Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus, Black 3.0 isn't toxic like Vantablack.
...or Anish Kapoor.
Who makes a fine mirror.
1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
111–120 of 133 posts
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#112This seems like an extremely advanced version of those sand tables at science centers that kids play with, where digging a trench in sand with your hand modifies the projection to affect virtual water flow. The youtube video[0] from that page is especially interesting. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bh1MHuA5jU
Yeah, and for the sandboxes, latency is the part that breaks the immersion. But it is straightforward to set up with a kinect and a projector.
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#113This could be cool at techno parties.
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 li…
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 mult…
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
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real people worked on it, and you’re calling their work poor.
Would the Disney version be considered inferior quality to this new research?
The connotative meaning of “poor” isn’t really anything that isn’t the absolute best. Words have meaning beyond the dictionary definition. “Poor” in this case means you think the researchers did a bad job, not that their work was a step on the path to something better. “Earlier”, or even “dated”, would have been a much more charitable depiction. And plenty of people are deriving joy from the application of that technology.
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#116This is just too much. My mind is completely blown. And makes me think of how many things I think are impossible but actually are or will be in the near future.
Similar feelings. The video doesn't go easy on the tech either. He is shaking that paper violently and I can't see any faults. The part where he has 2 bits of paper as well as when he stretches his shirt are mindblowing.
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#117Very cool. I do live projection work[0] and latency is always the killer with immersion. Anything higher than a 1000/90ms latency breaks integration at normal dancer movement speeds. 1000fps seems like overkill but it allows for very fast movement. 0. https://youtu.be/ggRcDQZWD_8?t=1281
Is this real-time 3D taking into account dancer’s motions? I imagine it takes a crazy GPU rig?
In any case, very impressive.
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#118Advertising, advertising, advertising and dance floors.
> dance floors.
Holy shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXrLZmnQ_M
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#119Advertising, advertising, advertising and dance floors.
Football games need more advertising... sigh.
Re: 1000fps image projection on deforming non-rigid surface
#120Earlier 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.
First of all, I'm not calling it poor, the grandparent did.
I'm saying it's nothing special to call it poor.
We say 10x harsher things everyday in HN for frameworks, languages, etc. Heck, check any thread about Apple products. Don't real people work on those?
Plus, ever read art criticism, or restaurant criticism, or political critiques even in the most respected newspapers? "Poor" is the least harsh of the terms they use. And those are also real people they level those things at...