3 ms·
Aren't those two things essentially identical, at least as far as the resulting wavefront goes?
by tgvaughan 7y ago
Aren't those two things essentially identical, at least as far as the resulting wavefront goes?
- sp332 7y agoThe Looking Glass only has 45 discrete views projected across 50 degrees (25 degrees left and right of center). I have one of the smaller ones and it's a very nice effect, but it's not the same as a "real" hologram.
- dTal 7y agoIn a sense, if the resolution is high enough. One notable limitation of the angular-pixel approach is that the angular resolution of the pixel becomes diffraction-limited as the pixel size shrinks - the puts you between a rock and a hard place with the twin goals of "small enough pixels that you can't see them" and "enough viewing angles that you can't perceive the steps", even if you had a hypothetical umpteen-zillion gigapixel display. "True" holograms are coherent across their entire surface, so they don't have this limitation. This isn't even close, though. Horizontal parallax only and only a few dozen angles (over a wide FOV!) puts it more in the territory of lenticulars than true lightfield displays. To be fair that is enough to achieve a 'wow factor', and a true lightfield display is a Hard Problem (that Fovi3d are trying to solve, if you're interested in the state of the art).