7 ms·
Holographic Displays Coming to Smartphones
- dm2 12y agoVideo on this page: http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/audiovideo/glassesfree-3d-from-almost-any-angle http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/audiovideo/gla...
- agumonkey 12y agodirect mp4 http://spectrum.ieee.org/ns/video/nature11972_sv1.mp4 http://spectrum.ieee.org/ns/video/nature11972_sv1.mp4 http://spectrum.ieee.org/ns/video/large_prints.mp4 http://spectrum.ieee.org/ns/video/large_prints.mp4
- ctdonath 12y ago“Everybody wants to put 3-D on a smartphone” Question is whether people will want to use 3-D on a smartphone. We may be hitting a saturation point where current generation(s) have absorbed enough change, and we may have to wait for the next generation, growing up with "a Cray 2 in your pocket" to be ready for the next big step.
- dm2 12y agoI would like to have one, or at least a 3-D desktop display. One without 50 Amazon apps trying to constantly sell me things would be preferred. Aren't modern smartphones far more powerful than a Cray 2?
- sp332 12y agoIn raw processing power, yes. Cray 2 had 1.9 Gflops, modern Snapdragon CPUs have 12! And the visualization capabilities are far beyond that, with Tegra 4 GPUs at something like 75 Gflops.
- agumonkey 12y agoMillions and Cray2x10 running right now doing nothing. Sad.
- dm2 12y agoWhy is it sad? It would render mobile devices useless to run distributed computing on them because the battery would last very little time. Excess capacity is a good thing, especially when it's cheap and available to everyone. Just for comparison, a single Titan Z GPU can preform at 8 TeraFlops, 4000 times that of a Cray 2.
- agumonkey 12y agoI know, I was overly ranty (especially considering the battery factor). Still I'm amazed on how much computing capacity people have and is still perceived as 'not enough'.
- ctdonath 12y agoI'd like one too. Everyone thinks they one one. Until they see one, then don't. Compare the Amazon Fire Phone. It's got that "3D-ish" display, which is about as close to having a 3D display as you can get without quite going there - and it was received with a resounding "meh."
- bitJericho 12y agoYou go ahead and wait I'm ready!
- delecti 12y agoI think it'll come down to creating a compelling use-case that makes the technology stick and not just flash in the pan.
- wlievens 12y agoPorn and Games, I guess?
- anigbrowl 12y agoThey will. It's one of those things that people don't know they want until they have it. Nobody is asking for it, but the minute they see it in the real world they will pull out their wallets so fast it will tear their pockets open.
- jotm 12y agoLike HD audio phone calls? The ones lucky to try it complain that the sound "is too clear" or that it "sounds weird" :-)
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- freehunter 12y agoThat's exactly what everyone did with 3D TVs... do they still make those?
- anigbrowl 12y ago3d TVs (and HD audio) are like an inferior analogue of something else. While I could see people eventually getting used to the audio, the TV thing hasn't caught on because it's not that great and there's no content (I described in another post on this thread how content creation will go for holograms). The thing is that 3d for movies etc. hasn't been done very well. Avatar is still the high water mark in terms of technical polish, but in general it has only been used to build up special effects a little, and there's no visual grammar in the way that one exists for the frame itself. It doesn't add a whole lot extra to the film experience, and it adds even less to the TV experience. Few games were developed to take advantage of the technology, which was a mistake. Projected holograms, however, combine very well with interactive applications. At a later stage you may well see narrative art in hologram form, which could lead to a revival of theatrical performance for a mass audience, but that's 10 years off.
- higherpurpose 12y agoI remember a few years ago, before Apple launched the iPad, I thought this is the "twist" Apple would do for its tablet. I knew the technology must be years away, but I thought if Apple was working on it, perhaps they could've done it years before. Today, after seeing all the 3D movies, parallax screens, and dynamic perspective stuff, I think I'll pass. It will just be a gimmick.
- amrrs 12y agoAfter watching this tell me whether you want Holograph or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAJrrQzBs_Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAJrrQzBs_Y
- josephpmay 12y agoLightfield displays in glasses will be revolutionary for augmented reality, but I don't see the resolution or computation problems being solved anytime soon. I'll have to research Ostendo and Leia, however.
- coldcode 12y agoWhy? The screens are too small and the resolution is likely to be poor; plus you can only interact with a finger on a 2D surface. 3D in space gestures in such a small area are way too inexact and subject to false recognition.
- mason55 12y ago> 3D in space gestures in such a small area are way too inexact and subject to false recognition. Is this an inherent property of physics or just a limitation of current technology? Considering the strides that have been made with stuff like Kinect I don't see why we couldn't improve our tech in this area. IMO the biggest roadblock isn't tech but the strides in HCI that need to be made.
- gravity13 12y agoWell, as far as I understand the technology, there's a projection of a 3-dimensional image emitted in very many directions. So what you see at 45 degrees (polar) angled to the screen would be different than at the normal (90 degrees). Then there's the azimuthal angle as well (you can walk around it if it were laying flat on a desk). Unless there's some other input indicating to the touchscreen at what angles your eyes are at, determining what you see, there seems to be no way to correlate touch/movement gestures with 3-dimensional surfaces. This said, I can still stipulate tremendous value in treating all gestures as acting from the perspective of the normal - you would have a 3d image under glass and every touch on the glass corresponds to a z-dimensional intersection with the holograph.
- potatolicious 12y ago> "Considering the strides that have been made with stuff like Kinect" And it still sucks. The problem with motion controls is that it's a solution looking for a problem. Why would I want to hold my left hand out below my hip at a 45 degree angle and hold for 5 seconds, when instead I can hit the "back" button on my controller, is a mystery. It's the same problem as voice recognition - good demoware, poor products. We don't speak to our computers because the lag in feedback and the accuracy, while having advanced leaps and bounds, is still strictly inferior to hitting a keyboard (virtual or otherwise). This is before we get into more fundamental usability problems like having to hold your arms out while interacting with devices. Minority Report should've featured Tom Cruise with gigantic arms, built up from years of holding his arms out in front of him all day just to do basic computing tasks.
- pronoiac 12y agoI might be nitpicking, but it seems worn to call this holographic. It is 3d, but it's like an improved lenticular process; it has many views, but they're discrete not continuous, and they don't float above the display.
- vilhelm_s 12y agoAs I understand it, it floats above the display to the same extent that a hologram image does. I guess you could call a hologram an improved lenticular process also (as in, the benefit holograms have over lenticular displays is exactly this light collimation thing?).
- jessriedel 12y agoThe difference between discrete and continuous for 3D is the same as for 2D. Traditional holograms are just like analog images with photographic film. Yes they're both continuous, but they both have serious problems with usability. Discrete techniques, like lenticular displays and LCD screens, are much more robust and become effectively continuous when the resolution gets high enough (retina displays). Calling this a hologram is as semantically accurate as calling a digital movie a "film".
- pyre 12y agoI think that when most people hear hologram, they think something reminiscent of Star Wars. These are not 3D volumetric projectors, so I would say that from the layman's point-of-view this is not a hologram.
- phkahler 12y agoI believe the correct solution is to have coherent light emitted from very small pixels, with the ability to modulate either the phase or amplitude of each pixel. This will give the appearance of a regular film hologram. Color is of course another challenge, but this approach seems more practical than tiny lenses producing a finite number of directions. OTOH the old CRT shadow mask was a marvel in its day and was quite practical. Ultimately we DO want glasses. A single holograpic display per eye would be fine and would allow looking around by moving your eyeballs instead of your head in a VR context. This could be a couple of square inches (or less) of hologram per eye.
- jotm 12y agoThis technology will be DOA if AR glasses take off at the same time - the latter could be used as displays for any device, not only the smartphone in your pocket.
- wehadfun 12y agoinstead of this they should get the projector phones working where you can project a 50inch movie screen from your phone.
- vlunkr 12y agoWow that would be really useful!
- mortenjorck 12y agoThis is undoubtedly cool technology, but before anyone gets too excited about holograms floating in space, understand that this is not some sort of breakthrough into the volumetric 3D displays you see in sci-fi movies: You still have to be looking directly into the screen to see the image, just like how a traditional hologram can't escape the boundaries of its frame.
- ericcumbee 12y agoWell that will make my habit of saying "Computer...arch" seem a little less odd.