×

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 3D Display You Can Touch

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the lasers-through-the-looking-glass dept.

Graphics 63

mikejuk writes "Are we getting closer to really effective volumetric 3D display technology? A new display, designed in Russia, uses cold fog and a laser projector to create a volumetric 3D image that you can touch. A tracking device (no, it's not a Kinect) is used to detect the user's hand and moves the virtual objects in response. There have been cold fog 3D displays before, but this one has a reasonable resolution and looks near to being a finished product that could be on sale soon. Estimated price? Between $4000 and $30,000."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

63 comments

Between $4000 and $30,000. (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200298)

At last: a realistic estimate!

Re:Between $4000 and $30,000. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200428)

possibly less than that.. or maybe more.

Re:Between $4000 and $30,000. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38201648)

At last: a realistic estimate!

Actually yes. When I see those numbers I think "Finally someone who knows what kind of error margin they have!"
Do you remember the $100 computer? What did it end up at?
Often estimates are done before the specification is complete. Sometimes there is a specification but no-one have actually thought about the manufacturing process or bothered to think about development cost and what quantities there are.

This is by far the most realistic estimate I have seen on slashdot. It is not very precise but it would have been unrealistic to get a precise estimate before the production hve been planned.

Pet Friendly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200308)

The only issue is stopping your dog tongue flapping sticking it's head in your monitor.

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200318)

...3D display tracks YOU!

$30,000? (2)

pieisgood (841871) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200328)

What advantage does this offer that could justify the upper bound on pricing? Is there anything that could justify a 4K price? or is this just a novel idea thing?

Re:$30,000? (5, Funny)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200446)

What advantage does this offer that could justify the upper bound on pricing? Is there anything that could justify a 4K price? or is this just a novel idea thing?

$4k vs. $30k probably depends whether they lovingly hand-craft 10 units or get a sweatshop to knock them out in quantity.

$4k would be low enough for some gadget freaks (i.e. the ones with $5k hi-fis and $10k tellys) with more money than sense to buy them for fun.

$30k might be low enough for research teams with an end-of-year surplus to get one in order to investigate your first question.

I'm sure that they'll want one on CSI but they're fictitious so its probably cheaper and more convincing to mock one up with CGI in post-production.

Super-villains will want the 20' x 20' de-luxe model to explain their world domination plans in terms that even an over-sexed British spy or Austrian ex-bodybuilder can understand - that will cost more than $30k but (a) Super-villains never pay, they just murder the creator and (b) see 'CSI' above.

Touch? (4, Insightful)

benjymous (69893) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200350)

That's a funny definition of "Touch" - yes it responds to your finger, but there isn't anything physical there to push against, so it's no more a touch interface than Kinect is.

Re:Touch? (4, Informative)

benjymous (69893) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200372)

Actually, it's worth noting that the i-programmer article that's linked first is pretty badly written, and just paraphrases the techcrunch article, anyway (which never claims that you can touch the projection, just that it's a "multi-touch" interface - ie it responds to multiple fingers)

Re:Touch? (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200374)

I think they meant "manipulate directly". I think the most impressive bit there was when he had a full 3D keyboard model up on the display.

Re:Touch? (2)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200488)

I think they meant "manipulate directly". I think the most impressive bit there was when he had a full 3D keyboard model up on the display.

You have a good eye. I noticed flat pictures. Interesting choice of media considering its a 3D display. I believe you nailed the only 3D content demoed.

Re:Touch? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200740)

Yeah I wondered why he was doing so much with 2D. Maybe because the input ability seems to only be in 2D right now.

If he had a more complex input interface with full 3D positioning, Iron Man style, that would be hella cool. Much more difficult to pull off properly though.

ATTENTION: This is a 2D display (5, Informative)

Alsee (515537) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201886)

This is entirely 2D, not 3D.

The eu.techcrunch.com article makes no mention of 3D. It's the i-programmer.info dopes that mislabeled this as 3D. The slashdot submitter and editor also get blame for perpetuating the error.

The technology uses a base unit that blows a basically 2D "sheet" of fog upwards as a display surface. Behind that there is a 2D laser projector aimed at the fog display screen.

Some people mentioned the keyboard in the demo as 3D, but no, that was the same as any ordinary 2D windowing system. The 2D keyboard that came up merely replaced the 2D content that was supposedly 'behind' it.

-

Re:ATTENTION: This is a 2D display (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38202110)

OK. So ... the virtue of this technology is best realized by those in dry climates that want a really portable display?

Re:Touch? (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200904)

That's a funny definition of "Touch" - yes it responds to your finger, but there isn't anything physical there to push against, so it's no more a touch interface than Kinect is.

There are times I have referred to reggae as "hip hop", all SUV's as Jeeps, and all mp3 players as iPods. It's not that I didn't know their real names. It's just that sometimes I think it's more important to say something people will understand.

Re:Touch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38203602)

There are times I have referred to reggae as "hip hop", all SUV's as Jeeps, and all mp3 players as iPods. It's not that I didn't know their real names. It's just that sometimes I think it's more important to say something people will understand.

You must have a really low opinion of your friends, or they're all complete idiots. Or you're just rationalizing your way around a very limited vocabulary.

Re:Touch? (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201596)

Forget not being able to touch it, it isn't even 3D! Not volumetric, not even stereographic, it's just a regular old flat plane.

Re:Touch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38201728)

And none of the demos demonstrated real 3D interaction and, arguably, no 3D display.

2D mockup of 3D (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200368)

It's like the image resulting from a texture mapping of a 3D world from the vantage point of a 2D organism. It only works, and only barely so, when standing directly in front. Start moving to the side and you lose your 3D.

Pron (3, Interesting)

JohnConnor (587121) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200382)

I can imagine the new porn that will come out... literally!

Re:Pron (4, Insightful)

gutnor (872759) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200404)

May not be as good as you imagine: no tactile feedback.

Re:Pron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200806)

So it'll be like you're wearing spacesuit gloves and an extra-thick condom. I can live with that.

Re:Pron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38201106)

because that would be a step up from now, right?

Re:Pron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38201372)

And damn COLD... don't think it will work unless you are into zombies or something!

Re:Pron (4, Funny)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38202814)

I don't need this. It's cold and gives no tactile feedback. I already have that, I'm married.

Someone's got to say it (4, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200432)

"Touch me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only bloke."

Re:Someone's got to say it (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200650)

--from the blockbuster adult movie Star Whores: Epic Load IV: A Nude Hope

Re:Someone's got to say it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200678)

Something tells me that somewhere out there, there is a movie called exactly that. I guess it's rule 34 - or was it 36? I keep forgetting...

It's 2D!!! WTF?? (5, Informative)

BrokenBeta (1007449) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200502)

Bad slashdot reporting as usual.

The big deal here is the "mid-air" aspect, i.e. no actual surface.

However the display is 2D and the article makes no claim for it being 3D. It's not volumetric, it's not 3D. It's a projector.

It's very cool, and Slashdot has just completely misrepresented it. Well done.

Re:It's 2D!!! WTF?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200588)

please mod this up

not 3d not volumetric !

naughty slashdot

Re:It's 2D!!! WTF?? (3, Informative)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201402)

It's 2.5D i.e. 2D with depth trickery, but not true 3D and projected, and at least from the video there is no way to reach through objects to touch stuff behind so not really capable of true 3D ..and not volumetric

Another Classic /. summary

Amazing (1)

Dreth (1885712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200544)

It only seems that every other week there's a new concept or at least some advances/new implementations of old concepts for 3D displays.

It's clear that people wanna move forward but we're still laughing at those that bought 3D glasses + 3D TVs, so slow down a bit, please.

Nice, but not 3D... (1)

hiben (1065024) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200574)

Reading the title I was excited because I thought someone solved the problem with projecting 3D into fog - but that is not the case. Seems like the media in general want everything to be 3D these days. And if it is not a flat monitor is must be 3D right ? - Interesting display concept but still only 2D as many people already pointed out.

This is 3D? (3, Interesting)

Khith (608295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200582)

While the video looks impressive at first, since this is an unusual way of displaying video and tracking user input, I didn't see them doing anything that you couldn't do with a touchscreen.

The video shows a lot of sliding and manipulating images (rotating, zooming, pinching, etc) but I noticed that they were only controlling the X and Y axes. I kept hoping that they would rotate something in the Z axis or perhaps place a 3D object behind another, but it was just one of the typical "sort through a bunch of photos" demos that we've seen many times before.

I know that this isn't the final version, but I don't see how something like this would be useful until it can actually track and utilize that third dimension. Right now it looks flashy and may lead to a true 3D display, but this seems to be a 2D screen suspended in mist with motion tracking. It certainly isn't going to be portable like a tablet, and the wavering display isn't going to be as good as a proper screen. The 200ms of input lag is rather unimpressive as well.

I would absolutely love to have a good 3D display with true 3D motion tracking, even if it led to me having gorilla arms. We've come a long way, but we've still got a long way to go as well.

NOT NEW! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200704)

This is not new technology, There was this Heliodisplay which demonstrated FAR higher quality (and larger size) than this very crude demonstration, and that was some 6 years ago. And yet this technology has yet to gain any foothold, which is probably because it's inherently unfeasible and people rather buy traditional screens or wall projectors, now that they have become so cheap (not to mention, they have far higher display quality than any of these fog or whatever projection screens).

Vertical resolution (2)

dew-genen-ny (617738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200742)

Past about 6in and the resolution/consistency of image is shocking.... Notice how he has to keep dragging the image down to be close to the air outlet? Doesn't really look ready for prime time. (and come to think about it I can't imagine how they will solve keeping the air flows regular over large distances....)

Re:Vertical resolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38204236)

What this seems to need is a vacuum hood over the top that could activate vacuum inlets positioned over the air outlets to help stabilize the air stream. Also, with that setup, you could have an air curtain shrouding the whole thing to help prevent stray air movement from disrupting the display. For those reading this from the future, here's your prior art for your patent battle. Let the public domain have this idea.

Amazing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200748)

Hi,
    It is really amazed me I want it but toooooo expansive..

psd to xhtml [slicingpsdtohtml.com]

mehh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200800)

3D volumentic/holographic displays are kinda neat in a "look isn't this cool" kind of way, but they all suffer from the same problem 2D multitouch has... that there is nothing physically there to touch so there is no tactile feedback. I don't see this being resolved either.

The closest we can get to a tactile system are ones where they are manipulated by 3D magnetic material, which has it's own issues. Non-closed loop systems inevitably mean that there is a wear problem.

The 3D system featured might be useful in a Seaquest DSV kind of way, eg where we need a concept of depth, like a 3D softbody in medical applications. But until we have replicators and holodeck-like holograms, I think these systems couldn't trick a dog or cat that there is a real "object"

Why are you posting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200818)

Cold fog stories.

This stuff is crap technology that is going no where. Mostly because no one wants a huge wall of cold fog distorting a projected image. It's cute for a kid's science experiment, but it's unrealistic technology that is going exactly no where.

Honestly (2)

Nanosphere (1867972) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200946)

At this point I think it would be easier to invent some kind of optic implant to fool your brain into thinking you're looking at a 3d display, rather than actually trying to find some way to reflect photons in mid air.

This would have the added bonus of privacy unless you opt to "share" your display with others nearby. Anyone you're not sharing the display with would just see you waving your hands around like a lunatic.

Re:Honestly (1)

tiffany352 (2485630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38220944)

I would rather have augmented reality glasses. Implants are expensive and require surgery, and contacts are annoying (not to mention how expensive an LCD screen+computer embedded into a contact lens would be...).

already done 5 years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200950)

I have to break it to you guys, but this has been done in Finland 5 years ago. http://vimeo.com/26984900 And boy have they patented it :)

How long does is take to get tired? (1)

lsolano (398432) | more than 2 years ago | (#38200958)

I don't think that can be useful at all if you have to have your arms in the air, they will get tired very soon*.

We can write hours in our computers today because our arms rest over a table and our fingers over the keys themselves (action/reaction/force/etc).

*Unless you're Chuck Norris, of course.

MC hammer says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38200968)

you can't

Looks 2D to me (1)

URADingus2 (908555) | more than 2 years ago | (#38201494)

Sure, it's implemented on a 3D surface, but the demo didn't show any real 3D features. It looked like a 2D screen floating in space.

OOOOoold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38205142)

Hi guys... sorry to bring that to you... there already exists a company that is selling products based on this technology and it has been around for years. It's called io2technlogoy and you can buy so called heliodisplays from them for a huuge amounts of money :-).

Interactive porn (1)

snoopyowns (963875) | more than 2 years ago | (#38207698)

The Adult Entertainment Industry will be investing millions of dollars into this technology.. Just you wait..

True 3d Display (not sure why this wasn't posted) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38215958)

Not sure why this wasn't posted, but here is a true 3d display: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EndNwMBEiVU

Check for New 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...