Slashdot Mirror


Invisible Cloaks, Translucent Walls

jd writes "The University of Tokyo has developed the illusion of invisibility, under the name of 'Optical Camouflage.' The system is remarkably simple - you have a mix of light-sensitive and light-emitting devices attached to an adapted reflective surface. The devices are hooked to a computer, which simply projects on each side whatever is on the opposite side. The result is more of a translucent look, than real invisibility, but the potential is there. The inventer's next objective is to make walls that are invisible, using the same technology. Project a real outside image onto an interior wall without windows. This almost sounds more frightening than the cloak, since there's no reason why the sensors would have to be placed outside. Imagine a world where PHBs can turn their office wall into a window onto any cube. Zero privacy. The technology is great, but the potential for abuse is definitely there." Update: 06/15 00:20 GMT by T : You may remember we mentioned this project when it was cloak-only.

7 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. Window Offices Galore! by BlueCup · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While the potential for having windows viewing into cubes is there, it seems like security cameras already do this.

    No, I think the positives for this could far outway the negatives. Just think about how great it would be to have a window view of the outside world, even though you're in the middle of the building... sure, it's something that could be done with a monitor, but this sounds like it would give it a more real effect...

    ... cost however would probably keep this from changing anything.

    --
    WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
  2. The evils of technology! by J.+T.+MacLeod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine a world where PHBs can turn their office wall into a window onto any cube. Zero privacy. The technology is great, but the potential for abuse is definitely there."

    This technology opens us up to all sorts of new privacy abuses--oh, wait, no it doesn't. We've had cameras for years. It's the display that's new.

    Wow, my last two posts have been bitter. I suppose Slashdot has finally rubbed off on me.

  3. Re:Future of armed infantry by Punchinello · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think soldiers will be wearing this technology any time soon. It requires an image to be project on the material. Doesn't seem practicle for a soldier running throught the forest. Now if you wanted to hide a stationary vehicle or plane this could be the ticket.

    --

    Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

  4. Re:Future of armed infantry by vrmlknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... unless you looked at it from different angle.

    --
    This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
  5. There's only one flaw in this system by sakusha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is one obvious problem with the "invisibility cloak" that nobody has mentioned. In fact, the demonstrations of the device take advantage of the flaw and use it to make the device look like it will work.

    The problem is, this device will make you "invisible" only to ONE PERSON. Or more correctly, the image projected on the cloak will only work for one point of view. So when the device is demoed to a camera, the camera is placed at the spot where the illusion works. If you place another camera 10 feet to the left, it would show that the image doesn't match the background, so the illusion of "invisibility" doesn't work. It's a parallax thing.

    So everyone just knock of the stupid theorizing about how this is going to be battlefield camoflauge, it just isn't going to happen. It might be useful for limited circumstances, for a single viewer, for example, a surgeon might be able to see a computer-graphic overlay of the surgical operating field right through his hands. But it's not going to be a magic invisibility cloak.

  6. Not really that interesting by merlin_jim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    almost sounds more frightening than the cloak, since there's no reason why the sensors would have to be placed outside.

    Everyone is talking like he's got some brand new technology here or something.

    It's just a camera and a video projector. With a cloak or wall made out of some highly reflective material. That's it. You have to setup the camera ahead of time, and setup the video projector ahead of time. You have to have power to run it all. You have to stand in exactly the right spot, and it only works as an invisibility cloak if the other guy is standing near line of sight with the projector. Which is itself obviously pretty visible.

    Before this guy put all this stuff together, bosses were putting cameras in the workplace. This "innovation" (and believe me I use the term loosely) doesn't really add anything to that equation.

    --
    I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  7. Re:Future of armed infantry by mattrumpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Once again Mil Procurement fucks it up. Just read the cnn article. VELCRO fucking pockets!! I'm ex military (australia) and the last thing you want or need is velcro on your uniform. Waiting quietly in an ambush, just need to carefully and slowly remove a pen from my pocket RRRRIIIIPPPPPPPPP - you're dead... Perhaps its not such a problem for US forces, with all that technology maybe there's no need for Fieldcraft anymore - but I doubt it...

    --
    Who's with me?! I SAID... WHO'S WITH ME!!??