Slashdot Log In
Scientists Claim Breakthrough On Holographic Display
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Oct 06, 2008 03:29 PM
from the rampant-optimism dept.
from the rampant-optimism dept.
SpuriousLogic writes to tell us that University of Arizona researchers claim to have broken a barrier in holographic technology by creating an updatable, three-dimensional display with memory. While the existing model is only able to update once every couple of minutes, and isn't particularly suited for 3d images, it is certainly a step in the right direction. "Peyghambarian is also optimistic that the technology could reach the market within five to ten years. He said progress towards a final product should be made much more quickly now that a rewriting method had been found. However, it is fair to say not everyone is as positive about this prospect as Peyghambarian. Lecturer in Electronic Engineering at Bangor University in Wales, Dr Justin Lawrence, told CNN small steps were always being made on technology like 3D holograms, but, he couldn't see it being ready for the market in the next ten years."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Another revolutionary technology... (Score:5, Insightful)
... for our new holographic masters! (Score:4, Funny)
I saw it on Star Trek, it must be true!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't goatse porn?
What about porn games? (Score:3, Insightful)
Porn is usually the deciding factor between two competing technologies
Counterexample: video game consoles vs. PCs running Windows. The consoles have no pornographic games, yet PC gaming hasn't slaughtered console gaming. Why is this?
Re:Another revolutionary technology... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand people claiming that porn created the computing universe in 6 kilobytes.
Computers proliferated when they became cheap enough for the average person to afford (IBM PC) and useful enough for the average person to want (taxes, word processing, games, etc). Sure, some people probably bought Internet service primarily to access porn, but I don't think that had much effect on the overall computer boom. Computers boomed like cars boomed: someone made it cheap and people saw everyday uses for them.
Now, one might make an argument about porn boosting search engines (look at graphs of popular terms over time), but certainly not the whole shebang.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
you spin me right round baby right round.
or something like that anyways.
Isn't particularly suited for 3d images (Score:4, Funny)
Other than that small issue, sounds like a winner.
Re:Isn't particularly suited for 3d images (Score:5, Funny)
See my sig...
Parent
Boo! (Score:5, Funny)
Too soon!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, in the 3 minutes it takes to change images, just imagine you've walked around to a different side, then the picture can show that. Voila!
Every couple of minutes? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Updating every couple of minutes is still plenty of time for 3d porn.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ah, I could finish before the update
Re: (Score:2)
It can only update every couple of minutes? Not to worry, Lucas will stretch out Episode XXIV accordingly.
And don't forget about the Episode I remake. It may actually be more watchable that round, giving us time to mentally recover between the frames of Jar-Jar.
Dude (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I hear he was in a galaxy far far away too.
Who? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is this Dr. Justin Lawrence and why is he being cited as the authoritative naysayer for this technology? He doesn't seem to have any reasons to be unimpressed other than this cliche:
Refresh Rates (Score:5, Funny)
If it can only refresh every few minutes, it'd be perfect for airing CSPAN, right? I mean, it's not like Congress moves very fast - you really don't need a refresh rate measured in Hz.
And if they got it in 3D... It'd be just like you're there!
Re:Refresh Rates (Score:4, Funny)
> And if they got it in 3D... It'd be just like you're there!
But why would you want to be?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And i'ts attitudes like that that'll keep this technology from taking off!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
you can't understand the government until you become a member of the government. And the first rule of government is to not talk about how the government works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If it can only refresh every few minutes, it'd be perfect for airing CSPAN, right?
Congress will ban it as the 2-D left-right paradigm suits their purposes quite well.
MIT Media Lab has been doing holoTV for 15 years (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So.. just use spheres for the heads.
Re: (Score:2)
HoloTV? (Score:5, Informative)
"HoloTV" conjures up images of...
- a display much like holograms, but instead with fully moving images (and I don't mean the ones that have moving images when you change the viewing angle)
- a holodeck, but confined to the 'space' of a TV.
Benton et al (mostly et al) did great work, but... ...it is neither of the above.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/wojciech/3DTV/index.html [mit.edu]
A lenticular display is cool, but still depends a lot on the viewing angle, very precise registration, etc.
True '3D TV' is quite a long ways out as of yet.. there are plenty of existing and research methods, but all of them have their caveats that make them nowhere near '3D TV' a la "everything actually looks 3D, from any angle, without special glasses required, and without the surfaces appearing translucent, and with no more extreme requirements than a very high-end regular TV now".
red/blue | red/green methods - no color accuracy, need glasses, not actually 3D (fixed viewpoint)
chromadepth - no color accuracy, need glasses, not actually 3D (fixed viewpoint)
shutter glasses - need glasses (dur), not actually 3D (fixed viewpoint)
polarization - need glasses, not actually 3D (fixed viewpoint)
VR glasses - need the big VR goggles.
Lenticular displays - limited viewing angles, not actually 3D (multiple fixed viewpoints - typically on the horizontal plane, MIT's work has the vertical plane covered a bit as well)
Tracking displays - limited viewing angles and, moreover, limited number of viewers (just one.. the person being tracked. Also not really 3D (fixed viewpoints, but with greater 'fluidity' between viewing angles; no actual depth cues (could be combined with a 'glasses' method to overcome this limitation, however). In theory extensible to spherical displays to provide a - albeit awkward - free-viewpoint display).
Collated displays / array of displays - expensive, limited viewing angles (not as limited as lenticular, but if you look at the side of the array of displays, you're not going to see a whole lot), surfaces appear translucent, color inaccurate the deeper 'in' you look.
Spinning surface displays (in various forms) - noisy (even with the spinning surface encased and usually vacuum-sealed; for resistance purposes as well), flickery, surfaces tend to appear translucent although some level of opacity can be attained.
Making the air explode in gorgeous bursts of luminosity - loud. very, very loud.. zero color, not even greyscale; presuming technique perfected to at least allow greyscale (minor vs major bursts, or frequency bursts), surfaces will still appear translucent.
Of all of the above, Lenticular displays are the most commercially successful *right now*, and they're still not mainstream; that might change as more and more 3D movies come out and they start getting stuck on Blu-Ray/whatever, though.
I get the feeling I missed one, but it's likely to have some of the other usual drawbacks.
Overall, VR goggles give the best experience as long as the content is actually 3D.. but people don't like wearing even the little polarized glasses, nevermind a VR headset.
--
On top of that, though... shooting a movie in a stereoscopic format (glasses) is difficult enough; a lot of movie shots only really 'work' from a single angle - think one actor punching another... move a little right/left and it becomes a lot easier to tell that the guy never actually hit him; gets worse when you add in the original viewing angle and you get full 3D depth cues. That's not to mention any effects that have to get replicated in stereo (double the work; easy if it's a 3D feature film, not so easy if it's live-action and some poor artist has to rotoscope an actor's hair not once, but twice, and with stereoscopic cohesion.
And that's just stereo.. that's not even the common concept of 3D (cameras all around), nevermind full 3D (being able to look all the way around, instead of just orbiting the scene of interest).
No.. it'll be a long, long while more before 'HoloTV' is something we can all talk about the way we did about flatscreen TVs several years back.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
DNF? (Score:5, Funny)
AGAIN!? (Score:5, Insightful)
seriously, how often have we read about holo-TV breakthroughs within the last - say - 15 years?
I stopped believing, although I'd love such technology...
sweet (Score:5, Funny)
thats about 0.0056 frames per second
still better than crysis on my rig
Could reach the market in 5-10 years = ... (Score:2)
Maybe it is just me, but sketpress releases like this are hardly news. Think of every breakthrough you've read about on Slashdot that was supposedly going to be a product in 5 or 10 years. ...
Old news (Score:4, Informative)
This news is from February.
More detail here...
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb08/5995 [ieee.org]
Misunderstandings and Disbeliefs (Score:5, Informative)
That guy is a prick and a true disbeliever.
I think it has been widely misunderstood what exactly this breakthrough is. It is not yet another display with a fast-rotating spiral in the center, or a box filled with smoke and crossing beams form a 3D picture.
No. What this is, is basically a "normal" hologram, the kind you have as small stickers on CCs or (ugh) EULAs, or the kind you hang on your wall if you're so inclined, just erasable. It's basically the CD-RW of holograms. With that technology, if they can 'erase' and 'write' images fast enough (fast enough for let's say 25fps), we finally can have a holographic display.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean those crappy monochrome pictures you see in art galleries that you need to be looking at 100% square on to get anything other than horrible distortions?
Look, I think holograms are cool and all, just like I did back in the '80s when they were the next big thing. And they don't seem to have improved much since.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll side with skeptical for now too.
Currently it is 4" square, monochrome, several minutes to draw and erase is a separate step.
To even get 3 colors, he is looking for a material that will produce the other 2 colors. I wonder if the resolution drops by a factor 3 then...anyone remember CGA graphics
Can you make a polymer with 256 different reactive materials to produce anything resembling a picture? Much less 16.7 million different types of material in a uniform polymer coating....
Even if it works on a big
I can't wait.... (Score:4, Funny)
And once I get home, I'll fire up my commercially viable Linux desktop and look at watch Netflix streaming Netflix movies, eating some Taco Bell (It will be the only "restaurant" left after the earthquake)
Interesting, but what about filming? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You know.... a real lap dance would probably cost less than that holographic machine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But if you use the machine about 5,000 times would the cost of 5,000 lap dances be a lot less then the holographic machine?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's like saying you'd rather play Need for Speed: Porsche Unleashed instead of driving a real Porsche because you don't risk getting a speeding ticket.
I know we were lacking a car analogy somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's this 'console' you speak of? (Score:2)
But by including animated 3d projection would get people away from a console and play the games on the living room floor.
We used to do that without any electronic gear - just a set of dice, some rulebooks, and maybe some notepads. Oh, and pizza.
Was that just the poor-kids' D&D? I can't imagine any of these electronics improve the fun.
Re: (Score:2)
And a large scale implementation like this could spur tabletop gaming from a backroom pastime in comics/hobby shops to something more on par with laser tag. Or both if its Shadowrun.
You realize if this works out, we're on the verge of being overrun by LARPers. [wikipedia.org]
RUN! FLEE!