3D Visualization Moves Forward

Chris writes "Showing for the first time at the Society for Information Display (SID) conference in Boston was a three-dimensional display with 100 million volume pixels or "voxels". The Perspecta is a hardware and software combination that projects 3D images inside a 500 mm transparent spherical dome. Images 250 mm in diameter can be seen from a full 360 degrees without goggles, allowing the viewer to walk around the image. It can be used to visualize protein structures and to plan surgical and radiation treatment by locating the exact position of a tumour on an x-ray or mammogram. It could also be used in air traffic control, prototype designing and security scanning of luggage. Perspecta uses Texas Instruments' digital light processor technology and a spinning projection screen, which sweeps the sphere." We've done some previous stories about this globe from Actuality Systems. The trend seems to be toward simulating 3D with high-resolution flat screens, though.

Comments

Sweeet

[ZaneMcAuley]

Now if only they can get it larger than a snow globe.

Used in security scanning of luggage?

[Gannoc]

I read that, and smelled something fishy. That was almost certainly some marketing moron's idea to mention, since I really doubt the company spent years to develop a hugely expensive three dimensional display in order to SCREEN LUGGAGE.

I despise any company that twists the truth to take advantage of people's fears.

"voxels".

[SkulkCU]

In case you were wondering, the term for 'the need to create new words and catchphrases' is "stupid".

Re:"voxels".

[DataPath]

the term voxel is hardly new. I recall reading about 3d projections and displays and them using the term "voxel" in association with them close to 12 years ago. And it's not any stupider than calling a 3d square a "cube."

Re:Aaaaaand, why bother.

[Riskable]

Ahh, "cross your eyes". Therein lies the problem. You see, there are millions of people all over the world that don't see perfectly out of both eyes. I am one of these people (legally blind in one eye). To us, steroescopic images like the ones you describe will never be more than a blurred picture or static on the screen.

Also, the angle of view on stereoscopic images is usually very limited. Technologies such as this get around that problem by projecting the image onto a curved surface which provides for more of a "true" 3d-look.

The real benefit of technolgy such as this is that we're one step closer to the 3D "JAWS" shark that Marty McFly encounters in Back To The Future 2 =)

curse of dimensionality...

[aseen]

100 millions sounds big, but you have to take the cube-root of this to get the resolution in one axis - a whopping 465. In 2D, this is like a 465x465 display; not terribly exciting. This is the "curse of dimensionality" volume graphics needs to deal with.

Re:Aaaaaand, why bother.

[sab39]

There are only two cues the human brain has to perceive 3 dimensions. One is the relative size of an object, assuming you have some idea how big it should appear at a given distance--focusing your vision is a part of this aspect as well.

The other is the slight difference in image perceived by each eye--called retinal disparity.

Uh, no. There's (at least) one other:

The way the view you're seeing changes as you move your head from side to side and/or up and down.

I'm guessing, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't the reason why most basketball players seem to deliberately bend at the knee (moving their head up and down) before shooting a free throw. Stereoscopic vision doesn't help you perceive how far away a horizontal line is.

For people blind in one eye, I imagine that moving the head becomes much more important as a depth cue. And this system provides that, where stereo images don't.

Totally different technologies

[SeanAhern]

The trend seems to be toward simulating 3D with high-resolution flat screens, though.

These are completely different technologies. The first is an "actual" 3D display. The voxels have a true location in 3D space, for instance. People can view it from any angle with no equipment.

The second appears to be just a large screen. People wear shutter or polarized glasses to send different images to the left and right eyes.

While the second techology is great, especially for high-resolution display to a single person, it really is annoying when used with multiple people with different locations in space.

Since there is only one set (left and right) images on the flat screen, only one viewpoint can be chosen. If a group of people is sufficiently far from the screen, or sufficiently close together in the room, it's fine. But if you let the people wander around the room, you start getting perspective problems that really make collaborative viewing troublesome.

I have a feeling that we will be seeing voxel-based visualization like the one mentioned in this post more and more often. It's just more natural to use.

As someone who is in the field of high-resolution scientific visualization (that's me on the left), I certainly hope that technology will move in this direction.

Re:Aaaaaand, why bother.

[Wraithlyn]

Reading your comment made me wonder if when they were developing CRTs for computer displays, somebody said: "Aaaaaand, why bother developing this in the first place, when we can just display computer output on a line printer, without using any specialized hardware? I fail to see how spending $20,000 for a bleeding edge 'display screen' makes more sense than outputting to paper, which most packages are capable of doing nowadays anyway."

I'm sorry, but I can't help but view this type of argument as anything other than anti-progressive and monumentally shortsighted. I for one (and I know I'm not alone) have never found the "cross-eyed" technique comfortable or intuitive, and even when it works, the resulting depth perception is nowhere near as good as looking at a real object. A true volumetric 3d display would drastically improve the user visualization experience. You want surgeons to rely on crossing their eyes to accurately perceive a high resolution model of your brain when performing surgery? Obviously, it's not as economical as using a stereogram, but it also won't cost $20K forever either. Does it "make more sense"??? In the long run, absolutely.