[HN Gopher] High-resolution holographic interface [video]
___________________________________________________________________
High-resolution holographic interface [video]
Author : danboarder
Score : 54 points
Date : 2021-07-14 17:54 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lookingglassfactory.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (lookingglassfactory.com)
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| I don't understand these units. It says the display is "7680px x
| 4320px". Shouldn't there be a third dimension? Or is it
| displaying 2D images with a depth indicator (i.e. no pixel can be
| directly in front of another pixel)?
| Miraste wrote:
| They use a single standard display with advanced optics to send
| light from columns of pixels in different horizontal
| directions. You can see here
|
| https://docs.lookingglassfactory.com/keyconcepts/quilts
|
| the format it uses to display still images. The 8K version is 5
| by 9 for 45 separate angles, giving a 3D resolution of
| 864x864x45(horizontal). As somebody else said, it's not really
| a voxel because the 3d effect is technically a trick and
| doesn't work on other axes.
|
| If you think 864p seems low for a 32" display, that's because
| it is - I've seen these in person and they have terrible pixel
| density. They're still very cool, though. 3D without glasses or
| a headset is impressive.
| nomel wrote:
| There aren't voxels, so you can't represent the depth in a
| simple quantized way. You can use VR for a similar example.
| Each eye gets its own perspective as an image at some
| resolution. 3d comes from your eyes relating the pixels in each
| image. Sure, there's a minimum angular resolution for each
| pixel, so there's a minimum resolving power for the depth, but
| you the end up with a bunch of rays rather than bounded boxes,
| with the resolution depending on things like the convergence of
| your eyes.
|
| This case is similar, with how close you are also affecting
| things.
| jjk166 wrote:
| It says No. of Views: 42-100, but it uses 2 display ports each
| capable of 7680x4320, which suggests it takes just two images
| and interpolates between them.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I think it works like a lenticular - the 3d only works
| horizontally (because our eyes are on that plane). So the 7680
| pixel resolution is divided into pixels being sent in a variety
| of directions to create the depth.
|
| We have one at work and it's quite cool. But also quite small
| even though we have what was previously the large one.
| TheCoreh wrote:
| There is some sort of film on top of the display that allows
| "selecting" pixels based on viewing angle. This is not unlike
| those 3D postcards that were a fad some time ago, or the
| Nintendo 3DS, only a much more sophisticated version of that.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Wouldn't it be great to get real holographic interfaces and
| displays? Not things that are only called "holographic".
|
| To be fair, I do like 3d displays and interfaces but I really
| don't like the indiscriminate use of the term "holographic".
| Those that have seen real synthetic holograms will know how
| amazing they can look.
| [deleted]
| timhrothgar wrote:
| If anyone is interested in creating holographic technology with
| us, we're hiring! https://lookingglassfactory.com/careers
| soco wrote:
| Maybe I'll have again one day a 3D TV set... even though I didn't
| like much the glasses, I really miss watching 3D movies at home.
| And this one promises 3D without glasses!
| codezero wrote:
| I somewhat miss the novelty of the 3d camera+screen on my old
| HTC android phone. It's a fun nice-to-have but there wasn't
| enough media that worked with it except what you recorded,
| which also wasn't the best thing to watch in 3D :)
| rtkwe wrote:
| That's always an issue with new media tech. The same chicken
| and egg thing existed when 720 and later 1080+ TVs were
| released, there was practically nothing to watch on them at
| first. I think 3D has more issues to deal with than 3D but if
| there's TVs out there in large numbers the media will
| probably follow.
| toast0 wrote:
| I'm 98% sure they stopped making 3d tvs, so you can't find
| a 2019-2021 3d tv; although I think some current model
| projectors might be capable.
|
| I don't think there were enough sales to encourage enough
| media production to encourage sustainable sales to
| encourage continued display manufacturing. I'm biased
| because I wear glasses and wearing two sets of glasses is a
| negative experience anyway. The many different incompatible
| glasses made it unlikely to find prescription lenses with
| the right filters to make it possible to wear a single pair
| to see the screen and get stereo vision, so I was always
| going to hate it.
| sethammons wrote:
| I actually enjoyed Avatar in 3d at home. My wife? Not so much.
| As a family we may have watched it that way twice. Since then,
| the 3d glasses have sat in a drawer.
| thamer wrote:
| 8K device... demo video is in 1080p.
|
| I realize that this 2D video is not showing _exactly_ what you 'd
| see with this special interface, but it does feature panning
| scenes where objects show 3D relief - presumably as a way to
| simulate the 3D effect that this device is capable of.
|
| On a large high-resolution screen this looks blurry and low-res,
| not really a great demo for an 8K display.
| Miraste wrote:
| It is blurry and low-res, it's 8K across 45 different views
| that it renders simultaneously. There _is_ an 8K screen in
| there, but when you look at it you will only see ~850p at a
| time.
| brink wrote:
| As I understand it, this isn't a true holograph; it's just a very
| convincing imitation by rendering the image from two perspectives
| every few degrees and displays it on a high-res display that
| pipes it through a prism to use refraction to create an optical
| illusion trick.
|
| The marketing isn't very clear about that. Still very cool
| product, tho.
| asxd wrote:
| Can anyone provide a basic description of how this technology
| works? It certainly sounds amazing.
| nimazeighami wrote:
| It's 100 year old technology called a lenticular film that's
| bonded to a high resolution display.
|
| Making a lenticular film that small is tough but not rocket
| science. The software is doing most of the magic interlacing
| the images properly.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| My senior year of high-school I made a similar display. I
| purchased a lenticular screen, coated it, and modified a
| projector to make a much smaller image than intended.
| Alignment was tough, but I ended up with about 4" of useful
| horizontal space with a fairly narrow viewing angle.
|
| There really isn't any magic, it's just a _lot_ of pixels to
| push. I was able to do a Utah Teapot to 2 views at 400x600 on
| a 100MHz 486 (it was an 800x600 projector).
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's not rocket science, it's laser science.
| mikewarot wrote:
| The 3d input is transformed into a series of 45 views. At any
| point you're looking at on the screen, you're seeing one of
| those views with your left eye, and a different view with your
| right eye. The optics to do this kind of thing have been around
| for a while in one dimension. They seem to have a much higher
| resolution display with all these tiles in it, multiplexed, and
| driven by a custom display processor.
|
| I expect the price to stay high, and this not to become a
| consumer purchase.
| E-Reverance wrote:
| This looks great for if you want multiple people viewing
| something, but I wonder why these [1] single person holograms
| never took off.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
| vernie wrote:
| Sony recently launched a product based on this concept:
| https://electronics.sony.com/spatial-reality-display/p/elfsr...
| nomel wrote:
| Those single person "holograms" aren't 3d. They offer a
| perspective shift that tracks a single point on your head, and
| look great in video, or with one eye closed, but are 2d when
| viewed with the eyes. For 3d, you need to give each eye a
| different perspective.
|
| These holograms are 3d, since each eye is presented with an
| image that matches its own perspective.
| E-Reverance wrote:
| Good point. Although if you combine this with 3D TVs, then
| you basically get a single person hologram, right?
| [deleted]
| rtkwe wrote:
| Only for one person though which isn't a great thing for
| TVs which generally have more than one person watching.
| Also the tracking is a bit of an issue, you'd have to wear
| a little headset to accurately track your head when they
| were released. Now you could maybe get away with using a
| camera for tracking but now you've got the privacy worries
| of that happening.
| tootie wrote:
| I got to play with a dev kit IRL and they are super impressive up
| close. The images have real depth and the development environment
| is standard Unity with just an HDMI out to the display. That
| being said, the usable field of view is not 180, it's narrower
| than that. And after building a few nifty demos, we put it on a
| shelf and never figured out a way to make it useful or
| interesting.
| thechao wrote:
| I played with the great grandfather of this device -- a black &
| white ~4" LCD, the size of a pizza box, attached to a 286
| luggable. It was cool ... but the killer feature is being able
| to rotate the data -- our eyes are still 2D.
|
| Turns out, I can rotate data on a regular old monitor.
|
| If there was a version with 180deg FOV, on a table, it'd be a
| great gaming table, but the market is ... niche?
| ipsum2 wrote:
| Pedantic correction: our eyes are not "2d", depth perception
| is a thing. That's why VR hardware is still years/decades
| away from replicating the real thing. More info:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception
| tracedddd wrote:
| What are we missing? I thought VR hardware specifically
| took advantage of binocular vision so that it gave depth
| perception.
| Miraste wrote:
| The biggest component that VR doesn't have is a way of
| simulating focal distances. Current VR headsets focus at
| a fixed distance of about 2 meters, which makes reading
| and examining close objects difficult and causes distant
| ones to appear flat and unreal. The world lacks part of
| what lets us see depth. Facebook has very impressive
| prototypes that solve this [0], but so far they've been
| unwilling or unable to manufacture them at scale.
|
| VR headsets are also severely lacking in brightness and
| color depth compared to reality or even modern TVs, and
| they could always use more angular resolution, wider
| viewing angles, and higher refresh rates.
|
| [0] https://uploadvr.com/half-dome-3-prime-time/
| Lorin wrote:
| You should let a local hacklab borrow it, might as well get
| people experimenting with it instead of collecting dust :)
| davidivadavid wrote:
| Wasn't the dream of holographic displays to get _rid_ of screens?
| I mean, granted, that 's sci-fi, but the marginal improvement of
| depth _inside_ a screen seems minimal at best?
| hexsprite wrote:
| I'm sure it's awesome, but watching their marketing video it's
| not obvious that it's worth $15k.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-14 23:00 UTC)