Innovision HoloAD Creates Movie-Like Holograms

[exfileme]

Innovision's HoloAD tries to create holograms seen in Star Wars and Star Trek.

Innovision HoloAD Creates Movie-Like Holograms : Read more

 

[Guest]

At least they're trying, I'll give 'em that!

 

[lucky015]

Reflection from above onto the outside glass box of the iphone?

 

[enzo matrix]

"more cooler"?

 

[doc70]

uhhh,....ummmm,.....
eh, what the hell, I'll just ask it:

What was that video?

 

[loomis86]

Good effort. Keep trying.

 

[ktasley]

this is not what it appears to be.

 

[Pailin]

hmm...

try this video, gives a much better idea of what it is capable of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVK1xyQxTCE&feature=related

 

[kravmaga]

This looks way better than the MIT tech demo from years ago which uses a projector aimed onto a spinning mirror inside a glass shell which made choppy monochromatic holograms that would distort like crazy when the refresh rate went out of sync.

 

[aethm]

that is actually pretty cool.. despite being enclosed in a pyramid That link posted by pailin is much more impressive

 

[fjiekie]

impressive, but i want the mobile phone they use in SW, hard to carry a pyramid like that in your pocket...

 

[7amood]

WHY THE F**K THERE IS NO FULL SCREEN BUTTON ON TOMSHARDWARE VIDEOS???
I WANNA KNOW HOW IT'S DONE!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[Guest]

IO2technology has had this tech for years. They don't need a glass pyramid and they offer touch capabilities. http://www.io2technology.com

 

[Pailin]

If you want to see it full screen:

double click the video
...opens up a new browser tab at YouTube (becomes active tab) and does not play the video on toms, but starts it playing at YouTube
then click the full screen button

Done

 

[Pailin]

@ Cpt_Kirk

true and is good tech (projects image into a very fine mist it produces)
The "touch screen" versions of these 3d holographics are fantastic to see in use!

But:

Costs $18.5 - 58 thousand per unit for the non-touch screen versions
has a max operating time of 12 - 24 hours depending on model...???

I imagine these pyramid things are going to be a Hell of a Lot cheaper and can run 24/7

 

[Pailin]

AS FOR THAT Frickin ANOYING BUPA ADD.......

do you know how annoying it is to have a random page amongst maybe 40 opens browser tabs (I often have Many open for various researches I am running) that starts playing sound

>_<

>_<

can be very annoying

(and yeah, now I know where that sound comes from I know it is from a page refresh here - but was unexpected from a toms pages and I sometimes refresh multiple pages - or from a browser crash as firefox opens them all back up on a restore)

 

[arkon]

For goodness sake! This isn't 3D at all!

- There's no parallax (neither horizontal nor vertical)
- You're just seeing one 2D video image projected onto a piece of glass
- and the same image to each piece of glass!

Having myself worked on TRUE 3D holographic displays (i.e. three coloured lasers, RGB, beamed through a complex diffraction grating in real-time), and "2 1/2 D" (2.5D) autostereo displays (giving horizontal parallax with no glasses required) - this is not what it claims to be...

We were doing all this back in 2000-2005 - just too ahead of the game unfortunately... Check out a presentation for the (admittedly big) Autostereo Display Wall, including background on the technology and approaches:

http://www.sid.org/chapters/uki/presentations/qinetiq.pdf

 

[Pailin]

hmmm... I'd actually like to agree with you on this.

and what I am going to say actually goes against the description of this tech, but...

bearing in mind the actual physical objects in the tank...
the images are meant to just be projected on the sides of the pyramid...

Then in theory, the pink puffer fish in the video I linked should "fall" out of the bowl as the viewers point of view shifts...?

because of this, it seems to me that there is something more to this tech than meets the eye?

perhaps you could please explain the failings I am missing? am quite interested to learn more

 

[Pailin]

and you can't be giving everyone here a thumbs down just because they liked what they saw...

or thought that what they were looking at was better than some other infantile 3D tech they had seen (even if that infantile tech was closer to a true 3D)

and a thumbs down to someone giving a helpful link to a clearer example what what This tech can do at what IT does, even if it is not a real 3D tech "just" because you don't like this tech LOL

Pretty misserable behavious really 🙁

 

[arkon]

@ pallin:

Ouch! I wasn't trying to be miserable, honest! Was just disagreeing that it was a clearer example - what makes it different is that there's a real object, the bowl, in the box.

As for the MIT spinning disk demo (or maybe it was another external company - I can't remember), that was actually quite cool for what it was. Apparently the thing vibrates considerably (or at least the unit that a colleague saw). So I disagreed that this tech was better than that one (artifacts notwithstanding).

I do take your point about the positioning of the image - it does always seem to be central. Maybe they down-project the video onto the partially reflective glass sides (notice they're at 45 degrees).