In article <4780aca0@news.povray.org>, voi### [at] devnull says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > In article <477e910f$1@news.povray.org>, 
> > nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom says...
> >> And the fact that there isn't any 3D hologram projector except on the
 
> >> virtual world on your website :)
> >>
> >
> > Well, this isn't 100% true now.
> 
> Well, when I was doing my final year at uni, one of the professors was 
> talking about a new 3D TV technology that was "nearly ready to market".
 
> It still hasn't appeared.
> 
> 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. Like, 
a blueray disk might store 20 minutes of the data needed (instead of 
like 10 DVDs, or what ever it is supposed to support). This guys idea 
"looks" like its projected into space, since it works just like a 
projected holographic plate, and while the laser assembly is large and 
complicated, the hardware needed to calculate the image is already 
sitting on your desk. A number of improvements in chip based lasers, and 
other tricks, are ***very*** likely to make it viable to have a 
holographic display on your desk in very short order. 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. I.e., each frame would need "image" data, as in 
the textures, and "mesh" data, defining the location of the objects in 
3D, onto which you want to map those images. You *might* be able to code 
something that can make a decent approximation now, but its going to be 
something that has a surface, but no solidity. I.e., a movie made using 
3D software could place an object in the center of scene, which could be 
seen from all angles and sides, while something mapped using the sort of 
3D system we *can* build, would look like one of those topo maps they 
make, which is just plastic formed into a shell, then painted.

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....

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message