Volumetric displays on our desktops. When? How? What for?
This student project (voLumen 3d) inspired me to make this thread.
video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey-eO-H2_Mk
Description:
https://hackaday.io/project/1737-volumen-volumetric-3d-display-device/log/4404-general-technical-description
Maybe it is not a promising technology, but cleverly done thing anyway.
So the concept is the same of my chink USB fan that shows time on its fan while rotating? Just multiple of them in layers to show a 3d image?
Can't see any actual use for it other than being cool
>>52558070
>>52558106
>>52558525
where can I get one?
>>52558106
irl custom robo when?
>>52558608
OP pic and the scheme is a commercial Actuality Systems Perspecta 3D imaging system. Hard to find any details on the Net. VoLumen, as I say and sourced, is a student project (but they want to comercialize it as a novelty marketing tool for. f.e trades and fairs)
>>52558668
Ooopss wrong pic :-) A good thing do display it volumetric.
>>52558675
The guy in CSI had one too for medical uses (showed brains and stuff on it) but I can't see how it's better than a standard display in real life uses.
>>52558668
Mind if I ask for sauce for that pic?
>>52558106
>>52558070
All that really matters is how long till I can watch anime on it?
>>52558668
who is this volumetric display?
>>52558668
Source on pic?
>>52558710
Don't go down that rabbit hole, there's a horrid face awaiting you.
>>52558707
>>52558710
>>52558721
Google it, comes right up. Some fag on DA. Her face is a 2/10 at best.
I've just found this, seems to be about Perspecta technology.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.11.9088&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://www.sparpointgroup.com/news/digital-visualization/a-new-take-on-3d-volumetric-display
>>52559349
Clever idea, why not use OLED tho? And what about reflections?
>>52559447
Dunno why not OLED (but - why OLED?) , adw what reflections, on the covering dome? A problem probably not fully solvable .
http://sine.ni.com/cs/app/doc/p/id/cs-15679#
Still no one interested in?
VoLumen working principles
What's the point if you can't wave your hands through it?
>>52564137
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claytronics
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_fog
Soon.
>>52564137
Nanotechnology is a different thing, but close to the Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfVS-npfVuY
Still in infancy, but invented and works.
>>52564472
Oh I've realized that it post looks like a video is about a nanotechnology - it isn't. I mean this plasma display is "closer to the Earth" than nano.
Another thing - a Holovect
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2015/12/15/holovect-kickstart-this-3d-holographic-projector-that-actually-works/
>>52564137
I can imagine someone setting up an interactive display with this and a kinect type sensor
>>52564137
>hands
Try dick, this would be God send for porn, but not if it will cut off your dick if you go near it.
>>52564247
>>52558695
>viewing a 3d object
>click and drag or swipe to rotate
>ARGH
>>52564882
Imagine holographic robots which disguise as naked anime girls, but instead consist of a cloud of rotating blades.
It is volumetric enough or another Accidental Chick is needed to keep this thread alive?
>>52558070
So wait. These work by quickly spinning around an led panel?
Is the spinning noticable? How well does it handle movement of the object?
>>52566714
>pic related
what the fuck is going on
VR makes it redundant
>>52567357
The OP pic shows Perspecta - it is a spinning projecting screen of some kind, described already
>>52558525
pdf link >>52558802
Seems Perspecta handles movement well.
Nice archaic technology you kids are just now rediscovering.
>sponsorizing shitty projector when we have real holograms being developed by based jap scientists with a degree
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNoOiXkXmYQ
So what's the chances of engineering beams of particles with predictable lifespans such that we can fire arrays of them and they decay releasing light at various heights?
>>52568520
fucking this thanks for posting for me family
>>52568406
goooooooooddammit... I remember that shit when it first came out in the arcades. Used to play that at Alladin's Castle back in the day. That one and Holosseum; the fighting game that Sega dropped in the same cabinet.
>>52568520
Isn't this this
>>52564472
>>52568564
I'm not an engineer but it looks sane - but what about radiation? This type of display will work, but You will find no one who can say he saw it in action.
>>52568631
Yes it's the same project (Aerial Burton) though the second link is more recent (2014/10), radiations aren't a problem but I think the reaction generates a gas that can be dangerous in closed spaces, still, it's not like you cannot put the device in some transparent acrylic box with an air pump.
>>52568631
>radiation
Please refrain on commenting about things you don't understand.
>>52568631
>You will find no one who can say he saw it in action.
Did you even watch the video? there's a crowd watching the hologram: >>52568520
>>52568631
no not really. Protons dont have lafe spans before they're visible and dont have the ability to suddenly become visible. also light its ever visible mid air unless theres a medium suspended in a 3d space than can catch and refract the light.
The display in those videos works by refracting a high energy laser through a lens(i'd figure with an adjustable focus) so that when the light from the laser reaches it's focal point it ionizes the particles in that small area into plasma creating a flash of light
>>52568725
I think radiation decay emits not only a visible light - and this type of display has to use highly radioactive materials anyway.
>>52568406
Seems to be not a true volumetric but clever optical trick.
>>52558070
>When?
I hope soon.
>How?
I have no idea.
>What for?
I would love Custom Robo on it.
Can't help but think AR is eventually going to kill holograms and volumetric displays. They are just much more practical.
>>52568849
>I think radiation decay emits not only a visible light - and this type of display has to use highly radioactive materials anyway.
Now you just went full retarded, have you ever seen the Tesla orb? it's the same fucking thing except that this is controlled and not random.
Do lightnings require radiactive materials to make light? Nope. This device is based on the same principle, it creates micro lightnings.
Go learn something: >>>/sci/sqt
>>52568900
So You are speaking about "particles with predictable lifespans" (what I understood as a short-living elements molecules) or electrostatic plasma discharges? Maybe I didn't understand what are You talking about - but now I really don't understand what are you talking about.
>Go learn something: >>>/sci/sqt
> Nothing Found
>>52569105
>What is electricity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfVS-npfVuY
>>Nothing Found
So you were a newfag after all. Take your shilling of this cheap projector somewhere else.
>>52569560
This laser inducted plasma was discussed in this thread before
"A technique presented in 2006 does away with the display medium altogether, using a focused pulsed infrared laser (about 100 pulses per second; each lasting a nanosecond) to create balls of glowing plasma at the focal point in normal air. The focal point is directed by two moving mirrors and a sliding lens, allowing it to draw shapes in the air. Each pulse creates a popping sound, so the device crackles as it runs. Currently it can generate dots anywhere within a cubic metre. It is thought that the device could be scaled up to any size, allowing for 3D images to be generated in the sky." (wiki)
Where are these short lived particles of it: >>52568564
>engineering beams of particles with predictable lifespans such that we can fire arrays of them and they decay
? Unless You mean these plasma balls ... But "beams of particles with predictable lifespans" is not a good term for it , hence my confusion. Again, I understood this as a proposition of injecting radioactive materials particles in the air and allow them to decay, emmiting visible light.
>>52569789
The laser beam reacts with dioxygen in the air, the reaction generates ozone (that's why the blue-ish color), hence plasma discharge.
>>52570039
yes, but no particles are "injecting", unless You name photons "particles", but it is out of the usual usage of the term.
And it's middle of the night here, so it's my last post here for now.
>>52570039
>laser beam
Ultraviolet* laser beam to be precise.
There's no such thing as "injecting radioactive materials particles in the air" which you still keep believeing for some reason. It's a very basic chemical reaction.
>>52558070
>What for?
I think the answer is already on the video, would be useful to do things like selling houses and designing interiors (or any 3D space).
Maybe applications on security?
>intruder position at scale.
>>52558754
I didn't believe you and then google led to her DA account. Lots of potential. Wasted potential.
>>52568406
Holy shit, I remember seeing that in the arcade at whatever hotel I was staying at in Disney World when I was like 5 years old. I didn't understand it and it scared me a little for some reason. Blew my mind though seeing the 3D images like that.
>>52570111
You still don't allow me to go to bed :-)
>you still keep believeing for some reason
I do not. I know what this laser display works. But >>52568564
>beams of particles
I thought someone here believed.
Finally, this is not mine
>>52570039
these are
>>52569789
>>52569789
>>52570100
>>52570254
>these are
These both
>>52570254
>Finally, this is not mine
kek yes I know I was correecting my own post, I didn't refresh the page and didn't notice you posted in between. Well if you understand what I was trying to say then it's ok, good night anon.
>>52570281
Oh fuck I messed this again . All three. It's 3 AM, I'm off.
>>52570301
Good night.
>>52570310
kek nite!
>>52567417
A thread is being bumped.
>>52568520
The next step in Hatsune Miku tech.
>everybody completely ignoring the resolution barrier
Right now, 1920x1080 is pretty much standard. That's ~2 million pixels to render. As a conservative estimate, scaling the same resolution up to 3D would mean 1920x1080x1080 pixels, or 2.2 billion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoWi10YVmfE
Daily reminder that interactive 3D displays already exist.
