3 ms·
Ahh, so volumetric rather than holographic then. I always get a bit suspicious of claims of commercial holographic displays due to the data requirements, if no
by moocowduckquack 13y ago
Ahh, so volumetric rather than holographic then.
I always get a bit suspicious of claims of commercial holographic displays due to the data requirements, if nothing else. Here's an analysis from the MIT Spatial Imaging Group, for instance.
"a hologram of dimensions 100 mm by
100 mm and a viewing angle of 30 degrees contains approximately 25 Gigabytes of information, or
the equivalent of 25 billion samples of information - all for a single frame. In order to update such
an image with 8-bit resolution at a rate of 60 frames/second, a data-rate of 12 Terabits/sec would be
required for transmission of the hologram"
http://www.loreti.it/Download/PDF/Olografia/holovideo/MIT/spie90.pdf http://www.loreti.it/Download/PDF/Olografia/holovideo/MIT/sp...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jnhnum1 13y agoI don't think the data requirements are that realistic. While the actual interference patterns on a hologram would be ridiculously large to send as a bitmap, it's easy to compute the interference patterns for the superposition of points of lights, which is what this volumetric display is showing anyways. So a computer would only need to send a list of points and colors to the display. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_holography#Point_Source_Holograms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_holography#P...
- moocowduckquack 13y agoYou still have to drive the display. If you are just sending minimal information, you then need something to process that data and output the 12 terabits/sec.