|WikiProject Technology||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Invention||(Rated C-class)|
Advances are being made in negative-index-of-refraction meta materials. Could light-emitting points embedded in or below such a lens project an image above the lens? Recent suggests in New Scientist seem to suggest this possibility -- 18 November 2006
Does anyone know the patent application citation to go along with the Microsoft "new display type" section that someone recently added? --Gregg Favalora 12:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
i looked and looked and looked and couldn't find it. i think the poster of that commment was mistaken, so i have removed it from the artical. i'll place it here incase someone finds it.J.L.Main 11:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
i really wish it were true, but i tryed typing both "holograms microsoft" and "volumetric display microsoft" into google news and neither on gave any results.J.L.Main 11:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft Corporation recently filed a patent which uses a combination of emission and illumination technology to simulate animated three-dimensional volumes with a nearly infinite range of viewing angles. Though its frame rate requires the first incarnation to be monochromatic, it differs from other volumetric projectors because it is safe to interact directly with or within the projected volume.
I FOUND IT!!!!! its called the Touchlight in is basicaly the thing from minority report.J.L.Main 11:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
disadvantages of vol. displays
maybe we should ad some information about problems with vol. displays? e.g. objects are always see through and there is no occlusion. Quickie 17:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Volumetric displays, such as spinning-screen displays, are indeed capable of occlusion amongst scene elements. The ability to reconstruct light fields with viewer position-dependent effects, such as occlusion, is partially due to the optical properties of the screen, not necessarily its motion. This is an unfortunately popular misconception. -gf 29 July 2006
The Holoverse page seems really shady... I can't seem to find any real info or pictures of their products. Anyone else think the link should be removed?
Timbagas 03:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, they are pretty secretive. I still think that, given the paucity of commerical ventures involved in this, they should be listed.
Personally I think volumetric displays will never take off - lightweight stereoscopic displays (VR glasses) will be the tech that will be commercially viable. -kg
Sorry about the flashy language, but adding a citation tag was just silly. Here's where the 180GB figure came from: 1024x1024x768 voxels x 24 bits x 75hz / 8 million (conversion from bits to gigabytes) = 181.193932800. Rounds to 180GB/s. Oh, and cubic XGA is hardly a "popular PC resolution." ;-)
Also, I'll admit that various factors like "empty" voxels and vector (rather than voxel) displays might reduce the bandwidth and horsepower requirements substantially.220.127.116.11 13:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Laser plasma version
Found this version and linked to it.
- Ok, blooming seems to be unrelated. It's an effect in which the air absorbs some energy from the laser and because of the heat change its index of refraction changes and the beam starts to diverge. Not absorbing so much it plasmafies, from what I can tell. — Omegatron 03:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
In all the pictures and videos I have seen of this type of display, it is only capable of generating whitish points of light. I am not very familiar with the exact mechanism that generates the light in this case, but it seems to me that it might be capable of displaying different colors. If the mechanism is incandescence or fluorescence, changing the power density of the lasers should alter the emission spectrum somewhat. Alternatively, is it possible to illuminate the ball of plasma with another laser of a desired color? If the plasma is capable of scattering visible light, or if it could be induced to lase at the desired frequencies, I see no reason why a multicolor display shouldn't work. Does anyone have a technical opinion on the matter? 18.104.22.168 06:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I recently made an entry for "holovision" and somebody directed it here. That's fine but I intended it to mostly refer to the science fiction idea of holovision. The science fiction references wouldn't fit well here.--Projectautoman 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Where was it originally? Could it be merged with holodeck maybe? — Omegatron 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I created a stub for the term "holovision" around two weeks ago. I gathered some details and went to add them today but the term is redirected to "volumetric display". Fair enough for holographic television research such as MIT's Spatial Imaging Group. However, in the stub for "holovision" I specified science fiction. Can I redirect a redirect or maybe it can be holovision (disambiguation)? --Projectautoman
- It should probably be a disambig page, unless there's a specific usage that always uses the term. — Omegatron 04:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I am sure you don't want fiction mixed in here.--Projectautoman
i can't visualize it
This along with countless other jargon makes this an extremely useless artical to anyone outside the holography field. Actually this artical sounds more like an attempt by an undergraduate to impress his professor with big words. This article definately needs to be rewritten, as this is not a technical manual but instead an encyclopedia available for the general public. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. The article provides a great starting point to comprehend this technology, which is still being developed into a potential consumer electronic. Andreba (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
What if short-band radio wave lasers were pulsed from three directions focusing on one point to create a microscopic point of plasma, and that plasma was used as a lens to distribute light from three colored lasers, creating a high definition voxel, and then applying this setup to a grid to create a three dimensional display, that, with the right imaging technology, could be set up as a safe interactive display, due to the fact that the actual plasma is so small, and therefore dissipates quickly, and imaging technology could be used to eliminate the possibility that small points of plasma form inside your hand? Would this work? I am looking for some educated opinion here, so feedback would be appreciated. Curious individual (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)