Holograms sans the dilithium crystals

[Jep]

OK, so I developed (more like stumbled upon) a set of computation methods of generating digital images that look 3D when viewed on a 2D monitor. Firstly, I was shocked that such a thing was even possible. I didn't think anything like that existed; I thought holograms required a special medium or printing process. I initially didn't think to check if anything like that existed, because I figured, if it did, it would be everywhere. Or at the least, that I would have bumped into a holographic wallpaper or desktop icon some at some point in my entire life as a computer nerd and obsessive webmaster! I was freaked that I might have unraveled something that big, and started documenting / developing the process in case it was patentable, but I heard various places, "you have to research what's out there." I'm like ooohhhkay, I'll look up how holographic manga cards and NASA photon torpedos work for reference and kicks... But when I googled holograms, I'm baffled to find pictures that actually leap out of my monitor into 3D!! Reality check, I live in a cave... (with apparently most people I know and everyone in Best Buy, because no one ever told me my LCD monitor was a holographic display device!! R..O..F..L)

Anyway, I've read a little online about generating this stuff, but I'm still horribly confused. Everything mentions laboratories and laser rays and Romulan cloaking devices... Aren't some holographic images generated by software alone, or is it all just this lab stuff? I don't get it. If 3-dimensional images can be viewed on every day 2-dimensional surfaces, why aren't these images like *everywhere*? Why isn't every third wall poster, T-shirt, mug, bumper sticker, and book, a holographic one? Are the algorithms and methods of generation really that difficult? Or do these images just not look very 3D when printed on paper? If my monitor is good enough, shouldn't a quality comic book be enough?

My question here: since I started developing my own methods without any prior knowledge of holographic technology and so forth, is it possible what I'm working on could--at the least--be a semi-unique process that no one's quite covered? I suppose if you develop anything in enough complexity that you've done something unique... or could I develop detailed methods and find out the whole kabob was already covered on page 320 of an MIT paper on the subject? How can I avoid duplicating an existing process if I lack the skills to understand what's out there, and no time to go back to college and major in starship tractor beam engineering? =)

Much more important to me than contributing something new to the field -- and my biggest conern -- is being able to use my own techniques / methods / software for my own artistic online projects without the methods being deduced and stolen. If I don't have an original or valuable process, no problem! But I don't want to have had one, and then my lost rights to develop or even use it because I was too dumb to protect it. Copyright covers my artistic style, but I'm assuming only patents deal with technical methods of generating that end result. I know this isn't a legal board but maybe you could tell me something about how complex/unique a scientific or mathematical process has to be before it's generally attributed to someone?

If I'm being a paranoid douche, let me know... That would work out well, since openly sharing my ideas is probably the best way to learn and develop anyway! =). Thanks for any help.

[JohnFP]

It's kind of ironic that you state why aren't they everywhere but do not include one in your post.

I have never seen on in my entire life also, would you mind posting a link please? Thank you!

[Jep]

I'm confused. By "they" you mean holographic digital images? Just go to google images and search "holographic wallpaper" and some cool stuff will come up. Or did you think I meant "why aren't algorithms to generate digital holograms everywhere?" Because what I was saying was I haven't come across any either, except my own beginning ideas, which I'm being careful about sharing until I figure out whether they're valuable/patenable or just common place and nothing new.

[JohnFP]

As far as I know, there is no comercial dispay out there that allows you to see 3d without glasses.

http://www.zalman.co.kr/eng/product/pro ... sp?idx=219

So if you have a way to see 3d on a flat screen monitor without glasses, you may have something.

[dave battin]

I recently read they had a produced a 3D hand held like game-boy kinda thing that is one person 3D viewable screen. Could this be what you are talking about?

[rzeheb]

O.K. I'm going to sit this one out and wait to see what more experienced holographers have to say. But, I believe computer-generated holograms that are viewable without special glasses are possible and out there. For example, I seem to recall a large, computer-generated hologram on the wall of the MIT Museum of Holography in Cambridge, MA. It was a humanoid figure but I can't remember exactly what it was doing. Maybe I'm confused and it's a different process/approach than what Jep is describing.

[BobH]

IMAGES THAT ARE 3D ARE NOT ALL "HOLOGRAMS". Stop watching Star Trek and read a BOOK about holography. 3D images can be made by a number of methods to be projected on a screen or presented on a monitor, to be seen with or without glasses. A couple systems out there use hologram optical elements as screens for front or rear projection of images, so a viewer could be seeing an autostereoscopic image floating around the screen and say "I'm looking at a hologram" and be correct (though they'd be referring to the screen and not the image). Soon there may be flat panel displays with HOEs in them that do the same thing. I'm working on one now.

[jnhong]

OK, so I developed (more like stumbled upon) a set of computation methods of generating digital images that look 3D when viewed on a 2D monitor.

So, how are the images any different from all the 3D games and CGI out there? If they do indeed look 3D even when on a 2D monitor, why don't you post an image here and let the community judge it so?

My question here: since I started developing my own methods without any prior knowledge of holographic technology and so forth, is it possible what I'm working on could--at the least--be a semi-unique process that no one's quite covered? I suppose if you develop anything in enough complexity that you've done something unique... or could I develop detailed methods and find out the whole kabob was already covered on page 320 of an MIT paper on the subject? How can I avoid duplicating an existing process if I lack the skills to understand what's out there, and no time to go back to college and major in starship tractor beam engineering? =)

It's always possible that you've worked on something no one has tried before. The possibility is always there. But it's also more likely that someone has already done it before and you just haven't found it out yet. Complexity has nothing to do with it. For example, there are many patents for household items -- cookware, mitts, and the like -- that are very simple, single-purpose designs. The question is how do you know if it is innovative and unique? If you really, seriously want to know that your method is innovative, then find someone you trust, someone who understands technology more than you, and let them assist you in searching for previous designs. Or you could hire an agent to perform a patent and literature search.

As for your confusion regarding holograms versus 3D displays, I'll let the others clear that up for you. As a final note, Eye Tracking displays have been around for quite a while. It's not anything new. There's even an app for that.

Joseph

[Jep]

Thanks for the help/info, it's invaluable. But I'm still pretty confused at this point... Some of you say there's no such thing as 3D on a 2D monitor, but bob pointed out autostereoscopic images which I didn't know about. Also, I didn't realize there were autostereograms that can be instantly stereoviewed. I don't know if we're miscommunicating on what we mean by "3D". If you stereoview a normal stereogram (a "Magic Eye" picture or poster), you see a "3D" image pop out at you. That's what I mean by 3D... images that look 3 dimensional to the eye via an illusion (except an autostereogram is one that can more or less be viewed instantly without intentionally crossing your eyes). When you say you've never heard of 3D on a 2D surface, are you discluding autostereograms and autostereoscopic images, or had you not heard of them?

Now here's where I'm really confused. A hologram image (or a photograph of one) when I view it on a flat computer monitor/screen, basically looks 3D to me in the way that autostereograms and autostereoscopic images do, usually given I shift the angles I'm looking at it slightly.. tilting my head, or moving closer to it or farther from it, etc, etc. Are you all saying that hologram images don't look 3D to you (including your own?), or are you discluding images that require shifting of the head to see 3 dimensions from your definition of "3D"?

I've compiled a careful handful of examples that show what I'm talking about...

Autostereogram-- Explosion / Flowers / Static Stuff

Autostereoscopic-- Basic RGB Image / Weird Blue Stuff / Mac Logo

Holograms-- Wikipedia Example / Room / Cylinder Thing / Stars

The former two groups are known to be 3D, but I didn't really know about either when I started the thread. So what I'm confused about is whether the holograms linked to look 3D to you in the way the former two groups do, or does your brain really not interpret them as 3D? The most basic example is the "stars" image... When I shift my head up and down and left and right, the image and lines look 3D; some of the lines are behind others (although the cylinder image looks pretty 3D to me without having to move my head). I can't imagine you don't see that star effect at all, it seems a very basic "3D" hologram. And that's what I see with all other 2D hologram images too, including your own, like some of your profile pictures. The Wikipedia picture is another good example of the basic root thing I'm talking about... doesn't that image look 3D to you when you tilt your head, etc.?

You seem to be mentioning various different methods/mediums... I guess it would take even more research than I thought to understand them all and how they connect and interrelate and where they could improve and what's been done and not done... sounds like more of a career. I guess I'm wondering where my own ideas fit into the whole mess, which obviously you couldn't answer directly unless I decided to post them online (I might, dunno, but it's generally bad habit to put all your stuff out there without protection). I guess if furthered my ideas, my direction would be to develop my own systems from scratch, such that the more I work at it, the more I'd cross over with things done, but the more I'm sure I'd come up with unique techniques not done or quite done this or that way... I have a theory that a well-developed system as a whole is intrinsically patentable even if its basic building blocks are generally equivalent to things out there already.

[BobH]

The examples of hologram images you posted are misleading at best. The first one is a picture of an actual hologram recording which, if illuminated with laser light, will reconstruct a 3D image some distance from the recording. The patterns seen on it have nothing to do with the fringe patterns inside it that actually make the image. You can find plenty of pictures of real hologram images here in this forum. No need to link from anywhere else, except maybe from here:
http://www.jrholocollection.com/

The autostereoscopic displays I mentioned are not the autostereoscopic images made by computers, that you stare at while controlling your eye pointing and focus to try and see (I never could ... they suck). Here are a couple links to what I meant:
http://www.iart3d.com/ENG/Products/Auto ... ay_Eng.htm

http://www.psfk.com/2010/07/sony-introd ... splay.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/3d- ... 023-6.html