Real 3D Display; 3 Years Out? 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."
Hogel? (Score:2)
Voxel is the correct term for the volume represented by a 3D pixel...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogel [wikipedia.org]
"In opposition to 2D pixels, hogels contain 3D information from various perspectives."
Re:Hogel? (Score:4, Funny)
Still sounds like a mix between a hoagie and a bagel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking it sounded like a pork-based indivisible unit of image representation...
Mmmmm... pork.......
Re: (Score:2)
It's a low-rez 3d pixel - see minecraft!
Re: (Score:2)
It's a low-rez 3d pixel - see minecraft!
You mean a Voxel? Which is exactly what Parent said?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Hogel, weren't those low end cameras?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess hogel is simply a holographic voxel. So comparing them would be roughly like comparing ordinary flat photograph to ordinary flat hologram. If not, then yeah, hogel is more or less synonym for voxel...
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Voxel map images consist of a 3D grid of density values (eg. percentage of hydrogen atoms in each voxel cube). You can apply what is known as a transfer function to generate transparency and color for each level of density. Rendered in this way, bone can be made to appear white and solid, muscle red and solid, and skin semi-transparent.
Lighting calculations only need to be done for one viewpoint - the camera or a pair of stereoscopic glasses.
To do a hologram, you need to calculate the resulting lighting col
Battle Planning? (Score:2)
But I want to play chess with it, like they did in Star Wars: ANH
Re: (Score:2)
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 ? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hogel [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
don't raise up what you can't put down! (Score:2)
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.
The race (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Simulating a window pane (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
3D Chess Table (Score:2)
Holograms are not new (Score:3)
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.
Yay another remaster of Star Wars then (Score:2, Funny)
not much information... (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, no ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking Paycheck [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Even so, no stabbing my face with a Buick!
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to go with Avatar.
http://www.inventinginteractive.com/2010/01/15/movie-avatar/ [inventinginteractive.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it's still in process. I filed my answer against the douchelord, the courts said I didn't pay yet they filed my answer (and cashed my check for filing fees which they said I didn't pay,) and my last move was getting them (successfully) to vacate their prior default judgment against me. Now we're waiting on the court system to gear up for whatever's next, likely a trial before the judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Star Wars battle chess, duh.
Make mine real chrome, please.
Time Traveler (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
So we are 3 years from a holographic unit and 3 years + 2 months from the first holographic porno.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. The porn industry will be the first to buy cameras. They will be ready from day one.
So how does it work? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
its a hologram, subject to many of the same limitations. It has higher clarity and color, but it's still static. It cannot project beyond the borders of the image.
Does it scale ?!? (Score:2)
A 4D display in four years
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Gotta hand it to DARPA (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Nah I just want it on my iPhone X.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you go by the book, a 3D "movie" could be called a 4D image ... (But yeah, never a 4D movie)
Re: (Score:2)
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. Play
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Time unique in reference frame (Score:2)
There is no "the" 4th dimension. A dimension is a degree of freedom. Time can be described as "a" dimension.
Yes there is - it is 'time' as defined by the local observer. Time has unique properties not shared by the 3 spacial dimensions which means that it is uniquely defined for each frame of reference unlike the x, y, z axes which can be arbitrarily rotated. Hence we can call time THE 4th dimension because each of us can locally, uniquely define its direction even though globally there is no unique direction.
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
It sounds like they're just doing real-time holograms, though. Yeah, you can walk around it, but it still displays on a flat surface, it doesn't project an image in real space. Think of it like a big printed hologram, except you can update it in real-time. It's not a free-space display like Star Trek holograms.
Think of it this way: the Zebra display would be like looking through a window into a 3D world, but everything would have to be contained within the window.
I can still imagine some pretty neat ideas f
Re: (Score:2)
A hologram is imprinted on a surface of some kind. You have to look at the surface to see the holographic image.
Now this [youtube.com] is a free-space display!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But you could, if this technology is scaled up enough. A small 12"x12" display is limited in scope, but scale it up to an 84"x84" display, and then mount six of them orthogonally facing a single point, combined with a transparent motion-tracked conveyor system, and you've got yourself a pretty damned immersive 3D environment in which you can run around in.
Of course, a highly accurate motion tracking system that can determine how you should be moving relative to the ground while keeping you motionless is a p
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
If people wanted 3D then plays would be a lot more popular.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Are you serious?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't get more realistic 3D than reality itself.
Not serious, but would love to hear some counter-arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
By counter-argument do you mean you're asking for a list of reasons why movies pretty much killed plays or an explanation of why sitting in the back of the theater is not like standing in the room as events are taking place?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
The second problem apart from cost is the experience. In the theater, I get one point of view, quite a distance from the stage (at least without paying almost three times the price) and there is no focus on particularl
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
They most certainly did not gererate billions in revenue by forcing theaters to project in 3D.
Actually going to disagree with you there. 3D showings cost the consumer more than 2D showings and if all the showings are only in 3D then yes the theaters are being forced to project in 3D.
They may not have generated an extra billion in revenue by forcing theaters to project in 3D, but they did pull in extra millions due to 3D being rammed down the consumers throat.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference in cost doesn't account for the difference in box-office returns. People still have to want to go to the movies in order for box-office receipts to come in.
If it were truely a throat ramming, it wouldn't work, nor would the success of the movie fluctuate with the quality of the stereo conversion.
Re: (Score:2)
What movie was it you could only see in 3D, again?
After considering that -- it's trivial to take a "3D" film and show it in 2D, if that's what people really want. You don't hear about that much because people don't want that.
The numbers don't lie. 3D makes money. That means people with money want 3D. You don't appear to understand how this works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do.
Leaving aside here that what's discussed in the article is not the 3D you appear to be complaining about (though it, too, is no panacea.. viewing angles are too limited for its purpose, imho)... the industry hasn't been trying to shove much of anything. Most content is still 2D and aside from directors who decide to thrust every pointing object at the viewer every 3D mov
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what would be more expensive:
1) Building a holodeck using 3D technology, force feedback, etc.
2) Hiring a few set designers and a dozen actors to live out your holodeck fantasies (and all that might entail).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let the wookie win.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, well according to popular opinion, that means a holographic projector cannot be patented, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My buddy who went to MIT in the late 90's told me his frat brother was working on a similar project, which is a table that projects an image into real space. Although I was really excited, I was even more bummed out when he said it was a gov't project (mil) and that it would be many years before it ever made it out to commercial space. So if this is "3 years away" from commercial use, we could have this within 10 years lol... it'll still be cool, right?
Re: (Score:2)