5 ms·

That is just stunning. I guess Disney Imagenineering dept. would love to do some cools things with this. Or perhaps they already have this capability? These a

That is just stunning. I guess Disney Imagenineering dept. would love to do some cools things with this. Or perhaps they already have this capability? These are the kind of things were I'd like to have a commercial version already! Edit: Also, the url in the original post is from 2016! wow! (@dang maybe add (2016) to the title?)

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
CobrastanJorji 7y ago
Disney has a (poor) version of this idea. They project an animation onto wedding cakes at their resorts. They're pre-rendered though, rather than dynamic like this. It'd be fascinating to see what uses they could come up with for this stuff.
- Junk_Collector 7y ago
  Disney uses something similar in a lot of their stage shows at their parks. They use a water fountain to create a screen and project onto the water sheet. It works surprisingly well, but I would assume that it is pre-rendered.
  - patmorgan23 7y ago
    The water screens are actually a pretty old technique that you can do with any traditional light projector (flim or digital). The hard part is making the water sheet.
- JonathonW 7y ago
  Disney does a lot of projection mapping in the parks right now, but it's all (AFAIK) the traditional, pre-rendered type, with animations projected onto large static surfaces like the Magic Kingdom's castle, or onto animatronics with pre-planned motion paths. I'm having a little trouble visualizing how this non-rigid projection mapping could get applied in a practical way in the parks today, mostly because it seems like it has a fairly small "active" area (determined by your projector and sensor resolution, essentially). I could imagine this being used in a parade or stage show, for example, but this system seems like it would be pretty restrictive as to where the performers could move and remain in the projection space.
  - jfengel 7y ago
    Those projections onto the castle are quite stunning. The technology for producing an enormous, apparently seamless image on that uneven canvas is amazing (even if it's static). And a lot of creativity went into building an animation that used that very specific venue so well.
  - saganus 7y ago
    I could imagine doing something for the house of terror like projecting ghosts or something like that, in the curtains to a doorway or on sofas/couches after you stand up (and have your shadow follow you while doing creepy things for instance) Of course, I'm no expert but throw a few million dollars into this and you can probably come up with some neat stuff even if the projection space is small-ish for now.
  - kgc 7y ago
    Augmenting human actors/customers (think Harry Potter spells) could get interesting.
  - dahart 7y ago
    What if the projection space were mobile? One of the applications is to put projectors on moving objects, and project onto static (or moving) surfaces, assuming the system gets small & portable enough. How about one or more projectors mounted on each car of the Haunted Manison ride, or projectors mounted on flying drones aimed at the Spaceship Earth (the geodesic Epcot globe) during the night light show? Combine multiple projectors and a position tracking system, maybe even viewer head/eye tracking too, and I think there might be some amazing possibilities...
    - kderbyma 7y ago
      I think you could even go and apply the same algorithms to AR projections though. This would have massive applications in parks. Guests wearing AR projection goggles while touring the park allowing for a hugely immersive experience
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > Disney has a (poor) version Seems an unnecessarily nasty way to refer to what I guess is earlier less advanced work.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    What exactly is "nasty" about it, and why would anyone take offense at the use of the term "poor version"?
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      What do you think the word 'poor' means when referring to quality? Might be kinder to say 'less advanced' or 'simpler' or 'earlier'.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >What do you think the word 'poor' means when referring to quality? poor (adjective): of a low or inferior standard or quality. >Might be kinder to say 'less advanced' or 'simpler' or 'earlier'. Kinder towards what? Is a multinational like Disney sensitive or is the technology sensitive to the choice of words criticising it? Or will the researchers take offense to their technology, which is objectively inferior, being described as "poor"? We're stretching this too thin, inventing issues where there are none...
        chrisseaton 7y ago
        Real people worked on it, and you’re calling their work poor.
        oh_sigh 7y ago
        Would the Disney version be considered inferior quality to this new research?
        7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

Disney has a (poor) version of this idea. They project an animation onto wedding cakes at their resorts. They're pre-rendered though, rather than dynamic like this. It'd be fascinating to see what uses they could come up with for this stuff.

Junk_Collector 7y ago
Disney uses something similar in a lot of their stage shows at their parks. They use a water fountain to create a screen and project onto the water sheet. It works surprisingly well, but I would assume that it is pre-rendered.
- patmorgan23 7y ago
  The water screens are actually a pretty old technique that you can do with any traditional light projector (flim or digital). The hard part is making the water sheet.
JonathonW 7y ago
Disney does a lot of projection mapping in the parks right now, but it's all (AFAIK) the traditional, pre-rendered type, with animations projected onto large static surfaces like the Magic Kingdom's castle, or onto animatronics with pre-planned motion paths. I'm having a little trouble visualizing how this non-rigid projection mapping could get applied in a practical way in the parks today, mostly because it seems like it has a fairly small "active" area (determined by your projector and sensor resolution, essentially). I could imagine this being used in a parade or stage show, for example, but this system seems like it would be pretty restrictive as to where the performers could move and remain in the projection space.
- jfengel 7y ago
  Those projections onto the castle are quite stunning. The technology for producing an enormous, apparently seamless image on that uneven canvas is amazing (even if it's static). And a lot of creativity went into building an animation that used that very specific venue so well.
- saganus 7y ago
  I could imagine doing something for the house of terror like projecting ghosts or something like that, in the curtains to a doorway or on sofas/couches after you stand up (and have your shadow follow you while doing creepy things for instance) Of course, I'm no expert but throw a few million dollars into this and you can probably come up with some neat stuff even if the projection space is small-ish for now.
- kgc 7y ago
  Augmenting human actors/customers (think Harry Potter spells) could get interesting.
- dahart 7y ago
  What if the projection space were mobile? One of the applications is to put projectors on moving objects, and project onto static (or moving) surfaces, assuming the system gets small & portable enough. How about one or more projectors mounted on each car of the Haunted Manison ride, or projectors mounted on flying drones aimed at the Spaceship Earth (the geodesic Epcot globe) during the night light show? Combine multiple projectors and a position tracking system, maybe even viewer head/eye tracking too, and I think there might be some amazing possibilities...
  - kderbyma 7y ago
    I think you could even go and apply the same algorithms to AR projections though. This would have massive applications in parks. Guests wearing AR projection goggles while touring the park allowing for a hugely immersive experience
chrisseaton 7y ago
> Disney has a (poor) version Seems an unnecessarily nasty way to refer to what I guess is earlier less advanced work.
- coldtea 7y ago
  What exactly is "nasty" about it, and why would anyone take offense at the use of the term "poor version"?
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    What do you think the word 'poor' means when referring to quality? Might be kinder to say 'less advanced' or 'simpler' or 'earlier'.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >What do you think the word 'poor' means when referring to quality? poor (adjective): of a low or inferior standard or quality. >Might be kinder to say 'less advanced' or 'simpler' or 'earlier'. Kinder towards what? Is a multinational like Disney sensitive or is the technology sensitive to the choice of words criticising it? Or will the researchers take offense to their technology, which is objectively inferior, being described as "poor"? We're stretching this too thin, inventing issues where there are none...
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        Real people worked on it, and you’re calling their work poor.
        oh_sigh 7y ago
        Would the Disney version be considered inferior quality to this new research?
        7y ago