Slashdot Mirror


Walk-thru Fog Screen

fluor2 writes "Ever wanted a screen floating in air? Two scientists, Ismo Rakkolainen and Karri Palovuori, both from Tampere University of Technology, Finland have come up with an idea. It is called the Walk-thru Fog Screen. The fog screen, consisting of 'fog' that is blown down from top, and the protective laminar airflow creates a thin and crisp surface, pretty undisturbed by the air in the rest of the room, making it ideal for projector usage. People can walk right through this screen of fog. Their next idea is to use the fog as a touch-screen, making it even more accessible." For a screen one can walk through, the image quality is better than I'd have thought.

13 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. repost.... by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Informative
    either I mistakenly set my sys clock back to last year or this is a repost.

    My god slashdot!! Can't you keep your stories straight?? If not SEARCH GOOGLE!!. That's how I found it again.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  2. Re:Video/mpeg confusions! by Doppler00 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I watched it, it's not worth downloading. It's just two geeks walking through a screen of fog. At one point one of them flaps his hands like he is a bird lol... maybe it is kind of funny.

    It's an interesting experiment anyways.

  3. Ars story by BigAl_nz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ars Technica story on the same thing.

    --
    --- There isn't any problem that can't be solved by a small, low yield nuclear device, is there??
  4. i saw it at siggraph last week by plagiarist · · Score: 5, Informative

    i saw it at siggraph last week in san diego. the wall of fog was not really very thick - though it did seem to be more transparent than and not as bright as it appears in the videos and stills on the site. it was still pretty cool and people seemed duly impressed, but i didn't think it was quite as convincing as a picture plane as it looks on the website.

    as for noise - i don't recall it being noisy... it may not have made any noise at all. then again, the siggraph emerging technologies space is pretty noisy itself, so it may have made some sound that i didn't notice.

  5. Open-standards video by mccalli · · Score: 4, Informative
    When creating video clips like this, what is so HARD about using an open, well established standard that everyone (including the few % not running M$ media player) can use?

    Quite a lot, as it happens. The main hassle being that there aren't any well established open standards that provide decent compression rates. At least, if there are then I'd be grateful for people enlightening me

    I had to put video up on my site - I chose MPEG 1 at first because everyone could view it, but eventually the file sizes started getting huge and I had to switch to something else. ISO MP4 can't be played by MS WMP, Divx and what have you can't be played without installing additional software on client machines...what to pick?

    In the end, I chose .wmv for a while. Seemed to give the best picture quality/file size trade-off. However, since then I've bought myself a Powerbook so all future things will be Quicktime.

    Honestly - if anyone knows a format that can be played on out-of-the-box Windows, OS X and common Linux distros without the installation of any extra software, I'd love to hear about it.

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. Re:Open-standards video by mccalli · · Score: 2, Informative
      ...You didn't choose divx because it required additional software...Wmv can ONLY be played in windows,...WMP can't play quicktime

      That was my point - none of the choices available fit the bill. Original poster asked what was hard about putting up standards-compliant video, and my answer is that there's no one file format that plays on all clients and still produces a decent file size/performance trade-off. I've just picked the easiest one for me to work with and stuck with that.

      What was wrong with divx again? Or the open XviD for that matter...

      Extra client software required. The aim is to get a file that plays on the three major OSes in their out-of-the-box configurations. So far, I've not found any format that fits the bill other than MPEG 1, and the file sizes that produces are unacceptably large.

      Cheers,
      Ian

  6. No holographs for you by SoVi3t · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't care how much you whine and cry, this won't be making any Star Wars style holographs. You could project a 2D image onto it, but a full 3D image (viewable from all angles), would likely be impossible. How would you manage to project images into all the crevices and such, and also how would you hold the fog in a specific shape?

    --
    Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
  7. Inspired by Last Starfighter? by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

    In The Last Starfighter , Alex Rogan's mentor "Grig" described the technology used for displaying their heads up display.

    Basically he said it was produced by projecting images onto a field of xeon gas. (Or something along those lines. Anyone care to refresh my memory?)

    Seems to me like these guys got their inspiration from the movies. :)

  8. Not Smoke, Fog... by virg_mattes · · Score: 4, Informative

    > Wonder if you're able to breath in the room when this smoke is there for a couple of hours.

    It's not smoke, it's fog. The difference is that it's not going to hang around after it leaves the laminar airflow, because it's opaque vaporized stuff (fog), not particles suspended in air (smoke). There are lots of materials that one can use to create non-persistent fog that isn't water vapor, much like the fog used in nightclubs. It'll just dissipate when it gets out of the laminar airflow.

    Virg

    1. Re:Not Smoke, Fog... by NichG · · Score: 2, Informative

      The difference between fog and water vapor is that in fog, the water has formed small droplets of fluid which are suspended in the air, as opposed to a uniform mixture of water and air (or pure water vapor in extreme cases). Those droplets scatter light, and you get an opaque screen. However, those droplets convert to water vapor as long as the humidity isn't near saturation for that temperature, and the fog dissipates. Water vapor does not have to be at 100C (or even 100F) ; 100C is the point at which the vapor state dominates, but you get a fraction of vapor supported at lower temperatures (the vapor pressure of a substance).

      If you used water in the machine, the simple solution would be to keep the room's humidity low, so that the fog dissipates more quickly. Either way, damage to the people in the room would be no worse than breathing the air on a foggy day.

      NichG

  9. Major old technology by rjw57 · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you cast your mind back to the 'hologram' in the Captains cabin in the original Seaquest DSV, that used /exactly/ this technology.

    --
    Rich
  10. Re:Great for firearms training by ptbarnett · · Score: 3, Informative
    This vapor+projector equipment must be way-way cheaper than cardboard used today.

    There are systems in use today that are used to train police (and others) in live-fire simulations. A string of photoelectric sensors line the top/bottom and sides of the screen, allowing the system to identify the impact point.

    However, the system typically uses a thin plastic screen for projection of the video image, which deteriorates after use. This system would be a good replacement for it, although I don't know how long it would take to break-even on the costs.

    In Dallas, you can see and use one:

    http://www.dfwgun.com/InteractiveSystem.htm

    and you can find more info about the system at:

    http://www.ais-sim.com/PRISim/overview.html

  11. Not really new by MrIcee · · Score: 2, Informative
    ... this is not really a new idea or application. In one of the expo's the pepsi (I think it was pepsi) pavillion was a geodesic dome. They lined the entire dome with stainless steel tubes with very small holes drilled in it (it took them quite awhile to determine he exact size). The idea being that forcing very clean water through the tubes and very small holes would produce fog.

    The entire structure, thus, was totally covered in fog - and they used both lasers and video projectors to color and animate the surface.

    And anyway... what, nobody ever thought of shineing a video or slide projector (or laser) at fog before. Geezesus.