Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grey Wolf on February 27, 2004, 11:02:42 pm
-
http://www.eet.com/sys/news/OEG20040226S0030
Anyone else find this incredibly cool?
-
Pfff. Hell, I coulda done that.
-
Then why didnt you? Oh right... you dont know how and are too lazy to find out....
-
All it is one of those ****ty motion-card things with a big frickin' motor running it.
It's one step up from having 24 sets of goggles, each showing a slightly different angle of a naked woman.
Hell, stereoscopic slides are closer to holography than that ****.
-
Infact, I can think of a helluva lot cheaper and simpler way to do it.
Render a vase for 60 frames. Put 4 monitors with a 60Hz refresh into a box-shape and attatch them to a big friggin wheel that spins 60 times a second. Put polarising coating on the screens. Start the render playing with a 15-frame delay between each monitor and the next.
Then spin the ****er at 60 revolutions per second. Tada!
No mirrors. No projectors. No fancy angling of light-beams. Just good, ol' fashioned, high-impact monitor circuitry.
-
Okay, get some venture capital and start a company that does just that then.
It's neat, I'll just wait until they bring me an actual working holographic projector.
-
I don't get why they don't just use big cynlinders of photo-chemical 'pixels' and use triple-mounted arrays of lasers to make each tiny photo-chemical pixel glow.
I mean, they must be able to make little transparent beads that glow when you shoot powerful enough UV-rays at them. Sure, it'd only be 'black and white' but it'd be 3D and amazingly easy to produce.
-
I think it would be easier to just put a bunch of LCD pannles together
-
Nah, you can't get the omni-directional thing that way. 'Side-on' the opacity of the LCD's would make it one big semi-opaque blur.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Render a vase for 60 frames. Put 4 monitors with a 60Hz refresh into a box-shape and attatch them to a big friggin wheel that spins 60 times a second. Put polarising coating on the screens. Start the render playing with a 15-frame delay between each monitor and the next.
Then spin the ****er at 60 revolutions per second. Tada!
No mirrors. No projectors. No fancy angling of light-beams.
No pic :p
just a blurred light thinguy... did you really think about your thing? :D
-
Yeah, for about 30 seconds. It works in rough theory, but I've probably over-simplified it.
All you've really got to do is cross basic TV concepts with some advanced timing, a big spinning thingy and something to limit the view-point to head-on-only.
-
Not with the polarized coating, you'd get a flash of the image. And at 60 revolutions per second, it'd actually look decent.
Of course, you've got the problem of the big noisy motor spinning around these heavy delicate screens, and what happens when a fastener inevitably gets loose.
And it's just an impractical idea all around. I mean, what'd it be good for? Anything you'd need to see from all sides that way you could do a hundred times better and cheaper with an actual physical model or the thing itself, and it wouldn't look high-tech or anything, it'd look like ass. Never mind that, like I said before, it's not like such a design is exactly stable.
The whole thing's really kinda stupid, basically fishing for misleading headlines. It'd be one thing if it was at least some clever new application of old technology, but this is an application of old technology that wouldn't have been impressive sixty years ago.
Actually, the UV-reactive cylinder would probably be closer to a genuinely useable 3D display. That's basically the same principle as a cathode ray tube is based on, after all, and while you'd definitely need something less likely to be in the ambient atmosphere (and hence mess everything up) than UV light, if you worked out a way to basically have many many layers of three types of ultrathin film, each reacting to a different wavelength or something and in one of the three base colors, and then the emitters at a perpindicular... well, it'd be 180* accurate. Throw in a sheet of some transparent material impermeable to whatever waves you're using to trigger the reaction (which actually would probably be the hard part to find) and a similar emitter on the other side, and you've got the full deal.
None of this is exactly rocket science, there are plenty of thoroughly workable theories on holography and so on like the one I just made up there. The problem isn't the concept at all, it's the implementation.
-
Come to think of it you could just have a big ol' vat of UV-glowy grains, stick em in a big glass jar with some equal-density liquid (to kill refraction issues), then shoot focused UV into it from 3 arrays (XYZ). And to cut out the ambient UV you could just coat the whole 'jar' in the UV coating they stick on sun-glasses.
It'd be pretty crappy to start with but once people started tinkering the format it'd probably progress pretty quickly.
And the only uncommon component would be the UV-light arrays, and even they wouldn't be that hard/expensive to make en masse.
-
Neat.
apparently they have a running 3d holograqphy display somewhere in the pyhsics / enginnering department of our uni.
Bastards never told me exactly where it was though, so I've never been able to see it in action.
-
Did they tell you about the pool on the roof?
-
Originally posted by an0n
Did they tell you about the pool on the roof?
There's no pool on the roof. It's underground, ontop of the low level trainline :p
So it shakes every time a train comes into Queen Street...................