31–40 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like multiple such displays stacked up, for true depth. Each of your eyes will see a slightly different image because it has real parallax, and each person around a display will see from a different angle too.
"Multiple pepper's ghost displays stacked up" doesn't really make sense. Pepper's ghost requires a lot of space, and it isn't really stackable.
I'd guess the device is made of something like 20 stacked panels, each with a 300 x 300 resolution.
I'd guess the device is made of something like 20 stacked panels, each with a 300 x 300 resolution.
The description is rather vague. It claims 2 million voxels and no moving parts. That's resolution of maybe 200 x 200 x 50; the depth dimension seems smaller than the others. Is is some optical system which projects on 50 plates (maybe less), or something like that? It looks like they're somehow optically remapping a projector to multiple planes at lower resolution. There have been depth displays before - vibrating m…
I think it only has 10 plates. I like the 'More 3D than that Tupac hologram' claim - it's true, but it uses basically the same effect, just with 10 layers.
This is the only known way to create true images with real depth of field and parallax, and requires ultra high resolution to both record and display the microscopic interference pattern.
There is a good book https://www.crcpress.com/Ultra-Realistic-Imaging-Advanced-Te... that has the mathematical basis for which the real principle of holography could be applied, given a capable enough display technology, to re-create an exact replica of the light field/wavefront that is identical to what we see in real life. Of course, a single static image with sufficient resolution of about 3"x5" in real life contains over 100 GB of data. The information carrying capacity of light is amazing.
None of the current VR/AR systems (including MagicLeap) use anything close to what is required, and we are still ways off in both display tech and GPU bandwidth to even generate a single, static image in a consumer product.
Pepper's Ghost display?
I saw a comment today on HN showing voxiebox[1] which seems to have a better volumetric display, unlike this one which has a very small number of discrete layers. [1] http://www.voxiebox.com/
I believe the video is mostly concealing one important fact: the resolution in the z-axis is very low. That's the only way to explain the fairly high-res images in the demo when there are only 2 million voxels. I'd guess the device is made of something like 20 stacked panels, each with a 300 x 300 resolution.
I saw a comment today on HN showing voxiebox[1] which seems to have a better volumetric display, unlike this one which has a very small number of discrete layers. [1] http://www.voxiebox.com/
Looks like that has about 20 layers. The flickering suggests a mechanical scanner. A rotating mirror? Vibrating mirror?
I saw a comment today on HN showing voxiebox[1] which seems to have a better volumetric display, unlike this one which has a very small number of discrete layers. [1] http://www.voxiebox.com/
Looks like that has about 20 layers. The flickering suggests a mechanical scanner. A rotating mirror? Vibrating mirror?
So the number of layers would be bound by the frame rate of the display, the amount of vertical travel, and the speed of the motor driving it up and down.