Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Holograms - The Future Without The Funny Glasses 126

Posted by timothy from the hey-my-breakfast-is-now-three-dee dept.
hopbine writes "MIT Technology Review has an interesting article on the latest trends in holograms. I like the NYU's NY3D system. It puts an LCD display in front of a normal CRT and by monitoring the viewers eye movement it can flash on and off parts of the LCD screen showing each eye a different image through the gaps, producing a 3D image. Another research project shows how researchers can "feel" the hologram. Maybe the holodeck is not that far away !"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Holograms - The Future Without The Funny Glasses More

Holograms - The Future Without The Funny Glasses

Comments Filter:

  • Karma Whore, Most of article: (Score:3, Informative)

    by jpt.d ( 444929 ) <`moc.sregor' `ta' `llafba'> on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:05PM (#4591102)
    Companies Working in Three Dimensions
    COMPANY TECHNOLOGY POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS

    Actuality Systems
    (Burlington, MA) Spinning screen inside a clear sphere creates 3-D images that appear to float. Battlefield visualization, biomolecular research

    Deep Video Imaging
    (Hamilton, New Zealand) Two LCD screens, one in front of the other, provide a multi-dimensional effect. Finance, navigation, petrochemical exploration, medical R&D, graphic design

    Dimension 3
    (Woodland Hills, CA) Color-filtering glasses and glasses with one dark lens make moving objects stand out. Television, print media

    Dynamic Digital Depth
    (Santa Monica, CA) Software recreates 3-D depth data from two-dimensional materials. Advertising, retail, television, computer gaming

    X3D Technologies
    (New York, NY) LCD glasses work with an ordinary display to create a 3-D illusion. Television, personal computers

  • What is a halodeck? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Istealmymusic ( 573079 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:06PM (#4591109) Homepage Journal
    I have never stumbled across this term before, does it refer to an xbox game or something? I'd like more information.

    • Re:What is a halodeck? (Score:3, Informative)

      by jpt.d ( 444929 )
      Just incase you aren't just trying to be funny...

      Holodeck is a a room that can project light and force fields to create the illusion of being some place.
      • At the risk of becoming way to technical about a fiction work... holodecks didn't really just make "images".

        The Star Trek Holodecks used replicator technology to actually assemble all of the things in the holodeck out of "real" matter. But since (for some reason) Star Trek technology is unable to create life, the holodeck then uses an inanely complex system of mini tractor beams to move all of that matter in the life-like fashion.

        The "fake" portions of the holodeck are the images projected on the walls (the holodeck is just a room), and then some elements of energy and matter are substituted for safety reasons.

        For those that would consider this flamebait, sorry about that, I picked up a Star Trek NC1701-D Technical Manual at a convention once while I was in high school, and it was awesome.

        • Re:What is a halodeck? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Tokerat ( 150341 )
          WARNING: This is the geekiest question I have ever asked. Ever. I don't even like Star Trek (*shock and dismay*)! But... there was one thing that always puzzled me:

          Is that how someone is able to move around within the Holodeck as if it where a full world and never end up walking into a wall, because these same mini-tractor beams kept them in the same position as the world "scrolled" around them?

          Damn, we need some replicators and tractor beam technology, quick.
          • Yes. There's actually a section about Holodeck functionality in the Star Trek next Generation Tech manual, where they show the person standing in the middle of the holodeck at all times.

            Always made me wonder, how many people could you really fit in the holodeck at a time? In Next Generation, Holodeck was a meeting hall, probably 60x60 feet, with a height of 40 feet or so. In DS9, the holosuites were 20x20, at 20feet high. How did they ever fit seven or more people in there without the people seeing each other all the time? There were quite a few episodes where the whole senior staff were in the holosuites, including the whole last half of 7th season when Vic's Vegas Lounge was running non-stop.
            • Perhaps they created walls between them and projected distant scenery on them until two people where going to make contact?

              Then again, this straightforward (i dare not say simple), intuitive idea was probably pushed too far by the writers/directors of the Sci-Fi show which depicted it, which, as I take it from listening to my Sci-Fi fanatic friends' ramblings, occurs quite often...

              Another thought occured to me: How can the tractor beams only affect certain objects? If they have to pass through a person, why don't they move that person or object, too? Are two or more beams focused on a single point with different magnitudes/angles, so the sum total magnitude of those vectors results in the desired motion?

              This is why I can't watch stuff like Star Trek....I have a hard enough time keeping the Carbon APIs straight...
          • It uses highly complex treadmill technology to keep you centered at all times. Because of their IDF (internal dampening field) technology, you don't feel the ground move 'backwards' when you move forwards. Good question.
            • Yeah, but if this is the case, then how do (actual) people using the holodeck get more than 3^(1/2)*x away from eachother, where x is the length, width, and height of the holodeck room (they always looked cubic to me!).

              It'd really suck if you were trying to walk away from someone in a holodeck, and once you got over, say 20 feet away, your nose was suddenly flattened by an invisible wall.
          • I got the same manual. Very cool stuff. And no, the tractor beams don't move the people. Turns out that theres a tri-directional treadmill-like surface on the floor.

            One of the coolest things, I thought, was that the holograms are projected between people when they are split up... so you are still 20' away (or whatever), but the hologram shows your partner as being 50' (or not even there if they are out of sight).
        • "Have you ever talked to a woman without needing to give you her credit card number?"

          (i think this [blueyonder.co.uk] applies here :) )

          -fren

    • Re:What is a halodeck? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pilot1 ( 610480 )
      A holodeck is a room, from Star Trek, which creates 3D images so that any place can be simulated. All the user supposedly has to do is program the place to be simulated.
    • It refers to a state of blissful(halo) physical exhaustion(as in decked out) caused by intensive sessions of 3D p0rn

  • Holographs (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hmm, this would lessen seperation between the virtual world and reality even more. Is it really a good thing for video gamers to be able to have fully immersive worlds, that aren't just on a screen? Imagine if a baby grew up in a holographic simulation! They would be really messed up if they had to go outside into the real world. That would be sad if people only lived in virtual worlds while the real world crumbled around them. Sigh. Oh well, it looks like that's what people want.

  • Holodeck (Score:3, Funny)

    by CatWrangler ( 622292 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:09PM (#4591136) Journal
    My worry is that this thing would need an advanced A.I. to work.

    How bummed would everyone be if Holograms were switched on at the same time, as they had the ability to reject you.

    Holographic Barbara Bush saying you weren't her type could create some pretty wicked psychic scars.

  • Karma Whore Nothing... (Score:5, Funny)

    by denisonbigred ( 611860 ) <nbn2@ c o r n e l l .edu> on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:09PM (#4591137)
    I can already see where "feeling" holograms will lead. The dont call it the worlds oldest profession for nothing.
    • The dont call it the worlds oldest profession for nothing.

      You mean "feeling" holograms will let you be a sheep herder?

      -- If you don't get it, don't mod it.
    • The dont call it the worlds oldest profession for nothing.

      You mean "feeling" holograms will let you be a farmer?

      -- If you don't get it, don't mod it.

      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain

      "Plagarism. An act or instance of plagiarising. Something plagiarized." - Les Nessman. (With apologies to RobinH)

  • Been around for years (Score:4, Funny)

    by DalTech ( 575476 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:12PM (#4591151)
    3D images have been around since I was just a small child and you didn't need special glasses to see them.

    It was and probably still is called a viewmaster.

    • Re:Been around for years (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What do you mean you don't need special glasses? What do you think a ViewMaster is!?

    • Uh (Score:2)

      by autopr0n ( 534291 )
      The Viewmaster *is* glasses.

      Sculpture, however has been around for quite a while, as have true holograms. I think the idea here is that you can have a holographic image that moves

  • Technology (Score:5, Interesting)

    by phorm ( 591458 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:15PM (#4591158) Journal
    If anyone has ever gone into a hologram shop and looked at the merchandise...

    Yes, they are cool, but they're also somewhat indistinct. For a lot of them, you get an overlap at various angles, and have to squint a bit. The colors are also way off. While this is ok for a novelty static image, I think that for my PC I would want something of a higher caliber.

    The second article shows a "sample" picture. Obviously some of the realism and depth will be lost by showing it on a computer monitor (like those digital TV "see the clarity" ads on my normal set), but it looks pretty indistinct to me.

    Showing a wireframe 16-color DNA molecule in pseudo-3d is one thing. Managing to get the broad spectrum of colours in a good refresh rate with realistic and crisp depth is probably going to take some time yet.

    Oh, and what's with the demo. "Two cameras track eye movement???" Seems pretty dumb to me, as how is it going to handle multiple people for the stereoscopic view, or ever properly track eye moment.


    I think I'll save my quarters for a high-def 21"+ monitor - phorm

    • Re:Technology (Score:2, Informative)

      by MindStalker ( 22827 )
      as how is it going to handle multiple people
      It can't, its that simpele. This is not for presentation to others.
    • I remember going round the hologram display at Jodrell Bank when I was a kid. In fact probably that school visit was part of the reason behind me being really interested in science. Like you said it was very dark - so you could only see the holograms from one angle and that no other light source would interfere with them. In the gift shop I bought a jar type thing surrounded by hologrammatic wrapping paper - still have it - it looks very cool. Thought it was a bargain at only 99p (but that was years ago).

    • Re:Technology (Score:5, Interesting)

      by amthrax ( 254765 ) <amdragon+slashdotNO@SPAMmit.edu> on Sunday November 03, 2002 @09:00PM (#4591588) Homepage
      The low quality holograms that you find in stores are usually exactly that, low quality. A high quality, properly lit hologram can be absolutely breathtaking. I've seen a number of holograms (ironically, at the MIT Museum) that, were it not for their illumination, would have looked real: solid and sharp. One of my favorites was a hologram of a telescope and the night sky. Yes, the telescope worked. You could stand in the right place and look through the holographic telescope and you would see exactly what you would expect to see, had the telescope been real. I even ducked once because I turned to look at a hologram as I was walking by and thought I was going to run in to it. Granted, these were all static holograms, and I don't know how they are achieving/plan to achieve moving holograms (and high quality systems will probably be prohibitively expensive at first).

      The LCD overlay is a completely different approach. It is not holographic and does not claim to be. The "two cameras [that] track eye movement" are a vast improvement over previous display technology that uses this same approach, but requires the user to remain stationary (see 3D LCD Display [slashdot.org] though the technology has been around for a while). And, no, obviously this doesn't work for multiple users because it's targetting the location of a single user.

      3D display technology is cool, but still young. The progress that has been made over the past two or three years alone is amazing. Give it a year or two more in the lab, and I bet that it will start having real impact on the world.

      • Indeed. I visited the Army's Night Vision and Electro-Optics laboratory several years ago, where they do extensive work with lasers among other things. I was given a small clear polymer disk that had a very intricate hologram of a rose--it didn't look realistic, because it was meant to look *more* than realistic. It looked thoroughly 3D and was realistic in that respect, but it was designed to show a more vibrant and changing array of colors--extremely impressive for a plastic disk the size of a silver dollar.

        But then again, what you can do with billions of dollars of equipment at your disposal is a lot different from what you can do with a consumer-level product, or even what most mid-level corporate backing could afford... ;-)

  • Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

    by prestomation ( 583502 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:16PM (#4591166)
    Will this holographic technology lead to the downfall of stripclubs and prostitution?
    • Maybe, but the web would be a far more dangerous place as holographic adult popups "pull" you into their site.

    • Top Ten List (Score:5, Funny)

      by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:51PM (#4591308) Homepage
      Top ten reasons it won't happen:

      10) Hard to be sure the performer is "real"
      9) Too hard to transmit disease-causing viruses over net
      8) No chewing gum stuck to bottom of shoes afterwards
      7) Lacks thrill of getting mugged in crappy neighborhood
      6) Too clinical without camaraderie of fellow perverts
      5) Two words: lightning strikes
      4) Risk of getting caught looking goofy is greater at home
      3) Hard to explain those funny-looking peripherals to Mom
      2) Neighbors tire of cops breaking into holojohn's house
      1) Can't replicate thrill of accidentally picking transvestite

      • 10) Price of Windex goes up due to increased demand.
        9) Massive bandwidth shortages because of holographic file transfers.
        8) Gay midgets porn on the increase.
        7) No contact dances.
        6) No specific scents.
        5) Playstation 2 holographic mod chip not legal in the USA.
        4) Invention of vapor technology.
        3) ???
        2) Profit!
        1) Jizz moppers Union 341 is already asking for an injunction on this technology.
    • Just pick up one of these [onzin.nl].

      Sure it isn't 3-D but just close your eyes as if s/he were really hideous :)
    • If that were the case, Real Doll [realdoll.com] would have already killed them off.

  • Tracking Eye Movements (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lommer ( 566164 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:28PM (#4591210)
    Is it just me or does the whole concept of tracking people's eye movements in order to generate 3D images fundamentally wrong? My first reaction every time that I hear this is "isn't there lag in between when a user moves his eye and the computer adjusts?" I can understand eye tracking for some purposes, but not really for display.

    My main concern in this though is that two people cannot see in 3D off of the same screen at the same time. Personally, I don't think that 3D imaging technology will move much beyond it's current "look i'm shiny, new, but not really practical" until we begin to see actual 3D constructions in space. Either that or transparent cubes that can have 3D images rendered inside them.

    • Re:Tracking Eye Movements (Score:5, Interesting)

      by broken_bones ( 307900 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:48PM (#4591296)
      From a technical standpoint agree with you. I'd love to see a 3D system that was viewable from all angles by multiple people without using tricks like eye tracking. Oh the many things I could do..the many games I could play...

      However I think it would be wise to consider that technology development is a continuous process of improvement. This isn't the end of 3D development. It is only one step in the process. While this technology may not be particularly useful to the average user right now, it is good to see it being developed because it gives hope that future development will yield really cool toys...er um useful products. Just think about the computer on your desk. Its ancestors used punch cards and vacuum tubes and probably wouldn't have been much use to you personally as a user. They were, however, a necessary step in the development of the desktop computers we use today.
    • Yeah, don't believe in any technology that tracks eye movements. It's just too hard right now. It's basically only possible if the user calibrates the eye tracker at the start of the sessions, and then does not move their head at all through the rest of the session. A user moving their head throws off the whole calibration.

      When I used to work with eye tracking (not that long ago), the user must be in a piece of equipment that is similar to the one the contact doctor uses on you when he wants to test for glaucoma. That was indeed a step up from the setup that require a "bite-bar", in which the users teeth are sunk into a mold previously taken of their teeth, making sure their head does not move even the slightest bit.

    • Um... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @08:16PM (#4591405) Homepage Journal
      My first reaction every time that I hear this is "isn't there lag in between when a user moves his eye and the computer adjusts?"

      How often do you move you're head while sitting in front of the computer? Besides, the system only needs to know where you're eyes are down to the distance between you're eyes. On a system with a lag of 10ms, for example, you would need to move you're head 4 inches in 10ms before you would notice any distortion. That's 227 miles per hour. If you're head's moving that fast, you've got other things to worry about.

      Even with a 100ms delay, you've still got to move you're head side to side at 23 miles an hour to lose the holographic display.

      As far as eye tracking, if the software/hardware can produce images for 4 points of view, then just track four eyes with the camera, otherwise it's not an issue anyway. Repeat with more sets of eyes.

  • sorry miss.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:36PM (#4591250)
    .. I thought you were just a hologram.

  • Motion sickness to the next level? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by miscellaneous_havoc ( 621991 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:51PM (#4591306) Homepage
    I must say that the idea of three-dimensional computer use would be extremely... COOL! However, I think that for quite some time during the first years of development, there will be problems with people having adjustment problems. When I first played the N64--before I had a computer--the 3D graphics alone made me a little naucious after the first few hours. I adjusted all right, but that was being displayed on a 2D screen. Well, perhaps it's just me, but I think this won't be too great in its early years.

  • holograms and 3D displays (Score:3, Informative)

    by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:54PM (#4591324)
    A hologram is a very specific form of 3D display, based on coherent light. Eye tracking, lenticular arrays, various forms of projection onto rapidly moving screens, and other kinds of 3D displays are not holograms.

    Most of these technologies are also based on old ideas and have also been around for years; it's just that the ability of computers and displays is finally catching up with the needs of such displays.

    Overall, it is hard to see, though, why people really care that much about not wearing glasses. LCD shutter glasses or head mounted displays are getting small and less expensive. Instead of having some bulky contraption take up space, wouldn't you rather have something small you can take anywhere?

  • Disturbing Potential (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DocStout ( 622015 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:57PM (#4591336)
    With fewer ethical controls on corporate interests, this sort of thing could get wacko-conspiracy-theorist scary. Holographic video is based on technology taking advantage of the difference between the speeds that we can process images with light, and the speeds that information can be translated through the eyes by the brain. Now, movies are based on the same concept, basically, to simulate movement of static pictures. The frightening thing is that subliminal messages should be easier to work into technology such as this, and when presented in the right situation, whether what you are looking at is real or not can even be called into question. Imagine a 3-D advertisement subtly inserted into a virtual fish tank. With sufficiently advanced technology, we could be subjected to ads when we think we're just looking around the "real world", whatever that will come to mean. How possible is it that this technology will be used to advertise before it is used to entertain? Will we know the difference?

  • These are NOT HOLOGRAMS! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rufusdufus ( 450462 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @07:59PM (#4591342)
    The article and the author, and apparently the readers here are substantially misguided in their understanding of what a hologram is. A hologram is not defined by 3D stereopsis! The technologies listed in the article are not holograms .

    A hologram does not use 3D glasses or LCD displays. Holograms are film recordings of a 3D wavefronts of an object. This is very important, as with a hologram, you can look behind objects by moving your viewing position.

    Thus, holograms are not illusions of 3D, they are actually 3D--they have true depth and your eyes can focus on different planes of depth.

    The technologies listed here (as all other 3D technologies except holography) simply trick your eyes into seeing different images which create an illusion of 3D stereopsis. They do not however allow your eye to focus on different points in 3D space, look behind objects, or change your perspective. They are thus inferior to holograms by a significant amount.

    Why dont we have Holographics displays then? Well it has been done, but it takes too much memory to capture the full 3D wavefront of an object, so its not practical yet. Moores law will fix that soon I hope.
    • At my alma mater [rose-hulman.edu], there is a display of holograms in one of the halls.

      Several typical displays; someone's head, a dollar bill, a computer motherboard.

      And there is one fantastic piece. A hologram of a powerful microscope, that appears to stand right out in full scale.

      Walk up to the microscope and place your eye where the virtual eyepiece is located. You will be treated to looking down the barrel of this nonexistant microscope, viewing the silicon die of an integrated circuit.

      Until the light wavefronts can be accurately manipulated, no 3D display will ever be able to approach this level of realism. I don't see it happening within my lifetime.
      • Until the light wavefronts can be accurately manipulated, no 3D display will ever be able to approach this level of realism. I don't see it happening within my lifetime.
        It's already possible to manipulate wavefronts very accurately, the problem is calculating the wavefront quickly enough to render at video rates.

    • Close enough: holographic stereograms (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jab ( 9153 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @09:21PM (#4591683) Homepage
      I worked as an undergrad in the MIT lab in the mid-1990's and probably the first thing I did was break the holovideo system. I had no idea that the tip of a soldering iron is electrically grounded; I touched it to a live wire and promptly sent the power supply up in smoke and very nearly fried some custom wirewrap circuit boards. Fortunately, I wasn't fired (thanks Steve!) and I learned a lot about holography over the next few years. While I don't work on holograms today, that early exposure to research was invaluable and convinced me to pursue a career in image processing. [parc.com]

      The MIT holovideo system does compute interference patterns, which are used to diffract light. It's the real deal in terms of focusing light in the right place. A lot of math techniques are used to reduce the computation, but the important part is there - directing light in the right places.

      I don't know what's changed over the last half decade or so, but "way back then" there was one main difference between the holovideo system and traditional holograms. For holovideo, the diffraction patterns were calculated from a whole bunch of 2-D computer graphic images (i.e. the view from each angle) rather than a real live 3-D object. Perceptually, there is no significant difference between a holographic stereogram and a hologram, as long as enough viewing angles are used. But from a technical standpoint the creation technique is different -- so it has a different name.

      By the way, one of the biggest annoyances was showing off the state-of-the-art holovideo system or still holograms to visitors, and having people consistantly say "Wow, those holograms look really bad." Everyone just assumed we'd at least be as good as Princess Leia in Star Wars; after all that movie was made decades ago, right?

      • That's really cool that you had the opportunity to work on holovideo with Prof. Benton. Even though I'm currently in graduate school somewhere else, it's a secret hope in the back of my mind to do my doctoral studies at MIT on holovideo.

        As for the folks complaining about the image quality of holovideo, they need to be a little more forward-thinking. The image quality will improve as the efficiency and speed of computing the holographic elements improves. The first raster displays probably looked pretty crummy, too, but they've obviously improved a lot over the years.
    • Take a look at the MIT group's page: Spatial Imaging Group [mit.edu]

      They're working on both specialized LCD displays and actual holographic displays (and all of the problems entailed)

    • Did you read the article? The first MIT research project described (Mark II Holographics Video) in fact renders a real hologram: "At its core are the basic steps of creating a standard hologram: A laser beam is split in two. [...] Instead of light and mirrors, Benton and his team use specially developed computer algorithms. The algorithms calculate the kinds of microscopic lines necessary for a certain hologram, convert them into sound waves, and then send the waves into a stack of tellurium-oxide crystals that have the unique property of distorting temporarily when sound waves pass through them. That distortion forms the microscopic lines of the diffraction pattern that make up a hologram. A laser beam passing through that pattern conveys the image from the crystals to a view screen". The article has a diagram depicting this.
    • The first one mentioned is bona-fide hologram. The diffraction pattern is not obtained by reference beam interference as in classical holograms, but computed from the wave equation, and then constructed in an acoustic-optical crystal.
      The other technologies are not true holograms as you've obeserved.

  • Jesus ... get SOMETHING right (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 03, 2002 @08:07PM (#4591380)
    • These aren't holograms. It's stereoscopic vision.
    • Remember "virtual boy" ? Sega's 3D glasses? How about "same thing".
    Soon we'll be up to the level of technology from 1995.

  • Speaking of Holodecks... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ffatTony ( 63354 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @08:18PM (#4591414)

    Maybe the holodeck is not that far away !

    Speaking of Holodecks: If you could live out any fantasy in such an environment, would you bother to come back to the real world? As soon as holodecks are created I predict society as we know it will end as everyone will be so utterly absorbed in the fantasy finding it probaby better than real life.

  • Target Marketing (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @08:45PM (#4591531) Journal

    Did anyone else check out the 3D Volumetric Display at Actuality Systems [actuality-systems.com]? Very, very cool stuff.

    Their marketing department also seems to realize the average consumer will use this for 3D pr0n, as their Photographs page [actuality-systems.com] takes special care to include a "last but not least" shot of "[The] pelvic region of female anatomy."

    w00t! :-)

    • Re:Target Marketing (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Cheesy. Looks cool until you realize its just a spinning disk on the inside.
      • Realized it, still think it's cool, still wish I had thought if it being that simple about oh 10 years ago....
        • Actually, the technology is over 10 years old.
          I remember reading an article in Byte Magazine in the early '80s (before it became crappy), where someone hooked a spinning mirror up to an oscilloscope, producing 3-D vector graphics.
          (He had it hooked up to an oscilloscope because graphic CRT displays were not yet available for the average consumer.)
  • ... when Larry Flynt starts pumping money into R&D.

  • Duplicate article, duplicate discussion (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hal-9001 ( 43188 ) on Sunday November 03, 2002 @11:11PM (#4592124) Homepage Journal
    A few points:
    • This article was already posted on Slashdot [slashdot.org] just two weeks ago.
    • Both times, the story poster focused on the stereoscopic display being developed at NYU instead of the much more ambitious (and much cooler, IMHO) holographic display being developed at MIT.
    • Just because something looks 3D doesn't mean it's a hologram, i.e. the stereoscopic display is not a holographic display.
    • Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. The stereoscopic display has the advantage of requiring less computation and viewer selectivity. It has the disadvantage of the complication of viewer tracking, and it requires that a separate image be rendered for each viewer. The holographic display has the advantage of being a true three-dimensional image--you can move your head to see the object at different angles without re-rendering, and a single rendered image can be viewed by multiple viewers. The disadvantage is that rendering a holographic is very computation-intensive, and most of the information rendered in a holographic image is not seen by the viewer.
  • for more retarded skateboard news: skateboardingsucks.com [skateboardingsucks.com]
    (no, it is not an anti skateboarding site)
  • Banzai!

    We should make sure, that nobody runs some sort of 'Sherlock Holmes' programs on those things... It will go nuts and try to take over the ship... er... computer, ..world whatever... Then we will have all sorts of photonic life forms running around, fighting for their rights...

  • 3D without glasses? yeah, saw it 2 years ago at the Detroit Auto Show. Ford had what looked to be a 6-foot long x 3-foot high flat-panel that was displaying a 3D image. No glasses, opaque, full color, animating airflow. Freaked the hell out of me. I believe the Ford displays are mentioned in the article on the first page...

    .. So, why is everyone crying pipe dream / vaporware? Slashdot makes Insta-Experts? I couldn't have imagined.

  • The so-called "desktop metaphor" of today's workstations is instead an
    "airplane-seat" metaphor. Anyone who has shuffled a lap full of papers
    while seated between two portly passengers will recognize the difference --
    one can see only a very few things at once.
    -- Fred Brooks

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close