Slashdot Mirror

Granted this project outgrew its modest high-school roots, but judging from the pictures the technology seems to be very similar.

Granted this project outgrew its modest high-school roots, but judging from the pictures the technology seems to be very similar.

heres how it works

This has actually been done, but using specially created crystals instead of a gas. Somehow when the two lasers hit the same point it causes the crystal to fluoresce. Unfortunately the process to create the crystals is extremely expensive and they were having a lot of trouble with the scan rates of the laser, iirc.

Here's a (apparently outdated) link:
http://www.vdivde-it.de/felix/english_solidfelix.h tml

I've read the posts to this thread and wanted to try and clear up a couple of things.

1. This is NOT a two-dimensional display. It creates images that are as "real" as any other object, although made of light (think "Death Star attack briefing" here).

2. This means, that you can perceive the dimensionality (is that a word?) of the displayed objects even if you are blind in one eye, are color-blind, have only one leg, don't like cats, etc.

3. No glasses or other viewing "helpers" are needed. Watch the screen, Luke...

4. This object works much like a traditional big-screen projecttion television...only the screen is rotating around the centerpoint of the globe at a considerable speed. The speed is fast enough that your eyes can't really see the screen, but can see the projected images.

5. This is NOT a new concept. The new thing about it is that it is the LARGEST commercially one available to date (large as far as resolution). I've personally seen versions of this display that are about 3 feet (~1 meter) around that use a matrix of LEDs on a rotating board. Same effect, really....older technology....not as good as this one. Here's one of the google returns for this design. Another design that has had a good amount of research is to create images using lasers shot onto a spinning helix or screw shape.

6. So far, resolution is the biggest hurdle. Next is refresh rate (it is, quite obviously tied to the rotation speed and to the speed and falloff of the light emmiting device (LED, Laser, phosphor, etc).

6. It really is amazing to see it in person. Don't knock it. It will be in more wide-spread use in the near future and will be a huge leap forward for certain tasks. Most people will never see one (except maybe in a science museum) and will never need to use one, though.

7. Using a wireless network, now you too can forward a holographic message from Obi-wan to the Senate! heh.

Blah de blah.

Semantics == information. Mine was accurate; it's yours that's degraded.

Z in graphics is depth. Period. Say "you know, Z is supposed to be up" to an old SGI hacker and he'll roll his eyes at you.

Doom was a reduced 3d, but it really was more 3d than 2d.

Yes I could shoot on an angle. I could shoot up and down (and autoaimed, at that!).

If it wasn't 3d, then how could I fire a rocket then run alongside it and see it from that side?

Sure there was a hack to render altitude, but it worked well enough that stairs were stairs, and elevators were elevators.

"Modern 3d" is only slightly more real 3d than Doom was. Walls and objects are still sprites, only they're wrapped and mapped around hollow cores, and called skins and texture maps. I'm sure you've spent hours trying to wedge Lara Croft into a tight corner and spin her around to get the camera inside her boobs.

2d-projected-3d, even if there's a full (x,y,z) model in the engine, is still just as 2d as Doom. The 3d model, again, only defers computation of the projection until runtime.

3d-projected-3d is so experimental that they're still trying mechanical solutions.

And real 3d doesn't have 3 degrees of freedom, it has 6. I may be able to swim under a bridge in Quake, but I still stand up straight every second, like a Dalek. A clever game designer like John Carmack took the DOF he had and made it feel as 3-D as anything that followed.

There's your revolution.

--Blair

P.S. Note how this argument zips around between 2.0 and 3.0 like a trapped fly. Current virtual reality models are more than 2d and less than 3d. They're on a fractal dimensionality between the two. I'm going to leave it at that.

I agree that field of view is very important for many applications, such as pharmaceutical design.

But rest assured, people are working on it...

This is a biased response -- our firm has developed (and is finishing up the next generation model) volumetric 3-D display with a 360-degree field of view: Actuality Systems

That is, the imagery takes up a real volume, and multiple people can walk around the display to see it from anywhere in the room. We even have a demo set up that lets you pick up a joystick and fly a helicopter over a moving terrain.

Anyhow, if you are interested in background information on 3-D displays in general, let me suggest: SIGGRAPH overview

and (by a team of students in Germany): Survey Article

-Gregg Favalora