4 ms·

> for at least ten life-size holographic displays. I remember reading somewhere that the bandwidth of the optic nerve is about 10Mbit/s. Given that we've had

by femto 11y ago

> for at least ten life-size holographic displays. I remember reading somewhere that the bandwidth of the optic nerve is about 10Mbit/s. Given that we've had 10Mbit/s Ethernet for years, couldn't it be said that we already have the hardware to build a display that is indistinguishable from reality, and it is now "just" a coding problem, in that if a 10Mbit/s stream contained exactly the right information the brain would interpret it as reality?

saboot 11y ago
This is currently under development .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Leap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Leap
hodwik 11y ago
Wouldn't you need much more than 10Mbit/s before the lens, if it's getting compressed down to 10Mbit/s after the lens? That is, unless you're talking about injecting that data directly into the optical nerve.
- officialchicken 11y ago
  The only way it's below 10Mbit/s if you have a cataract and are legally blind. Or it's dark. The eye has significantly more bandwidth than 10Mbit/s - it's "reality" in front of the retina, (say, 20-30K) a bit above 8K at the retina (rods/cones), and almost the same in the optic nerve. We can see/study data directly on the optic nerves now, and understand pretty well how common aberrations or deformities affect the retina.
wtallis 11y ago
Considering what 10Mbps compressed video can do, I think we're doing pretty well. Getting really close to the limit would require eye-tracking to only encode and transmit the details that the viewer is actually in a position to notice, and that's obviously only possible for a very limited slice of applications.
make3 11y ago
isn't the thing about holographic display that you have to output the data for more than one angle? Meaning, multiple different angles for different eye angles to create stereoscopy. So, 10Mbits * n_vertical_angles * n_horizontal_angles * k_compression_coeffiscient
varjag 11y ago
The combined sensory input of a human was estimated at 3Gbit/s back in 1959. http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~gunnart/MTP/volum2_session4A_ocr.pdf http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~gunnart/MTP/volum2_session4A_ocr.pdf The first paper in the document.

by femto 11y ago

saboot 11y ago

This is currently under development .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Leap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Leap

hodwik 11y ago

Wouldn't you need much more than 10Mbit/s before the lens, if it's getting compressed down to 10Mbit/s after the lens? That is, unless you're talking about injecting that data directly into the optical nerve.

officialchicken 11y ago
The only way it's below 10Mbit/s if you have a cataract and are legally blind. Or it's dark. The eye has significantly more bandwidth than 10Mbit/s - it's "reality" in front of the retina, (say, 20-30K) a bit above 8K at the retina (rods/cones), and almost the same in the optic nerve. We can see/study data directly on the optic nerves now, and understand pretty well how common aberrations or deformities affect the retina.

wtallis 11y ago

Considering what 10Mbps compressed video can do, I think we're doing pretty well. Getting really close to the limit would require eye-tracking to only encode and transmit the details that the viewer is actually in a position to notice, and that's obviously only possible for a very limited slice of applications.

make3 11y ago

isn't the thing about holographic display that you have to output the data for more than one angle? Meaning, multiple different angles for different eye angles to create stereoscopy. So, 10Mbits * n_vertical_angles * n_horizontal_angles * k_compression_coeffiscient

varjag 11y ago

The combined sensory input of a human was estimated at 3Gbit/s back in 1959. http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~gunnart/MTP/volum2_session4A_ocr.pdf http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~gunnart/MTP/volum2_session4A_ocr.pdf The first paper in the document.