"andrel" wrote:
> That it'll probably would result in an arms race where the deer have to 
> buy holographic projectors themselves. That that would result in their 
> bankruptcy given their low cash status. Which would mean the end of 
> hunting.

Dang, I should have included that one. :P

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Wouldn't it be better to project a female deer hologram to attract the buck instead of
just
projecting camo?

Post a reply to this message

When hunting deer you don't want to be totally camouflage.
You might get SHOT!!
Deer are color blind, so you can wear bright orange!

Post a reply to this message

Leroy wrote:

> Deer are color blind, so you can wear bright orange!

No you can't - but you can wear nicely dappled and patterned orange 
without much issue. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

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 :)
> 
> PS: I fell for it too. Great job there.
> 
Well, this isn't 100% true now. Some guy is developing a system that 
takes a laser, runs code through a standard 3D card to determine the 
pattern of interference needed to make a 3D image, then alters the 
laser, using some optical technique that apparently eliminates the 
mirrors normally used, to generate a hologram. I.e., he is doing the 
reverse of what you do to get a holographic print. Like other holograms, 
it isn't projected into mid air, but on a flat surface. It is also only 
monocolored at the moment, though that wouldn't matter much for most 
animals, and takes up a room the size of a small refrigerator truck. He 
hopes to make it work with multicolor lasers, and get it down to the 
size of... a copier machine, or some such, in the relatively near 
future.

Now, whether you could a) generate an image from data, like a picture, 
which would work, b) find some place to hide something the size of a 
refer, and c) really hide behind it usefully, is another matter. lol You 
are probably better off just buying camo netting. 5-10 years from now... 
who knows, especially with new developments in laser technology, 3D 
hardware, etc.

Think I read about it is MIT Technology Review, but not sure if that was 
the magazine or not.

-- 
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

>> Deer are color blind, so you can wear bright orange!
>
> No you can't - but you can wear nicely dappled and patterned orange 
> without much issue. ;-)

I think the typical deer blind is box nailed to a tree, or a
movable tower with a box on top. Not much chance of
mistaking it for a deer.

Post a reply to this message

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. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

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

>> 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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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.

They did that for Minority Report, but I think they used something like 
15 different camera angles to get the geometry calculated correctly. 
I'd have to go back and look, and I'm feeling lazy atm.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message