!

Texas Instruments 'Spiral' ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37969622)

Um, whats the difference between this and the TI spiral projector that has existed for over 20 years and works at HIGH resolution in full colour?

Pink Floyd Laser Show? (1)

nloop (665733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37969742)

Seriously, the local planetarium used to put on laser shows with fog machines and way cooler effects than this, they worked on the same principal. Not to mention the music was a lot better.

Pretty lame.

mod uP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37969744)

lesson and 7or it. I don't Least of which is Hiowever I don't

A hidden message (2)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970006)

Well, not so hidden - it was spoken at the end of the video:

"A philosophical note: Never forget, you have power, and the enemy of this power of yours is fear. That's why we are constantly bombarded with bad news. That's why accepting things you don't like is giving away your power...."

I think this is a great philosophy. How often do you watch the news and everything is gloom, doom, collapse, corruption.... Rarely do we hear about the good things people do.

Re:A hidden message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37970664)

it's from Green Lantern.
The Green Lantern's power is Will. The Yellow Lantern's power is Fear. They counteract each other.

wholesale jerseys (1)

jersey123456 (2485408) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970192)

Endured ten years in addition to significant changes in the basketball game; jerseys tend to persist in loose shorts & adhere NBA jerseys [jerseymall.biz] to a low. In the next ten years, who knows what MLB jerseys [jerseymall.biz] will happen, as new expertise changes, it now appears feasible. Even in the event you are lovely at building their own basketball to accept uniform accessories. All of us accept the alter in style, they are affected or bathrobe bathrobe to complete a statement, there is always Wholesale NFL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] a beat or touch the stern they have what to NHL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] wear.

intergrated head tracking (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970278)

this brings up something i think nvidia could do with their 3d vision glasses. they should intergrate infrared leds in the sides of their 3d glasses, and package a webcam with them, so they can do a johnny lee style headtracking thing, as demonstrated in this video [youtube.com] . nvidias 3d vision already makes starcraft 2 look like your looking at a table with 3d minatures on it. the only thing missing from it to make it look like a fully fledged 3d object sitting behind your screen is the ability to move your head around to see it from different angles.

fVisiOn Light Field Projector (1)

Guppy (12314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970454)

fVisiOn light field projector demo, using animated Hatsune Miku. Check out the part where the mirror is placed behind her:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1E_LgLaiRE [youtube.com]

Re:fVisiOn Light Field Projector (1)

Gortu (523033) | more than 2 years ago | (#37970522)

Again, a rotating mirror at 6000 RPM is something I wouldn't like to have close to me. Also, you are limited to a plane from which you observer the illusion, what we do is fully 3D.

Re:fVisiOn Light Field Projector (1)

Guppy (12314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37972298)

Again, a rotating mirror at 6000 RPM

There is no rotating mirror, this particular display technique uses a completely different operating principle. The image appears floating above a flat surface, which you can put your hand on. In some of the posted videos, the presenter takes off the cover, showing the projector array beneath.

Bad news..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37971088)

The Emperor? He's coming here? -We shall redouble our efforts!

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...