Sony Demo'ing 360 Degree 3-D Tabletop Display

JoshuaInNippon writes "Sony announced via a Japanese press release that they will be showing off a prototype of a tabletop 360 degree 3-D display that can be seen in any direction without special glasses at the Digital Content Expo 2009 in Tokyo, from October 22-25. The device is quite small, at just over 10 inches tall and 5 inches in diameter. The display, using LEDs, currently supports an image that is 96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall, with 24-bit full color. Sony also says it could have a number of applications, such as a digital sign, a digital frame, a medical display, or a virtual pet. Looking at the product image, who else wants to bet on the latter?)"

Comments

Hmm...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

How about an application that, using the webcam, grabs an image of the user's face and then wraps it onto a 3d model of a little head on this display.

Your own tiny, somewhat distorted face would stare at you for a while, and then begin a high, thin, tormented wailing, smashing itself against the confines of the display tube. It's like a screensaver; but with more sanity damage.

Re:Hmm...

[MRe_nl]

(from the presspiece)
"If you had such a 3603d display, what would you use it for?"
Talk about a loaded question.

Pr0n of course (but with more sanity damage perhaps).

Re:Hmm...

[Sponge Bath]

Your own tiny, somewhat distorted face would stare at you for a while, and then begin a high, thin, tormented wailing, smashing itself against the confines of the display tube.

Just like the old days of reading /. with a reflective CRT screen.

Re:Hmm...

[MBCook]

Just what I need. My own personal Max Headroom telling me I have email

Re:Hmm...

[Fred_A]

Pr0n of course

96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall pr0n, think of the possibilities !

Re:Hmm...

[Adm.Wiggin]

What do you mean, "was once" ?

96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

[oldspewey]

96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

If this thing is a 3D display, shouldn't there be another pixel dimension quoted here?

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

[spun]

96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

If this thing is a 3D display, shouldn't there be another pixel dimension quoted here?

I'd settle for an explanation of how the thing works.

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

[OzPeter]

96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

If this thing is a 3D display, shouldn't there be another pixel dimension quoted here?

It is probably one of the spinning mirror type displays. They project different 96 x 128 pixel images onto a spinning mirror depending on the angular position of the mirror. So the 3rd dimension that is probably missing is the minimum angular feature within the 360 degrees.

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

[gnick]

Hear hear. I'm assuming that the third dimension is 2, just like every 3-d display I've seen (they ALWAYS tailor these thing for people with only 2 eyes...), but one way or another they need to show different images to each eye. We've done the colored cellophane thing. We've done the shudder thing. We've done the separate display thing. We've done the vertical/horizontal polarization thing. We've done (and are doing for modern movies) the horizontal polarization thing with reversed polarity wave plates in front. The only system I've seen that didn't require glasses required you to stay in one place and stay very still while they use some special method to present different images to each eye.

360 sounds neat, but I'm having trouble even speculating. WTF are they doing?

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

[fastest fascist]

Judging by the shape of the device, I'd say it's done by projecting onto a rapidly rotating surface (mirror?), relying on persistence of vision to create the image. At least I've seen a demo of such a technique before.

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

[RocketRocketship]

I'd guess it uses a spinning mirror. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiR2rGv7i4

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

[mcgrew]

Indeed; I RTFA and was sorely disappointed, it looked like a Sony press release (and a small one at thet) to me. There was nothing in TFA that warranted reading it, aside from the picture of the goofy looking hardware.

Is it stereoscopic or holographic? And whichever, how does the thing work?

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

[Fred_A]

96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

If this thing is a 3D display, shouldn't there be another pixel dimension quoted here?

Judging by the quoted figures, they were probably too embarrassed.

Journalist: "So what are the 3 dimensions that you can display in ?"
Sony : "It's 128 pixels by 96 pixels by mumblemumble but it's still very experimental. And look at the vibrant colours !"
Journalist : "Sorry I didn't get that last figure"
Sony : "Did you notice the refresh rate, oh yes it's 128x96xmumble, look, we have a great tree model, let me load it for you"
Journalist : "sorry, times what ?"
Sony (squeaky) "times three..."
(in an overly enthusiastic voice) "Look, the branches are moving, doesn't it look like..."
Journalist : "Wait, not only is it a bit small to start with but that's barely 3D, it's more like 2 1/2 D"
Sony : "Who are you, what are you doing here ? Security !"

Needs to be bigger

[lymond01]

Fun, but kind of useless at that size, unless you're R2D2 and have a vital message for an older Jedi warrior. I can envision floor and ceiling mounted projection units mounted flush that will do this sort of thing to display mannequins, advertisements, and battle station blueprints. I would think with a large enough angle from the floor and ceiling you wouldn't need any side projectors.

Re:Needs to be bigger

[DrData99]

One word: Tamagotchi.

Re:Needs to be bigger

[Chris Mattern]

Gesundheit!

From FTA:

[amicusNYCL]

If you had such a 360 degree 3d display, what would you use it for?

I don't know about anyone else, but I would use mine to project a 3d representation of a crudely drawn penis.

Re:From FTA:

[selfsealingstembolt2]

You, sir, are truly your generation's Hemingway.

Re:From FTA:

[ArsonSmith]

I'd use mine to plan an assault on a partially completed Deathstar.

Bigger is not really the issue

[fyngyrz]

This, or something else truly 3D (as opposed to stereo tech), will no doubt be scalable. The problem we have, really, is there is no 3D media. No movies, TV shows, etc. Only computer generated imagery is readily available in 3D at this point.

Making stereo media is almost trivial. 3D is a whole nuther ball of wax. Highly desirable, but no less difficult for that.

Re:Bigger is not really the issue

[ae1294]

This, or something else truly 3D (as opposed to stereo tech), will no doubt be scalable. The problem we have, really, is there is no 3D media. No movies, TV shows, etc. Only computer generated imagery is readily available in 3D at this point.

Making stereo media is almost trivial. 3D is a whole nuther ball of wax. Highly desirable, but no less difficult for that.

Ahhh I donno I've seen some 3d porn out on the torrent sites and with the way computers are going it won't be to long before someone writes a conversion program for 2d anyhow. You see the Characters from enough angles most of the time.

Really I'm just waiting for the "make your own" porn I MEAN movie software.

1. Select the characters & their mental attributes.
2. Select the outfits, scenes, etc.
3. Input story/screenplay.
4. Do some directing when something goes wrong.
5. Profit... (There is no ??? or spoon)

More reading material...

[argent]

Endgagdet story from 2007
Siggraph 2007 video
Siggraph 2009 demo

Not a new idea

[bussdriver]

Its clearly the rotation screen idea. Those clocks and other gimic 2D displays where a line of LEDs are moved quickly to create a virtual flat surface and a synchronized micro controller figures out what to flash on the LEDs when they "scan" past a point in space. The concept is similar to the old tube TV with electron scans-- but in a way, it is more primitive in that a physical scanning process is involved.

The 3D version is the same concept but has a flat surface screen that rotates on the Z axis. Their photo is a cylinder tube which implies its a rotating screen like all the others of this kind. What is odd, is why they didn't leave the top open-- the earlier designs made the top clear-- and could use a hemisphere to cover it.. I suppose its easier on the bearings and RPM to be supported on both sides of the shaft...

It has serious physical limitations. rotational velocity means screen size must be small and it has to be STRONG (so LED not LCD.) Probably needs 2 screens on the 2D surface to get a good frame rate at a lower RPM. I'm guessing they went for higher RPM in a tube with screens on both sides using surface mount LEDs. (they could have wanted the top just to keep vibration and noise down so it could be made with lower tolerances.)

The reason I do not think it is a mirror like other people is the low resolution of the image-- if they are going to reflect a screen they may as well enlarge it and place a higher quality screen near the center of the shaft where the forces are minimized. Say they do some clever optics with a stationary screen-- the why not use an even better screen?

Re:sony rootkit

[edittard]

It's So'ny rootkit. The apostrophe has branched out from warning of an imminently approaching s; it also serves to say "hey, you just missed an o".