They can project what's behind an object onto an object to make it "invisible"
How could you demo that?
Turn the projection on and off to see the cloaking in action?
1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
91–100 of 133 posts
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#92Sure seems like a lot of science and tech related awesomeness is introduced to the world on a website from 1998.
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is "nasty" about it, and why would anyone take offense at the use of the term "poor version"?
What do you think the word 'poor' means when referring to quality? Might be kinder to say 'less advanced' or 'simpler' or 'earlier'.
>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...
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think the word 'poor' means when referring to quality? Might be kinder to say 'less advanced' or 'simpler' or 'earlier'.
> 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, be…
Real people worked on it, and you’re calling their work poor.
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#95Does anyone know what camera they use is?
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very cool, a sort of live-action cgi capability. Hope it doesn't easily scale out to larger spaces and crowds, or the current tech industry would soon have public spaces filled with ads projected on peoples belongings.
I doubt it would ever be used on private property like that, but we absolutely will see this tech used in the advertising space.
[deleted]
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#97The second generation of the projection tech does color: http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vision/dynaflashv2/index-e.htm... And they can now do the tracking without the infrared paint: http://www.k2.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vision/MIDAS/index-e.html
Very cool, a sort of live-action cgi capability. Hope it doesn't easily scale out to larger spaces and crowds, or the current tech industry would soon have public spaces filled with ads projected on peoples belongings.
> public spaces filled with ads projected on peoples belongings.
They literally could have done this for 100+ years.
They do not.
Do you see how what you say makes no sense other than a fear of technology?
You've seen projectors, you've seen how they don't just project them anywhere, it's hard to see how one makes this leap.
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#98That is pretty impressive. Tried something similar with a DLP projector stolen from texas instruments (not stolen, but they tend to be picky about selling them. Probably because these are awesome devices).
Was slow as hell, since I used a raster with multiple images to measure the topology. The resulting heightmap was awesome, but even with synchronized camera and projector, I needed a pretty long illumination time per image. So it would be interesting what camera(s) they used too. I doubt you would need multiple projectors, because the available ones are extremely fast.
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#99Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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, be…
Real people worked on it, and you’re calling their work poor.
Would the Disney version be considered inferior quality to this new research?