Slashdot Mirror

Indeed. After further research, I agree. My understanding of the tech was incorrect. Still, I maintain that the technology is merely clever 2D rather than actual 3D. According to the patent (6,554,430):

Thanks for the correction though. A better overview of the system is available here

Your numbers assume they are rendering the WHOLE 3D image every frame...? It is more likely the computer renders a 2D slice of the image, then kicks it over to this thing at 15 fps. Not exactly difficult and no where near 5GB/s.
Whitepaper here

Based on the actual product's website, I think this is a way cool device with some Pros and some Cons.

Pros:
Looks really neat. Seems right out of sci fi.
Could really be useful, especially with med imaging.

Cons:
Too small
Too expensive
Glass sphere seems too glossy and reflective.
apparently only 'glowy', translucent, laser-light-like images can be produced.
Big spinning piece inside: wear and tear? noise factor?

How does it work? A spinning screen, must be transparent I guess... what's the sci-fi sphere for?

http://www.actuality-systems.com/index.php/actuali ty/products/photo_gallery

You'll find the company here:

Actuality Systems.

Johann,

Why don't you check out Actuality's products? The display isn't gigantic, but I remember it being pretty convincing.

Just go ahead and look at an LCD approach. You'll agree. Ew.

OK, I think I tracked down the polarized-light approach to 3D that was unambiguously fantastic. See here.

--Dan

Really, the only display tech that really blew me away used dual rear projectors that fed back into one another to achieve alignment, then emitted polarized light onto a single screen. With very light and simple glasses, the effect was utterly seamless.

I vaguely remember the spinning display approach also worked.

I found some info on the web about 3D projectors for use with polarised glasses as well as a spinning display a while back. Are these the ones you are talking about? This website has a lot of information about 3D displays and technology if you're interested.

Ok, I'm not as religous a microsoft hater as many here, but is there ANY good reason to have this run on XP?

You'll find a lot of exotic computer gadgets you find on the net tend to use Windows. I presume it's simply because it's probably cheaper to develop for just one platform, and they choose to use the most common one. Here are some examples of fancy displays and input devices I've found on the net...

• Autostereo displays
• Panoram Technologies
• Elumens Corporation
• Actuality Systems (site seems like it's down at the moment)
• Sensable Technologies
• Polhemus.com
• Ascension Technologies

Some of their products may be compatible with other operating systems, but most I looked at have a Windows bias.

I'm left wondering what the grandparent meant with 'true 3D display'

Well, there are volumetric and autostereo displays which could be adequate.

Well, not a true hologram but a great 3D display that you can walk around from all sides: http://www.actuality-systems.com/

I saw something else at SIGGRAPH a couple of years ago - a 3d Spatial Visualization Monitor of sorts.

Actuality Systems, Inc. came up with something called Perspecta 3D, which will allow 3d spatial visualization of things, but contained in a nice bubble of sorts.

You can see some of their gallery images.

It was really cool, and I think that something like that is a lot more likely to become commonplace than other 3d display techniques.

But it's probably going to be very, very expensive initially.

I saw something else at SIGGRAPH a couple of years ago - a 3d Spatial Visualization Monitor of sorts.

Actuality Systems, Inc. came up with something called Perspecta 3D, which will allow 3d spatial visualization of things, but contained in a nice bubble of sorts.

You can see some of their gallery images.

It was really cool, and I think that something like that is a lot more likely to become commonplace than other 3d display techniques.

But it's probably going to be very, very expensive initially.

I think you're thinking of the system from Actuality. Or at least I was thinking of them when I saw this. ;)

5. 3 dimensional display as a transparent globe that we look into to view projected images. This would allow 3-D viewing, and would vastly assist all manner of medical and engineering processes

Already done

Urr.. can I get my $1M now? :)

Huh, and I thought it was Mass-uh-chew-sits...

Anyway, an AC below already gave a link to the offical site (Actuality Systems) they do have a gallery, but there are some more images here, the text is in russian but there are about 15 pictures of this device.

So then, something like this? It's not exactly table sized, but you can still view a 3D image from any angle.

Here is a spatial 3D display that isn't a flat screen.

Check this out if you want a 3D display for protein structures.

Like these guys' website...

No, the Actuality display (Perspecta) uses projectors too. But the difference is that in Perspecta parts of the optics (some mirrors) move with the screen. Effectively it's like the projector is whizzing around as fast as the screen is, so that the projector is always at the perfect angle to project on the screen.

With the Hitachi display, there appear to be 24 fixed optical paths rather than one continuously varying path that tracks with the screen. So most of the time the Hitachi's spinning screen will be projected onto by a projector that's at a slightly wrong angle. As the screen sweeps through the 15 degree arc that corresponds to one optical path, the image will be first have a slight perspective/keystone distortion in one direction, then it will be correct for one slight fraction of a section, then it will proceed to become keystoned in the opposite direction. The result: smeary 3D images, and more smeary the further you get from the central axis of the volume.

That is unfortunate for this kind of display because the central axis is bad for viewing to begin with. The center axis is always dim because a significant fraction of the sweep time you're looking at the screen nearly edge-on, so the optimal part of the viewing volume is the off-axis part. But with Hitachi's display it seems like you will have dimness in the center axis, and smearing off axis. No sweet spots at all.

But I could be wrong, the Hitachi folk could possibly be pre-warping the images to correct for the keystoning as the screen sweeps past, but I doubt it, based on the video, and based on the update rate required of the projector to do that. Maybe it's on their to-do list, though.

I just wonder how they're going to avoid all of Actuality's patents.

It does look similar to Actuality's system. But it seems to have much lower resolution. Take a look at the video someone posted in this message.
It's really really smeary, almost to the point that the subject is unrecognizable.

From the spec sheet you can see Actuality's display does 198 slices of the volume compared to Hitachi's 24, and each slice is 768x768 resolution, compared to whatever Hitachi does. Just guessing, but assuming they Hitachi splits one projector frame up into 24 subframes (which it looks like they do because the schematics seem to indicate fixed optics), and generously assuming no wasted pixels, that comes to something like 213x256 resoultion per view, assuming they start with a 1280x1024 projector. So the frame resoulution is also a good bit lower than Actuality's.

Also looking at the vid of the Hitachi, and how smeary the images are, it almost makes me think they are projecting ALL 24 images ALL the time rather than blanking all but the two projecting most perpendicular to the screen. Or maybe it's smeary because they're using the same image for 15 degree chunks (360/24), compared to Actuality's 1.8 degrees (360/198). Or it could just be an artifact introduced by the video camera.

The other big difference is you can actually buy a display from Actuality today -- if you have $39,995. :-)

It does look similar to Actuality's system. But it seems to have much lower resolution. Take a look at the video someone posted in this message.
It's really really smeary, almost to the point that the subject is unrecognizable.

From the spec sheet you can see Actuality's display does 198 slices of the volume compared to Hitachi's 24, and each slice is 768x768 resolution, compared to whatever Hitachi does. Just guessing, but assuming they Hitachi splits one projector frame up into 24 subframes (which it looks like they do because the schematics seem to indicate fixed optics), and generously assuming no wasted pixels, that comes to something like 213x256 resoultion per view, assuming they start with a 1280x1024 projector. So the frame resoulution is also a good bit lower than Actuality's.

Also looking at the vid of the Hitachi, and how smeary the images are, it almost makes me think they are projecting ALL 24 images ALL the time rather than blanking all but the two projecting most perpendicular to the screen. Or maybe it's smeary because they're using the same image for 15 degree chunks (360/24), compared to Actuality's 1.8 degrees (360/198). Or it could just be an artifact introduced by the video camera.

The other big difference is you can actually buy a display from Actuality today -- if you have $39,995. :-)

It looks more like the system from Actuality Systems. I am guessing it works by spinning a 180 degree screw shaped structure really quickly, and getting the timing right so you can project onto any point in space...

(Oh, that's what I get when I accidentally hit the Enter key....)

Anyway... :-) ... I meant to post a nice link to Actuality Systems. Their site has neat closeup color pictures of their system which works on the same technology as this Hitachi system, and which has been working since at least 2002; Hitachi has done nothing new, and from the specs that I can make out, their system actually seems to operate at a far lower resolution than Actuality's.

Basically its just layers of projected images, spinning around to give the impression of volume. Still really neat though.

Note: I am sure it was nowhere near as simple as I have explained, but I believe the concept is correct.

here is the working link

actuality systems true 3d 360 degree viewable display

I remember reading about that. A bit of Googling turned up Actuality Systems as the company behind it. However, one look at the price shows that it's a bit out of reach for the average consumer, at almost $40,000.

I remember reading about that. A bit of Googling turned up Actuality Systems as the company behind it. However, one look at the price shows that it's a bit out of reach for the average consumer, at almost $40,000.

...are wonderful things. Too bad that the mentioned holographic keypads are nothing more than patented science fiction.

If I had money, baby, I'd create a star just for you

"To obtain high-resolution photos of HoloTouch in action, visit http://www.holotouch.biz/pressroom.htm."

Yeah, but does either of them have 3 Gbit DDR SDRAM for 360 degree autostereoscopic 3D viewing? I think not...

I quote the Resolution / Color / Performance / Memory specifications of the Perspecta 3D, which is available from Actuality Systems.

- Volume comprised of 198 2-D slices (1.1 slices / degree)
- Approximately 768 x 768 pixel slice resolution
- 24 Hz volume refresh
- Full color (21-bit hardware-based stippling)
- 8 colors at highest resolution
- Polygons / sec.: To be announced
- Dual volume buffers
- TI(TM) 1600 MIPS DSP high-performance embedded processor
- 3 Gbit DDR SDRAM (100 Mvoxels x 3 colors x 2 buffers)

Granted, there are only 8 colors available at high resolution, but it points out the fact that 3D graphics cards and monitors have a long way to go yet. I don't mean to be a troll, but I get rather pissed-off when these video card manufacturers, with their planned-obselesence, talk about their latest-and-greatest "3D" video cards. Please; these are pseudo-3D video cards; and if you've worked with a stereoscopic video system (virtual reality system) or an autostereoscopic video system (3D television system), you'll know what I mean...

(Granted, I only got to work with this kind of technology for a couple of months in college, so I'm not an expert on this stuff... still, I know stereo3D from pseudo3D when I see it...)

Yeah, but does either of them have 3 Gbit DDR SDRAM for 360 degree autostereoscopic 3D viewing? I think not...

I quote the Resolution / Color / Performance / Memory specifications of the Perspecta 3D, which is available from Actuality Systems.

- Volume comprised of 198 2-D slices (1.1 slices / degree)
- Approximately 768 x 768 pixel slice resolution
- 24 Hz volume refresh
- Full color (21-bit hardware-based stippling)
- 8 colors at highest resolution
- Polygons / sec.: To be announced
- Dual volume buffers
- TI(TM) 1600 MIPS DSP high-performance embedded processor
- 3 Gbit DDR SDRAM (100 Mvoxels x 3 colors x 2 buffers)

Granted, there are only 8 colors available at high resolution, but it points out the fact that 3D graphics cards and monitors have a long way to go yet. I don't mean to be a troll, but I get rather pissed-off when these video card manufacturers, with their planned-obselesence, talk about their latest-and-greatest "3D" video cards. Please; these are pseudo-3D video cards; and if you've worked with a stereoscopic video system (virtual reality system) or an autostereoscopic video system (3D television system), you'll know what I mean...

(Granted, I only got to work with this kind of technology for a couple of months in college, so I'm not an expert on this stuff... still, I know stereo3D from pseudo3D when I see it...)

Yeah, but does either of them have 3 Gbit DDR SDRAM for 360 degree autostereoscopic 3D viewing? I think not...

I quote the Resolution / Color / Performance / Memory specifications of the Perspecta 3D, which is available from Actuality Systems.

- Volume comprised of 198 2-D slices (1.1 slices / degree)
- Approximately 768 x 768 pixel slice resolution
- 24 Hz volume refresh
- Full color (21-bit hardware-based stippling)
- 8 colors at highest resolution
- Polygons / sec.: To be announced
- Dual volume buffers
- TI(TM) 1600 MIPS DSP high-performance embedded processor
- 3 Gbit DDR SDRAM (100 Mvoxels x 3 colors x 2 buffers)

Granted, there are only 8 colors available at high resolution, but it points out the fact that 3D graphics cards and monitors have a long way to go yet. I don't mean to be a troll, but I get rather pissed-off when these video card manufacturers, with their planned-obselesence, talk about their latest-and-greatest "3D" video cards. Please; these are pseudo-3D video cards; and if you've worked with a stereoscopic video system (virtual reality system) or an autostereoscopic video system (3D television system), you'll know what I mean...

(Granted, I only got to work with this kind of technology for a couple of months in college, so I'm not an expert on this stuff... still, I know stereo3D from pseudo3D when I see it...)

movies here

This looks awesome - in the picture as seen here Military its about the volume of my 19" monitor - if not slightly larger. This might not help us to be more productive in the office, but it certainly will help with graphic design.

Why no one linked to the photos is beyond me, but slashdot posts are well-known for poorly-placed/defined links. Anyway, here it is.

Supported under Linux according to this. I wonder if the drivers are open source (I doubt it.)

I remember first seeing something like this on Star Wars when I was kid ... now it's really happening. Life imitates art. ;)

http://www.actuality-systems.com/

Commence drooling: A 3D Volumetric display. Granted it's not exactly Trinitron quality, but this is a step in the right direction...

Did anyone else check out the 3D Volumetric Display at Actuality Systems? Very, very cool stuff.

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

w00t! :-)

Did anyone else check out the 3D Volumetric Display at Actuality Systems? Very, very cool stuff.

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

w00t! :-)

Here's what you want... Actuality Systems

i will go with a volumetric display any day of the week.

Contrary to what the Slashdot description implies, there's no real-time anything involved here.

Video game manufacturers have yet to realize how difficult it is for those with even slight red/green colorblindness to tell the difference between saturated yellow and saturated green. Super Puzzle Fighter is a perfect example.

Web designers are also bad. You know how often I've seen red text in front of a greenish background? Or cyan in front of white?

Even people like me who didn't realize that they had any color defiency until they started using computer and playing video games run into trouble when color is used to convey important information in the digital world.

3D is the same way. There are a sizable percentage of people who are "monocular" and thus are unable to use goggle or lenticular based 3D solutions.

Thats why we should all use:

www.actuality-systems.com

Stuart -

Just thought I'd jump in here. I'm one of the founders of the company.

The 3D display does not work in the manner you suggest. No imagery is projected onto the inside of the sphere. Rather, we project cross-sections of a 3D dataset onto a rotating projection screen. Each and every voxel exists at the (x,y,z) coordinate that you perceive it to be at.

The resolution is 768 x 768 x 198 because we project 198 cross-sections of the 3D data, at a resolution of 768 x 768 per slice.

-Gregg Favalora
Actuality Systems, Inc.

Everyone keeps saying that its resolution is about 464*464*464. It's not. Check the specs. It's 768*768 by 198 sections. The section facing you will have a resolution of 768*768, which isn't that bad. The four bit colour is a bit crap though. I look forward to watching where this tech goes. Looks cool.

Check out Actuality Systems

They support Linux!

There were many companies at SIGGRAPH with lenticular displays (ribbed lenses that give you different views when you move your head around). Members of my company actually saw this particular display at SID last year (Society for Information Displays). They were not impressed. This display works in a similar way to the lenticular displays, except the 3-D image is produced in a slightly different way. It has multiple - 2, in this case - LCD panels instead of a lens directing the light output in different directions.
There are several downsides to this technology:

- It only looks 3D if you are looking at it straight on and standing a certain distance from the display. This makes it difficult for several people to look at at a time.

- There is typically a very limited number of available "depths". This is because you are only showing 2 images at a time.

- In the case of this display you need a video card that has a dual monitor output and special software to take advantage of the display.

- Most lenticular displays have to trade off number of views with horizontal resolution. Thus, their resolution is usually rather poor compared to present day monitors.

The image is sort of like watching a 3-D movie - you know with the red/blue glasses. It sort of looks cool and is 3-D but probably not really useful for anything.
Also, the comment on their web page: "The world's first commercially available mult-dimensional monitors." is total bull.
There are *many* companies selling this technology.
Actuality Systems is one.
DMA is another that uses a similar system except with many layers of LCDs. In fact they have a patent on this technology. I wonder how ActualDepth will get away with it.
Just do a web search. You'll come up with a dozen companies selling flat-screen "3D"