Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!

True 3D Display

croxiscroxis I am the walrus
[url]http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2006/20060210/20060210.html[/url]

Comments

  • ShadowDancerShadowDancer When I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie." London, UK
    wow that looks sweet! i wonder how bulky the equipment is.
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    All the more evidence that you need to read Digg more :P
  • PJHPJH The Lovely Thing
    Holy sweet scifi! :eek:

    So it's finally invented. A true hologram as we've seen for so long only in the science fiction world.

    This is one of the most remarkable inventions of all time in its own field. This invention I've been waiting for a long long time. Now they just need to develope it further and make it an AFFORDABLE commercial product for all.

    Next antigravity and artifical gravity! :cool:

    - PJH
  • mmmmmmmmmmm....

    Holograph:alndance:
  • "Plasma Luminous Body?"

    Does that mean there are a bunch of little balls hanging on strings that the laser illuminates using the focus?

    I wonder if an RGB TV like principle would work here given that there is a 3d space and you could look at the "dots" from several angles....
  • PJHPJH The Lovely Thing
    Read the text ("have succeeded in the experimental fabrication of a device displaying "real 3D images" which consist of dot arrays in space where there is nothing but air.") and check the photos.

    It's a real thing and first ever created. So far all those other inventions have been fake trying to imitate a real 3d image in air with very poor success. They've all used somekind of glass ball, plate or whatever being far away from a true floating 3d image, or even true floating 2d image in air.

    I just wish there was a video going around it showing it better.

    - PJH
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Konrad [/i]
    [B]"Plasma Luminous Body?"

    Does that mean there are a bunch of little balls hanging on strings that the laser illuminates using the focus?

    I wonder if an RGB TV like principle would work here given that there is a 3d space and you could look at the "dots" from several angles.... [/B][/QUOTE]

    As far as I can tell, it's simply forcing gasses out and using a laser to superheat them into a plasma state, causing a flash which stays in our visual system long enough to be easily noticed...just like a CRT and its scanning beam illuminating the phosphors, but in 3d. :P Or something that makes sense.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    Sanfam basically has it right. It relies on there being a gas of the right composition above the emitter. Then it uses lasers to heat that gas to a plasma at specific points, where it glows briefly before cooling again. The point at which plasma is created is likely determined by the intersection of two lasers. Essentially it's creating pixels in the air out of little balls of plasma.
  • FreejackFreejack Jake the Not-so-Wise
    I wonder how high the refresh rate is? There must be some lag time as the plasma dissipates.

    Jake
  • croxiscroxis I am the walrus
    I would assume that the glow will fade quite fast, especally if the pixle is very small.
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    it does fade fast, but like I said, It operates as a traditional TV does, and apparently with a fade time of a tenth of a second...but that's just long enough for it to stay in our mind. I really want to see one in person, as I have a very high sensitivity to flickering light sources.
  • croxiscroxis I am the walrus
    Funny, I do too. I can't use a CRT operating at 60hz and florecent lighting drives me up the wall.
  • Vorlons in my HeadVorlons in my Head The Vorlons told me to.
    "Help me Obi-wan Kenobi, you're my only hope :D :P Its finally become true!
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    at 60hz? I even find 85 to be less than optimal. Gah. Old-style fluorescent lighting systems which were prone to flickering drive me insane...though more recent varieties have save me the pain by using higher frequencies within the tubes. I'd be quite happy at 95-110 hz...but not many 19" screens can do that at 1280x1024.
  • Quite cool.

    Wonder if a new term will be invented for the 3D pixels... trixels? ppixels (plasma pixels)?

    And actually I believe that a proper choice of lasers to ionize specific gases might even give the capability for RGB trixels... full color capabilities!

    And this would finally explain how Draal projected his hologram into B5... selective ionization of air molecules.

    However the scifi movie motif of people passing through a holographic projection might hurt a little bit with this system...
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sanfam [/i]
    [B]at 60hz? I even find 85 to be less than optimal. Gah. Old-style fluorescent lighting systems which were prone to flickering drive me insane...though more recent varieties have save me the pain by using higher frequencies within the tubes. I'd be quite happy at 95-110 hz...but not many 19" screens can do that at 1280x1024. [/B][/QUOTE]

    This is true, and I find it quite annoying. My Philips 109S4 is doing 1280x1024 at 85Hz, and that's the highest it goes. At the same time, I'm getting 1280x1024 at 100Hz out of the 21" Trinitron I use as my primary.
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    But that's a 21" screen, and it's designed to do, more or less, rediculous scanrates to keep a 1600x1200 image on the screen at 85hz. So to pull off 1280x1024 at 100hz is...not quite so insane due to the decrease in precision.
  • croxiscroxis I am the walrus
    75 is best for me, but I can tolerate 70.

    Do LCD have refreshrates, or what prinicples do they run off of?
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    tolerate? That would imply that it is somehow worse than 75.


    As for LCDs, they don't involve an electron gun bombarding phosphors on the entirety of the screen area nearly one hundred times per second. They simply switch the state of a polarizer to allow light from an always-on backlight to pass through.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    They do have a refresh rate (usually 60Hz) but it's not the same effect as a CRT refresh rate.
  • croxiscroxis I am the walrus
    Whoops, fixed problem.

    I shoudl get an LCD screen. Damn saving up money :(
  • Vorlons in my HeadVorlons in my Head The Vorlons told me to.
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
    [B]75 is best for me, but I can tolerate 70.

    Do LCD have refreshrates, or what prinicples do they run off of? [/B][/QUOTE]

    No, LCD's are either on or off pixels, they have no refresh rate. For compatibility reasons the video card still feeds it at a set refresh rate but what you see has nothing to do with that,
  • Vorlons in my HeadVorlons in my Head The Vorlons told me to.
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sanfam [/i]
    [B] Gah. Old-style fluorescent lighting systems which were prone to flickering drive me insane...though more recent varieties have save me the pain by using higher frequencies within the tubes. . [/B][/QUOTE]

    Most modern flourescent systems use 2Khz frequencies so the flicker issue is well, no longer an issue.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vorlons in my Head [/i]
    [B]No, LCD's are either on or off pixels, they have no refresh rate. For compatibility reasons the video card still feeds it at a set refresh rate but what you see has nothing to do with that, [/B][/QUOTE]

    LCDs [i]do[/i] have a refresh rate. It's not the same as a CRT, where the electron gun is scanning over a grid and the magnetic field has to be altered to direct the stream at each individual pixel, but it's similar. The pixels in an LCD display are addressed using a matrix of connectors. During a refresh, one row is turned on. For that row, each column where a pixel needs to be on is also activated. Then that row is turned off, the next row is turned on and the columns for each pixel in that row that need to be on are turned on. The same thing happens for every row in the display, then the process is repeated for the next refresh. The refresh rate is how long it takes to do all the rows in the display.
  • PJHPJH The Lovely Thing
    Every display regardless of the technology has a refresh rate, at least if that display is supposed to display anything else at all than a one single static image.

    Btw, I was visiting my parents today and mentioned to my dad about this invention and he said that he just saw a moment earlier something about a new hologram device invention on the TV news. I guess it had to be about this same device. Too bad I didn't see it myself.

    I was already wondering why an invention of this significance hadn't been on the news yet.

    - PJH
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vorlons in my Head [/i]
    [B]Most modern flourescent systems use 2Khz frequencies so the flicker issue is well, no longer an issue. [/B][/QUOTE]

    Thus my mentioning :-D However, I've found a lot of places running standard fresnel-covered flushmounted fluorescent lighting still run at the lower frequencies. I have yet to see a parabolic assembly that was headache-inducing, and don't think I ever will. And every year, I'm seeing less and less of those damned fresnel lights. They lasted too long, anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.