>> There are quite a wide range of technologies out there for generating 3D 
>> animated images. None of them has ever become all that popular. And 
>> certainly none of them enable you to "project" a hologram into mid-air. ;-)
>>
> Well. The problem with the 3D TV system is a) recording, b) storage and 
> c) transmission. Your talking about a *massive* increase in data.

Massive increase in data? Yes. Corresponding increase in 
compressibility? Maybe.

> Recording and 
> playing back "TV", where you are using a camera to record the data, is 
> going to require either a) a vastly different technology, or b) some 
> method of reading the data from two cameras, calculating a 3D mesh(s) of 
> the objects in the scene, mapping textures to those, then reintegrating 
> them at the other end.

This technology already exists. See, for example, The Matrix. Record a 
scene from several directions, and then pan around it in (nearly) 
arbitrary 3D by interpolating between camera angles. Apparently they 
call it "time slicing". (In the still image case at least.)

> This isn't what they are trying to create though. They want something 
> more detailed, and I don't think they have the software, cameras, 
> hardware *or* bandwidth to manage it yet. And storing the data at all, 
> instead of doing it live....

I suspect it's technically possible right now. As to whether it will 
ever become economically feasible... I doubt it. But maybe.

And I return to my original point: nobody has a system that can 
*project* a hologram into free air yet. Nor even a vague inkling of how 
to approach such a task. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message