Open-Source volumetric display

[Thomas]

Hi there

There are two guys, Gavin Smith and Will Tamblyn, developing a volumetric display (mechanical/ helix + pico-projector) and they want to open-source it.

http://openvolumetric.org

* The resolution of the display is about 11 Million Voxel @ 20 "frames" @ one color (green)


and they posted their project on "Pozible" a sort of australian Kickstarter-like website.

http://www.pozible.com/index.php/archiv ... iption/0/0

they seem to need 24'000 A$ to finalize their hardware design. (and then maybe sell DIY-Kits ...?)

At first they offered anyone who pledges 1500$ a fully assembled device, but sadly this doesn't seem to be the case anymore.


what do you think ?

( and especially what does greg think about this as the master of v-display creators ? )

tom

[Dinesh]

but sadly this doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Wonder why not?

Anyway, what's a "volumetric display"? Is a set of books inside a display case or a cupboard with glass doors a "volumetric display". Does this "volumetric display" have to be virtual and to be somehow generated by software? Can it be generated by optics? It seems that any display that purports to show a "volume" in a display is a "volumetric display"! This covers lenticulars, standard display holograms, Craig's Rita ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frXeTu9XWAc ), any stereo display. Anyone in Vancouver can perhaps go to SID ( http://sid.org/ ) and see a whole bunch of these "volumetric displays". It seems that "volumetric display" is simply a buzzword designed to make people think that somehow some marvellous new technique has been discovered.

Hey, Gregg, didn't know you were an expert in cupboards! Sorry, Gregg, joking. But what in ***!#$ is a "volumetric display" when it's at home?

I think that these buzzwords tend to obscure the true value of any system by associating some form of technical expertise on some standard piece of equipment or some standard technique. I suppose "3D" is becoming passe, "Princess Leia" has become overused and "stereoscopic" is too long for a lot of people, but by splitting it into two words, "volumetric display" sounds so much more...well...volumetric. The internet is full of these appeals for money for "new" 3d/Princess Leia/stereoscopic/volumetric display type devices. Liti has a "volumetric display" that they're trying to raise money on also and I wonder when we're going to see SeeReal's "volumteric display". In the meantime, I understand that 3D TVs (also "volumetric displays"?) are not doing too well. I just wish people would call a spade, a spade. Then at least I have a more concrete sense of what I'm being asked to financially support than a snazzy video and a lot of marketing.

[favalora]

Dinesh -

Sorry, I... don't follow. Terminology in display technology (lenticular, parallax barrier, volumetric) might have "fuzzy" definitional edges, but they are useful among researchers to quickly classify what we're talking about.

g

[favalora]

I'm preparing for some travel tonight, so the best I can do is point you to an article about volumetric displays. There's no 100% perfect definition of it, but essentially they're displays whose 3-D imagery really does occupy a volume of space. Are holograms volumetric? Maybe. Few people really talk about it. Usually volumetric displays are things like: projecting light onto a spinning surface, or activating a 3-D matrix of LEDs, or... you get the point. Normally, parallax barrier displays or lenticular arrays are NOT volumetric displays because photons are emitted from a static plane.

http://www.greggandjenny.com/gregg/IEEE ... valora.pdf

I also re-wrote most of the Wikipedia piece on "volumetric displays" several years ago but I think it's corroded over time. I mean, um, it changed. I'm not the only guy on the Internet unfortunately.

gregg

[favalora]

Whoops, sorry Tom, I didn't read your note carefully enough at first.

What do I think? Cool! It's neat that people are still working on volumetric displays. Display historians like Barry Blundell have traced them back to... gosh, what... 1912? They are very hard to build well. If they're opto-mechanical, it is difficult to have a decent-sized ( >10" -diameter?) image at high resolution (100 million voxels, say) that looks like it's not shimmying and shaking. And, the rasterization algorithms are difficult to conceive of when you're writing the code.

The dudes in Australia are trying hard to take TI DMDs and project - I think - onto a little spinning helix. Looks neat!

I am a little concerned about a patent or two out there from a former competitor to Actuality Systems which they might be trampling on, but perhaps that's just an American patent.

g

[PinkysBrain]

Anyway, what's a "volumetric display"?

Generally a display which generates light at positions in a volume to create a 3D scene (rather than creating a light field from a 2D plane which is perceived as 3D such as barrier/lenticular/integral images and holograms). For instance by sweeping a helix with a sequence of images on it, throwing light from a hologram into a fog chamber or gel, localized heating of air with a converging laser beam, that sort of stuff. Of course the entire scene is by necessity transparent, one of the downsides of volumetric displays.

[favalora]

And why do you say "Of course," PinkysBrain? ...

I thought that, too, for a while. But: http://www.greggandjenny.com/gregg/AO_4 ... apable.pdf

I suppose you could argue that particular (occlusion-capable) display isn't volumetric. And, so, this display is a good example of where definitions of display technologies break down.

g

[PinkysBrain]

Well as I often say, scientific language is not nearly as precise as some think it is.

[Dinesh]

Gregg,
I understand your point. My point is that there is such a "fuzzy" overlay of these 3D techniques to holography per se, and such a desire by the media to associate almost everything with "holography" because - presumably because of the rather SyFy/Star Trek/Star Wars overtones of holography - that all the developers of any 3D display techniques are using any word that happens to captivate the public, associating it with holography and using it as a marketing tool. After a while, hologarphers wake up to this "sleight of hand" and claim, loudly, that so-and-so is not a hologram. However, there is little said when the association is first made. When these Musion displays first came out, there was a not-so-subtle association to holography. I remember the first one that I came across was the CNN "hologram" during the 2008 presidential campaign. TJ (no less!) enthused about the "CNN" hologram. I stated that TJ was wrong and this was not a hologram. However, due to this "ancestral worship" dimension of old holographers, I was taken to task for daring to disagree with TJ! (Luckily I'm not much of a believer in the "expert syndrome"!) Now, I have the greatest respect for TJ, but in this case he was wrong! The CNN "hologram" was not a hologram. Of course, I got the blunt end of the stick and many criticisms! Then came Prince Charles, talking to an audience in Dubai from London, as a "hologram". Again, I pointed out that this was not a hologram. Again, I was severely rebuffed. Then came the "holograms" in airports and a few brave souls came forward and stated that this was not a hologram (more politely than I, perhaps. Social finesse was never my most enduring feature!). Then came Tupac, with all the corresponding publicity and the entire holographic community exploded! Where were they when TJ sponsored the CNN hologram? Now we have this "volume display". I know that you work with volume displays, and I know the difference between volume displays and holograms; however, this particular "volume display" seems intent on being recognised as a "hologram". Well, it's not a hologram! However, by analogy, there will be some who say, "Any 3D display displays volume. This display displays volume. A hologram displays volume. So, we have a volume display hologram. The Holo-desk is but a skip and a hop away! Invest now before you regret it!" This is what I'm railing against. Real holographers are suffering financially (we're doing just fine, thanks for asking!) while every purveyor of any 3D system is attracting public attention through marketing campaigns on the internet by association with both/either a "volume display" or a "Princess Leia" Just like the Musion displays, there will be a time when one of these displays hits the media in a big way and the entire holographic community will go up in arms. I'd rather make a statement at the beginning of the phenomena than at the end of it, since I have little to lose. Everyone thinks I'm crazy anyway!

[Dinesh]

Well as I often say, scientific language is not nearly as precise as some think it is.

Well thanks for saying that! I've been trying forever to get the US Patent Office to accept my Perpetual Motion Device, but they keep saying "Second Law of Thermodynamics" at me! So, I say, "well, you know scientific language is not nearly as precise as some think it is" Do they listen! Not a bit of it! They bring on these "perfessors" would you believe, who keep saying estropy, no enropy, no - oh yeah entropy!

" What's that?" I ask. "Well, they say, it shows that you can't have a perpetual motion machine because of conservation of energy" "Hah!" I say (I say this really loudly!) "Hah! " I repeat. Then when the assembled perfessers lift their heads from beneath the desk, I say, "Energy, schmenergy! scientific language is not nearly as precise as some think it is!"

So, tell you what, let's you and I make a full frontal assault on the bastions of academia, and while we're at it, the US Patent Office. We will insist that a perpetual motion machine is, in fact, possible because, well, you know scientific language is not nearly as precise as some think it is. We will defy them to prove us wrong. We will insist that our perpetual motion machine is green, heck it's so green it disappears when I take it to the park! What d'ya think?