Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Projecting Data on a Sphere

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the higher-def dept.

necro81 writes "The NYTimes has an article in today's Science section that describes a four-projector system that displays images on a spherical screen. The Science on a Sphere system, developed at the Goddard Space Flight Center and used in some planetariums, can display and animate vast amounts of visual data from the Earth, Moon, Sun, and the other planets. The sphere is suspended by thin wires, and animating the image data gives the illusion of a free-floating, rotating world."

111 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. Get the fleet ready by Asshat+Canada · · Score: 1, Funny

    We are using this to plan our attack on the Death Star.

  2. Perfect for mission briefings by amliebsch · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's just what I need to show my pilots where the shield generator is located.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    1. Re:Perfect for mission briefings by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Insightful
      > That's just what I need to show my pilots where the shield generator is located.

      It's a planetarium turned inside-out. Or the offspring of a mating of a planetarium and a Klein bottle. In other words, it's a light trap :)

    2. Re:Perfect for mission briefings by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Funny

      Many Bothans died for this post...

      --
      Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
    3. Re:Perfect for mission briefings by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      But it's not that useful for detecting traps.

    4. Re:Perfect for mission briefings by ScottLindner · · Score: 1

      Jeez man.. don't post that stuff without telling us it's not cool for viewing while at work!

      I expected something comical...

      --
      Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
    5. Re:Perfect for mission briefings by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Many Boffins died for this post...

    6. Re:Perfect for mission briefings by zuluechopapa · · Score: 1

      it's not impossible. I used to bullseye spherical screen projectors in my t16 back home and they're not much bigger than 2m.

      --
      even the magic 8 ball has an opinion on email clients: Outlook not so good.
  3. Halograms by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 1

    Could this be giving birth to the beginnings of 3D halographic techonology? Granted, they're only using spheres now, and they have to hang it from wires, but it's a start. Can they make a few cameras project a image of a person, so I can talk to them "face to face"? Maybe now I won't have to leave my house to go for an interview.

    1. Re:Halograms by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Wow, if that wasn't the weakest attempt to post early in hopes of getting modded up, I don't know what is.

      My cat sleeping on the keyboard has typed more insightful posts.

    2. Re:Halograms by w33t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      actually, by combining this technology with this technology you could have a pretty cool visual representation of the earth and it's current space traffic.

      --
      My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
    3. Re:Halograms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      My cat sleeping on the keyboard has typed more insightful posts.
      Is your cat halographic (sic)? If so, FRAG THE FELINE!
    4. Re:Halograms by mph · · Score: 1

      You misspelled "hagiographic."

    5. Re:Halograms by justkarl · · Score: 1

      Wow, if that wasn't the weakest attempt to post early in hopes of getting modded up, I don't know what is.

      No, no, wait, I know! It's "imagine a beowulf cluster of these running Google Earth. SWEET."

      Or, "I wonder if this thing can run X Windows"

    6. Re:Halograms by liliafan · · Score: 1

      Pretty cool, now if they could just combine that technology with this and heat up the plasma a few thousand degrees.....no one would ever mod me down again for fear of a lightsaber enema.

      --
      GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
    7. Re:Halograms by nsayer · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's how you spell that word, Dave.

      This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been atributable to human error.

      This comment can serve no useful purpose anymore. Goodbye.

  4. Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

    Each projector covers a hemisphere.

    1. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by avalys · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's say you had two projectors, one pointing at the north pole and one at the south. The resolution would be terrible near the equator, because a very small part of the projected image would cover a large part of the globe surface.

      In order for the resolution to be consistent over the entire globe, you have to either intentionally reduce the resolution of the projection near the poles, or add additional projectors.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    2. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by comingstorm · · Score: 1
      You'd get very bad distortion on the boundary between the two. Three has the same problem; four is the minimum you need to avoid "singularities" in the projection.

      I'm actually a little surprised they didn't use more. I'd be interested to know how they keep the projectors in focus over the whole surface...

    3. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      It depends if the projectors are inside or outside...

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      obviously you are not familiar with the 'limb effect'

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    5. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      .. and that's the best-case when you have the projectors positioned at infinity!

      If you have them any closer than infinity, then the equator will be in a shadow. Unless you cheat and have a slightly non-spherical globe.

    6. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm impressed they did it well with four. I expected six.

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    7. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1

      that would work if we could put the projectors at a distance of infinity. But digging a hole infinity feet deep or getting a pole infinity feet long to mount the projectors would be too expensive. Basically, if a projector positioned directly over north pole shining down, there exists a band in the northern hemisphere that the projector can't 'see' because of a point at a higher latitude that blocks it. put another way: Next time you are outside, look around and note how you can only see less than half of the earth because of the horizon. As you go upward, your horizon will go out, but it will never go so far as to enable you to see half of the earth. Since one point can only see less than half of the earth, two will never be able to see the whole earth.

    8. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by gomoX · · Score: 1

      No, actually it's perfectly doable. This is different from seeing the horizon in that you eye is waaay smaller than the Earth.

      For this scenario all you have to do is have a light source and lens bigger than the sphere you are projecting onto. With an infinitely large lens you could also project on the *whole* sphere, from any given (fixed) distance, not just half of it. That's if you manage to focus it correctly, though.

      --
      My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
    9. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In other words, the North Star, which is quite close to being directly overhead at the north pole, is not visible from about 10 degrees north latitude to the equator. Sailors know this very well.

      And Polaris is 430 LIGHT YEARS away, or more than umpty-jillion Earth diameters. If your sphere were the size of a beach ball, the projectors could be REALLY FUCKING FAR away, and there would still be a three-inch band of darkness around the middle.

      (I got too lazy to finish working out the math.)

    10. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by BrianTung · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that by six projectors, you mean to put them along each of the axes (that is, at the points of an octahedron, or the faces of a cube). That certainly works, but if you put them at the corners of a tetrahedron, you can also achieve complete coverage, provided your projectors are at least 3 radii away from the center of the sphere. Using six merely allows you to reduce that margin to the square root of 3. (I think. Someone please check my math.)

      But, as it turns out, these folks aren't going for complete coverage. With all four projectors along the globe's equator, there cannot be coverage of the poles. My guess is that they don't care because (a) the top pole is blocked by the suspension wires, and (b) the bottom pole is typically difficult to access. Furthermore, in many cases, the poles reveal the least contrast in data.

      By the way, the projected image at the periphery isn't as badly distorted as it might seem at first. As I recall, Mare Orientale on the Moon was first identified as a concentric circular formation, located on the edge of the Moon's visible face, when images taken from the Earth were projected onto a sphere. The detail wasn't bad at all! A similar method can be used, for instance, to divine the actual shape of Mare Crisium, and so on.

    11. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by BrianTung · · Score: 1

      That isn't quite the way that lenses work, however. You can't put a huge lens some distance away from the globe, and use the top part of the lens to project over the north pole, and the bottom half to project under the south pole. Instead, pretty much the entire lens is used to focus the image of the light source to any given point on the globe. You can illuminate more than half of the globe with a very large lens, but the parts at the periphery won't be as well illuminated, since only part of the lens can be used to focus light onto those points. For instance, with a lens twice as wide as the globe, the north pole will only be illuminated about 20 percent as well as the point on the equator facing the lens. Even in the limit of an infinitely large lens, the best you can do is 50 percent illumination of the pole.

    12. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by PotatoPhysics · · Score: 1

      You could do it with two projectors in the center provided they had ultra wide angle lenses like an Elumen's projector but those are somewhat expensive. One could easily spend $24k on precision wide angle lenses that would blend well at the edges.

      The smaller "planetoids" globe in the lower depths of the Sci-Fi mueseum in Seattle uses a single Elumen's lens/projector hidden in the wall projecting from the hidden back side of the globe.

      I have access to one of these projectors and I've long thought about trying to find someone that could make a bubble of reverse projection material plastic.

    13. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by gomoX · · Score: 1

      Of course, it won't work. I just wanted to point out that the problem that the parent mentioned was related to point sources of light, and projectos such as this are nowhere near point sources when projecting on a small sphere.

      OTOH I think you could solve what you suggest using a correct grad filter that levels out the light on the different areas (darker in the center), right?

      --
      My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
    14. Re:Shouldn't they be able to do with 2 projectors? by slashdotjunker · · Score: 1

      I don't know how NOAA is doing it. But, an obvious method would be to use projected cubemaps. A cubemap is basically a cube inscribed in a sphere. It is very easy to work with since the data is planar. Ask any computer graphics expert or game developer for more details.

      You would need 6 projectors, positive x, negative x, positive y, negative y, positive z, negative z. The screenshots I saw suggested they don't have full coverage. It looks like they are using 4 external projectors to project onto the screen. Unsurprisingly, 4/6 = partial coverage.

      An interesting approach would be to embed 6 projectors inside a large sphere and back-project onto the surface. This would give you the full 4*pi steradians coverage (minus the hole for running cables inside). Cooling would be a problem.

  5. uh didnt anyone tell them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is pointless - don't they realise the precipitous drop in attendance at Plane-Ariums around the world? I dont see how this is any different.

    ""Laser"" Floyd in your own house, though... woot!

    -math

  6. why not from inside-out? by WinEveryGame · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Isn't best projection on a sphere done from the center of the sphere?

    Since the application of this thing can easily require building a custom sphere, this seems a more cost-effective way to me.

    1. Re:why not from inside-out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since the application of this thing can easily require building a custom sphere, this seems a more cost-effective way to me.

      Assuming a requirement was the ability to hang the sphere to make it appear to float, then you'd have to figure out a way to have a fairly strong internal structure to support the projectors without creating seams from within the structure itself. Also you need to get power and video signals to the projectors and still keep your "disappearingly thin wires". Then there is always the major issue of cooling the major heat generating projectors within a sealed environment.

      Not that these issues can't be addressed, it's just that it comes down to just what you said, being "cost effective".

    2. Re:why not from inside-out? by bunions · · Score: 1

      the wires would have to go in somewhere, which seems nonoptimal.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    3. Re:why not from inside-out? by laklare · · Score: 1

      Except you couldn't change the project bulbs.

    4. Re:why not from inside-out? by Chirs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How would you support the translucent screen? Any structural members would cast shadows.

    5. Re:why not from inside-out? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      That makes sense. I bet they place the projectors in corners of horisontal squares. If inside, they can be point to the corners of tetrahedron.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    6. Re:why not from inside-out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't pretend to understand anything about this, but the most logical way to project from inside a sphere would probably be a spherical projector. The problem with that being that there would be a distinct loss of resolution as the distance increased from the projector to the screen or area of the projection. If you project from the outside this loss is reduced as you don't have to deal with the reverse conelike nature of the projection from inside the sphere. In other words, the distance between single degree changes between increasing distances would no longer be a problem if projected on from the outside using overlapping projectors.

      Er.. something like that?

    7. Re:why not from inside-out? by Otto · · Score: 1

      Gotta hang the thing from something anyway, run them in the top.

      I don't think it could easily be done without shadows from the internal structure though.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    8. Re:why not from inside-out? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A pole from the top could run in and hold the sphere and projector, but the sphere would have to be self-supporting; either pretty heavy or very light plastic. I suppose it could be inflatable...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:why not from inside-out? by russellh · · Score: 1

      spherical paper made in space!

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    10. Re:why not from inside-out? by BrianTung · · Score: 1

      The projection need not be from the center of the globe. It could be from the bottom. The problem with that approach is that the image quality in the bottom half of the globe would be relatively poor. The way the system is designed now, most of the globe, maybe 75 percent, is better than the entire bottom half would be with a projection from the bottom of the sphere, and the mediocre parts of the current projection are much more limited than they would be, projected from the bottom.

    11. Re:why not from inside-out? by scattol · · Score: 1

      You mean something like this. I've never seen it in person but friends who have say it's cool stuff. If you are a true geek, that's something you should have in your livingroom to entertain the kids!. Don't know the price though but I haven't seen them at the dollar store yet!

  7. Seattle Sci-Fi Museum. by 9gezegen · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are not one but two such displays at Seattle Sci-Fi Museum http://www.sfhomeworld.org/ One of them uses four projectors to project movie clips on a large sphere. I'm not sure about the second one since there are not projectors around (I suspect there is one inside) but it shows the surfaces of famous sci-fi planets. You can see this one at http://www.sfhomeworld.org/exhibits/brave_new_worl ds/index.asp

    1. Re:Seattle Sci-Fi Museum. by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

      Glad someone else mentioned on this... Lots of good stuff in that museam

      The first sphere you come across is definitely projected from the inside... there isn't an external projector in sight. If I had to guess they're using 3 for that one though...

      --
      Collector's Edition
  8. Not Just For Planets by UESMark · · Score: 1

    This is also very useful for locating the vulnerabilities of and planning attacks on spherical battlestations. I even seem to recall a movie having a display system like this...

    P.S. Sorry, had to be said

  9. Funding by neonprimetime · · Score: 1

    The idea has come a long way since it came to Dr. MacDonald in 1995.

    "I was driving down a road and the thought came to me: Why don't people display things on spheres?" he said. "When I got home, I painted a beach ball white and projected pictures on the ball.

    So, I wonder if he took that beach ball to his presentations when he was trying to get research / grant money for the project?

  10. I want one! by waif69 · · Score: 1

    OK, what do I need to build one besides a lot of money? I can get the money off my neighbor.

    1. Re:I want one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A sphere, a string, 4 projectors positioned: one below, three above (and to the side), the angles between any two projectors should be the same.

      Each projector projects a 2D image as per normal - the centre of the image will be an image that is non-overlapping with the other images projected. You could imagine the image that is projected as being generated by your bog standard 3D application, texturemapping a sphere and rendering it from the point of view of each of the projectors, then applying a mask to enforce the non-overlapping aspect.

      You could do this with a bog standard PC with 4 display outputs and a bit of time.

  11. Have some respect! by DanTheLewis · · Score: 1

    Many Bothans died to bring us this four-projector spherical diagram apparatus.

    --

    Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
    A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
  12. Ooo Pretty.... by JayDot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Birthday Trip to the planetarium...

    Who wants to open the pinata?

    --
    Meh, a real sig would take too long, and I have an MMORPG to play with....
  13. Ehhh? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    Hasn't the Haunted House in Disneyland had this for ohhh... 50 years or so? In one room there is a crystal ball with a fortune tellers head projected on the inside somehow. As you ride all the way around it the face somehow matches every angle even as a dozen people are looking at different spots. I always figured it was some kind of multiple projectors, but how they got the overlapping and made it so smooth I never could guess.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Ehhh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Firstly, Disney fanboy nitpicking... the Haunted Mansion has been open since 1969, not 1955.

      Anyway... it's not the same effect. DoomBuggies.com has an explanation of it is done. She doesn't follow you around the room, though. That's something else.

    2. Re:Ehhh? by asuffield · · Score: 1

      In one room there is a crystal ball with a fortune tellers head projected on the inside somehow. As you ride all the way around it the face somehow matches every angle even as a dozen people are looking at different spots.

      I've never seen the thing, but you just described an effect normally created with a hologram. You don't see it often because there isn't normally much point. Presumably they thought it would look spooky because it's so uncommon.

    3. Re:Ehhh? by Otto · · Score: 1

      In one room there is a crystal ball with a fortune tellers head projected on the inside somehow. As you ride all the way around it the face somehow matches every angle even as a dozen people are looking at different spots. I always figured it was some kind of multiple projectors, but how they got the overlapping and made it so smooth I never could guess.

      The illusion has to do with reversing of the depth of field. There's several good illusions like this, this Einstein one is truly awesome: http://www.grand-illusions.com/toyshop/einstein_ho llow_face_illusion/

      For fixed objects, all you really have to do is to make it reversed and light it correctly. For animated ones, they use projectors onto a background that is the inside of the sphere. You see through the front, but it's actually projected on the back. This depth reversal is what gives you the "follows you around" look.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    4. Re:Ehhh? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Hey pal. How are things?

      Want to get a drink after work, and watch the World Cup?

    5. Re:Ehhh? by BrianTung · · Score: 1

      I think you're mixing up two different parts of the attraction. The woman's head in the globe is a simple bust. Her features are then projected onto the bust, allowing her to "speak." A similar technique is used for Buzz Lightyear in the Emperor Zorg attraction (I forget the name) in Toon Town.

      The following faces are done by employing concave faces (that is, caved inward, toward the wall) lit from below, rather than the more traditional convex faces lit from above. Because both concavity and lighting are inverted, the shadows are essentially the same in both cases, but with the concave faces, the figures appear to turn toward you as you move from side to side. It's a remarkably spooky effect, if you haven't encountered it before. It works better if you only look at it with one eye, or from further away. Closer up and with binocular vision, you can tell that the faces are concave.

      The SoS is sort of like the woman's head in a globe, but writ much larger, and with a focus on science, rather than creepiness.

  14. Already in practice... I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Don't Adam Sessler and Morgan Web on Xplay already have spheres on to which the project various things, such as the Xplay logo or Adam's face?

  15. See Douglas Coupland's JPod by borroff · · Score: 1

    I guess it doesn't hurt to have contacts; A similar technology is mentioned in Douglas Coupland's recent JPod: A Novel. A great read for techies.

  16. Re:whats the point by bunions · · Score: 1

    I am never let down when I depend on the kneejerk cynicism of the slashdot crowd.

    No, it's not some sort of major breakthrough.

    And yes, the 'hole' idea is limited to showing things happening on the surface of a sphere. As it turns out though, there's a lot of interesting things that happen on the surface of spheres. Our lives, for instance. Also weather. And geography.

    --
    there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
  17. suspended by thin wires by llZENll · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "suspended by thin wires"

    Come on now, can't they use some kind of magnetic levitation system? Or even an air cushion, that would be pretty cheap and cool.

    1. Re:suspended by thin wires by MustardMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Either of those options is gonna be some sort of elastic force - the sphere will bounce. Even a slight bounce in a normal projector screen is quite noticable. I can only imagine it would be a lot worse when you're worrying about the alignment of three projectors.

    2. Re:suspended by thin wires by peragrin · · Score: 1

      well an air cushion would be noisy as you could hear the air moving.

      Now a mag lev system that could rotate and spin the ball would be cool. a Linear accelerator combined with brushless motor style controler surround the outside of the maglev system in the center with the ball just above it. A circlar linear accelerator(yes I said that and I mean it) with a center section for the actual levitation. come to think of it you would need 16 or 32 linear accelerators in a circular pattern. Computer controled and you could motion in any direction. The hard part would be balance the sphere would need to be balaced very well. if you used internal projectors they would need their own power supply and internal controler.

      Damn I bet it would work. sounds like an MIT grad school project to me.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:suspended by thin wires by umrain · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't need to rotate the sphere if you are projecting onto it, as you can simulate roatation effectively in the image. (unless of course it is a non-perfect sphere with topographical features or something like that.)

    4. Re:suspended by thin wires by Penguin+Programmer · · Score: 1

      That's why you make the projectors bounce in exactly the same manner. Duh.

    5. Re:suspended by thin wires by sam1am · · Score: 1

      Or just add encoders so rotating the sphere can be used as a navigation tool..

  18. Reading the FAQ... by comingstorm · · Score: 1

    They actually use 4 projectors mounted around the equator. So, the "typical setup" still has a problem at the poles (like a 3-projector setup would). However, presumably most people will be standing around looking at the equator, so that might not be such a practical problem.

  19. Sphere screen envy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Great, just when I thought I had satisfied everyone's flatscreen envy I will now have to satisfy their sphere screen envy!

  20. Google Earth by Wormholio · · Score: 2, Interesting

    wow, this would be a cool output device for Google Earth.

    --
    "Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats
    1. Re:Google Earth by kernelklink00 · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree. The fun part of Google Earth is zooming in and "flying" over the surface, zooming in would just make whatever you're looking at cover the whole world. I suppose you could project the shadow of US pop culture over the rest of the globe.

    2. Re:Google Earth by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 1

      That was also my first thought.
      I'm tempted to build a small scale one just to play with google earth.

  21. Re:hmmm by Slithe · · Score: 1

    Thank you for following Quinn's Law!

    --
    ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
  22. Re:whats the point-spherical lining. by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    Don't be too hard on him. His job as slashdot poster is being outsourced.

          I hope the replacements he has to train do as good a job!

  23. Re:whats the point by dubmun · · Score: 1

    Yeah, jeez! Spheres are dumb! Obviously, it has limitations and isn't as cool as your standard sci-fi fare. However, this technology is very useful in its limited role. Imagine the applications for astronomy. That is what it was made for.

    --
    (end of post)
  24. Snakes on a Sphere? by JLavezzo · · Score: 1, Funny

    Use this technique with a showing of "Snakes on a Plane".
    You'd get ... "Snakes on a Plane on a Sphere"

    1. Re:Snakes on a Sphere? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And you could balance the sphere on the Great A'tuin and have "Snakes on a Plane on a Sphere on a Turtle."

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  25. the actual earth by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1, Funny

    is an ellipsoid.
    is that too much to ask?

    1. Re:the actual earth by BrianTung · · Score: 1

      The variation is only a fraction of a percent, hardly perceptible to the unaided eye. Perhaps if you wait long enough, the force of gravity will compress the globe into the right shape for you. Besides, the Earth isn't quite an oblate spheroid, either (by ellipsoid is usually meant a prolate spheroid, I think); the southern hemisphere is ever so slightly bulgier than the northern hemisphere.

      Furthermore, this thing is supposed to be able to maps of other worlds, such as Mercury, whose oblateness is probably pretty minor.

  26. Interesting how they used someone elses technology by jamesarm · · Score: 1

    I was just at Disney World and they had this cool globe that could show weather, maps, moons, etc. I just visited their page today to read about it (no price shown). NOAA was one of the companies that used it. On NOAA's page (the link in the article), they show it as being patent granted. Here is the link to the Global Imagination Company where the gallery shows NOAA with one. Looks alot like the one they designed. The Global Imagination model only requires one computer and screen. "..said Alexander E. MacDonald, the NOAA meteorologist who invented Science on a Sphere", from the article. From Global Imagination's site: Our customers include: * Aerospace systems organizations such as Boeing, NASA, NOAA, ESA and Northrop Grumman Space Technology; * Museums such as the Maryland Science Center, Birch Aquarium at Scripps and Chabot Space Science Center * Universities and research organizations such Oregon State University, Florida State and the University Center for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). http://www.globalimagination.com/gallery.html

  27. Halo graphics by tepples · · Score: 3, Funny

    Could this be giving birth to the beginnings of 3D halographic techonology?

    No, that was the Xbox.

    1. Re:Halo graphics by cryocide · · Score: 1

      No, that was the Xbox.

      Actually, that was the Mac. It only made it to the Xbox after a buyout and a significant delay in development.

  28. Yeah but... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    ...if you need to display something on the surface of a cube then you're screwed. But have no fear, exp(pi*sqrt(163)) is here. Later today I'll file my patent application for a cubical screen and in a few years time you'll be able to purchase one of my cubical screen projectors for a reasonable price.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  29. Brilliant by GimmeFive · · Score: 3, Funny

    There are some arses here at the office that could now be used for IMAX.

  30. On a sphere, eh? by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

    It's for advertising...on the moon!

    --
    Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
  31. My dream come true by dulcemrb · · Score: 1

    Sounds like it would be cool. The best application I can think of is a really fun shaddow puppet stage.

  32. Re:whats the point by vldragon · · Score: 1

    All I'm saying is that to me it seems limited. I would think that displaying this "information" in 3d on a 2d screen would be better simply because it has the ability to be dynamic in its movement. No I suppose in some areas it would be interesting to have such a contraption it seems that needing 4 projectors and a sphere hanging by wires is a bit much for what your getting out of it. But if you all seem to disagree, so be it. Maybe I'm wronge...

    --
    Eating the brains of your enemies does not make you smarter. But it's still fun.
  33. Soo,,, Anything I want... by Aladrin · · Score: 1

    So, basically, you can display ANYTHING you want on it, as long as that thing is perfectly spherical. And you only want to show the surface.

    Hope that they got a patent on that. Man, the uses... This will be SO in demand.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  34. Developed by NOAA, NOT Goddard Space Flight Cente by ThingOne · · Score: 1

    This science is used by Goddard but was developed by NOAA, and its still under development by NOAA. NOAA owns the patent. More information here

  35. Doesn't that making zooming in unrealistic? by Retired+Replicant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The cool think about something like Google Earth is how you can zoom way in to see tiny details. If the display is an actual sphere, wouldn't you be kind of limited in showing anything at a scale other than that which can be represented on a physical sphere the size of the projector-screen?

  36. I made of of these by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 1

    The hardest part was grinding a lens into the shape of pi

    1. Re:I made of of these by gkhan1 · · Score: 1

      What the hell is "the shape of pi"?

    2. Re:I made of of these by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 1

      You managed to infer the punchline without getting the joke. Congratulations!

    3. Re:I made of of these by gkhan1 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, crap, I just got the joke! Didn't I rudely put you down a while ago? Well, you got you're revenge now, but know this: we shall meet again! Sleep with one eye open!

      :D

    4. Re:I made of of these by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 1

      That will not be a problem, as I am known in some circles as the "Argus-eyed Cyclops".

  37. Tech Museum in San Jose, CA by ghoting · · Score: 1

    The Tech recently launched a Science on a Sphere exhibit on their lower level too. It's pretty cool stuff.

    --
    Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown.
  38. NOAA Science on a Sphere by zefram+cochrane · · Score: 3, Informative

    All jokes about the Deathstar attack aside, I actually had the privilege of seeing this display firsthand this past year. I was attending the Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society in Atlanta, and NOAA was showing this display with information about the 2005 hurricane season. It is quite a large display, but it has the capability of showing large amounts of data in an entertaining and easy to understand way.

    Here are a few pictures of the actual display in operation...

    http://community.webshots.com/album/551340290QQkDQ E/

    1. Re:NOAA Science on a Sphere by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      All jokes about the Deathstar attack aside...
      ...would leave about 3 posts.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  39. While we are here... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    I'd like to know if anyone has any ideas as to how to do the following:

    I want to create planetary textures for Celestia
    (see http://www.shatters.net/celestia/)
    but creating a rectangular image for the texture
    and then having this projected onto a sphere
    makes the process tedious trial and error --
    the poles are really hard to get right.

    I'd like to use some sort of modelling software
    to 'draw' the texture on a spherical body
    and then unwrap this into a rectangular image file
    suitable for importing into Celestia as a planetary texture.

    Any (useful) suggestions would be appreciated!

    Thanks

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  40. Re:Mods by Pseudo98 · · Score: 1

    The delivery was better executed imo :P

  41. what good are snub fighters going to be? by Pseudo98 · · Score: 1

    The approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point. The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station.

  42. You fools! Spore! by 0biter · · Score: 1

    Coincidence? This invention arrives just before Spore is released? I think not.

    i reckon i could find a few science friends crazy enough to pay $15000 for the ultimate Spore gaming rig that includes this display.

    --
    Homepage
    Obiter Ludens Game Blog
  43. Has to be said by cabd · · Score: 1

    3D porn!
    Woot!

    --
    When mad at one, try running a mile in their shoes. That way, not only do you have their shoes, but you are a mile away.
  44. I can hear it now... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "Honey, does this projection make me look fat?"

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  45. DGlobe? by janzen · · Score: 1

    Didn't I just read about this in JPod? That Coupland guy is behind this, I'm sure of it...

  46. In that case... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    You could have one spinning projector inside, or 2 on different axis. Provided they spin fast enough...

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  47. +1 by bramez · · Score: 1

    JPod is great. Every programmer should read it.

  48. Already on sale by thelonestranger · · Score: 1

    Think Geek are already selling these and have been since April 1st 2006 http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/screenedsphorb.s html?cpg=28H ;P

    --
    To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
  49. Global Imagination can do this, too by expeorian · · Score: 1

    Global Imagination http://globalimagination.com/ has an alternate technology for projecting an image onto the inside of a translucent spherical screen. It uses a single projector and proprietary optics attached at one place on the outside of the sphere. They have units in many museums, and also have many commercial and government customers.

  50. Re:Soo,,, Anything I want... by AxminsterLeuven · · Score: 1
    So, basically, you can display ANYTHING you want on it, as long as that thing is perfectly spherical.

    So if I wanted I could project an image of...
    ...yo momma!
  51. h*O*lograms by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Or, this technology if you want the starwars "Help Me Obi Wan Kenobi!"-kind of projector.

    Note to GP :
    it's hOlogram with an 'o'.
    it come from the greek holos : whole
    (and grama : drawing)
    because its the technology that is about representing a whole object (instead of only a flat drawing).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]