5 ms·

> "Holographic Recording ... remains irrelevant to consumers until we have convenient holographic displays to match." I'm not sure why Lytro hasn't touted this

by acous 12y ago

> "Holographic Recording ... remains irrelevant to consumers until we have convenient holographic displays to match." I'm not sure why Lytro hasn't touted this side of the technology... the first consumer holographic display (oculus rift) is due relatively soon.

phreeza 12y ago
The rift is not really holographic, it's 'just' stereoscopic. Nvidia is working on light field glasses though, and I believe this might be the future, because it allows for much sleeker eyepieces, at a higher computational cost. https://research.nvidia.com/publication/near-eye-light-field-displays https://research.nvidia.com/publication/near-eye-light-field...
- acous 12y ago
  I believe[1] that the head tracking qualifies it as holographic. That light field stuff looks super interesting... 1. http://doc-ok.org/?p=337 http://doc-ok.org/?p=337
  - sp332 12y ago
    It's not holographic because you can't focus your eyes at different depths in the image.
    - dynode 12y ago
      It's not holographic because it doesn't use diffractive / interferometric effects. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography
bane 12y ago
Holography is a specific thing, let's not confuse things by assigning magical powers to the Rift. Holographic displays already exist, usually they're transparent, they work by letting you focus on things through the display and the display stays in focus, making things like AR and HUDs work much better than other types of displays.
- acous 12y ago
  My mistake, but I'm not assigning magical powers. I'm aware of what a holographic display is, and the rift fulfils 3 of the 4 criteria. The lack of accommodation in my experience is not critical and the applicability to lytro is still valid.
  - blincoln 12y ago
    I could be wrong, but IMO you and bane are both confusing "holography" with "3D display", and/or "display that involves depth". The author of the article made a similar mistake, and unfortunately a lot of commercial products are mislabeled as "holographic", so this is unsurprising. As bane said, holography is a very specific thing. Most of the products I'm aware of today that claim to be "holographic" are things like head-up displays and red-dot gun sights. They use optics to make it appear as though a 2D image is appearing some distance behind the display surface. It's a clever, useful effect, but it is not holographic. I think the author of the article is also leaving out one of the main interesting potential uses of depth-sensing cameras, which is to feed the output into a 3D printer. You don't need a holographic display (or even a faux-holographic depth display) for that.
    - cnahr 12y ago
      My use of the term "holographic" was taken directly from Ng's dissertation, near the end of section 3.7: "...Camahart showed that holographic stereograms can be synthesized from light fields." Whether he's strictly correct with his use of the term I don't know. Ng also mentions working with Zebra Imaging on printing such "holograms" [sic], so that's certainly a possible application. I'm not sure a lot of consumers would be interested in that, though, compared to simply showing pictures.
    - bane 12y ago
      Actually the display I'm talking about wasn't a 3d display it was a wearable holographic HUD I saw at a DARPA demo day. The use-case for these kinds of displays is pretty much to ensure a graphic on the display stays in focus no matter where your eyes focus, or where they are relative to the display by producing a hologram of the display. It's subtly different from similar see-through HUDs because you don't have to keep changing your focus back and forth to the HUD. The DARPA guy I was talking to wasn't working on the display but on some other bits of the HUD and didn't know all the details about how it worked sadly. Looking for it later I think it was a holographic waveguide technology. http://www.dodsbir.net/sitis/archives_display_topic.asp?Bookmark=37520 http://www.dodsbir.net/sitis/archives_display_topic.asp?Book...

by acous 12y ago

phreeza 12y ago

The rift is not really holographic, it's 'just' stereoscopic. Nvidia is working on light field glasses though, and I believe this might be the future, because it allows for much sleeker eyepieces, at a higher computational cost. https://research.nvidia.com/publication/near-eye-light-field-displays https://research.nvidia.com/publication/near-eye-light-field...

acous 12y ago
I believe[1] that the head tracking qualifies it as holographic. That light field stuff looks super interesting... 1. http://doc-ok.org/?p=337 http://doc-ok.org/?p=337
- sp332 12y ago
  It's not holographic because you can't focus your eyes at different depths in the image.
  - dynode 12y ago
    It's not holographic because it doesn't use diffractive / interferometric effects. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

bane 12y ago

Holography is a specific thing, let's not confuse things by assigning magical powers to the Rift. Holographic displays already exist, usually they're transparent, they work by letting you focus on things through the display and the display stays in focus, making things like AR and HUDs work much better than other types of displays.

acous 12y ago
My mistake, but I'm not assigning magical powers. I'm aware of what a holographic display is, and the rift fulfils 3 of the 4 criteria. The lack of accommodation in my experience is not critical and the applicability to lytro is still valid.
- blincoln 12y ago
  I could be wrong, but IMO you and bane are both confusing "holography" with "3D display", and/or "display that involves depth". The author of the article made a similar mistake, and unfortunately a lot of commercial products are mislabeled as "holographic", so this is unsurprising. As bane said, holography is a very specific thing. Most of the products I'm aware of today that claim to be "holographic" are things like head-up displays and red-dot gun sights. They use optics to make it appear as though a 2D image is appearing some distance behind the display surface. It's a clever, useful effect, but it is not holographic. I think the author of the article is also leaving out one of the main interesting potential uses of depth-sensing cameras, which is to feed the output into a 3D printer. You don't need a holographic display (or even a faux-holographic depth display) for that.
  - cnahr 12y ago
    My use of the term "holographic" was taken directly from Ng's dissertation, near the end of section 3.7: "...Camahart showed that holographic stereograms can be synthesized from light fields." Whether he's strictly correct with his use of the term I don't know. Ng also mentions working with Zebra Imaging on printing such "holograms" [sic], so that's certainly a possible application. I'm not sure a lot of consumers would be interested in that, though, compared to simply showing pictures.
  - bane 12y ago
    Actually the display I'm talking about wasn't a 3d display it was a wearable holographic HUD I saw at a DARPA demo day. The use-case for these kinds of displays is pretty much to ensure a graphic on the display stays in focus no matter where your eyes focus, or where they are relative to the display by producing a hologram of the display. It's subtly different from similar see-through HUDs because you don't have to keep changing your focus back and forth to the HUD. The DARPA guy I was talking to wasn't working on the display but on some other bits of the HUD and didn't know all the details about how it worked sadly. Looking for it later I think it was a holographic waveguide technology. http://www.dodsbir.net/sitis/archives_display_topic.asp?Bookmark=37520 http://www.dodsbir.net/sitis/archives_display_topic.asp?Book...