Highest Resolution Wall Around 103
akhaksho writes "NCSA (the National Center for Supercomputing Applications) is in the
process of building the highest resolution display wall in academia. This is similar to the previous story about the wall at Sandia, but the intention of this wall is to get very high resolutions at a reasonable cost using off the shelf technology (for the most part). All of the code to run it and plans for the physical infrastructure will be available as part of the Display Wall in a Box effort. I'm
one of the guys that built this sucker (and have the scars to prove
it!) "
Wow! This is right down the street from me! (Score:1)
They do, occasionaly, let tourists play Quake in the CAVE [uiuc.edu].
Re:Wow! This is right down the street from me! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow! This is right down the street from me! (Score:2)
Neh
Re:Wow! This is right down the street from me! (Score:1)
Plasma Display Wall (Score:1)
Re:Plasma Display Wall (Score:1)
The resolution actually isn't that good, is it? (Score:2, Insightful)
The 9-foot-high, 12-foot-wide screen can project images more than 20 times better than the typical computer monitor. The display surface--a screen divided into 20 sections--can display images of 4,096 x 3,840 pixels either as one large, high-resolution image or as several side-by-side images and information nodes.
OK, let's do some simple math. Let's say I run 1024x768, so this wall is going to be 4x as wide and 4x as tall, pixel-wise, correct? Now, if the screen is 9 feet tall and 12 feet wide, we get a diagonal of 15 feet (thank you, Pythagoras). The resolution is up about 4x, but it's spread over an area that is maybe 12x as large? (I'm using a simple 15" screen to keep the math simple.) We're talking about 1/3 reduction in dot pitch, aren't we? What's going on here?
I guess the application is for use a video wall to be seen from far away. Contrast this with that other enormous high-res display from that other article. It's clear that this wall will be more for public viewing, and not real "work," like medical imaging or whatever.
Nonetheless, though, I think it'd be cool to watch my DVD's on....
Re:The resolution actually isn't that good, is it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The resolution actually isn't that good, is it? (Score:2)
With my experience with NCSA stuff, it's probably targetted as small-group collaboration, where "real work" will be going on. A wall like this is going to be high-enough res and large enough physically that you can show a lot of data to a group of (say) five people to see what the data may mean. While you could use this to show images to a full lecture hall, having the high resolution wouldn't be as useful (since people would be too far away to tell anyway.)
Re:The resolution actually isn't that good, is it? (Score:1)
Re:The resolution actually isn't that good, is it? (Score:1)
Resolution (Score:1)
Re:Resolution (Score:1)
~LoudMusic
Re:Resolution (Score:2)
Hopefully... (Score:1)
Is this transparent to the apps (Score:1)
Re:Is this transparent to the apps (Score:1)
Re:Is this transparent to the apps (Score:2)
Considering that they're projection, and you could put the projector into something that contained the radiation. I don't think it would be much of a problem.. if at all.
Re:Is this transparent to the apps (Score:1)
Considering that they're projection, and you could put the projector into something that contained the radiation. I don't think it would be much of a problem.. if at all.
I hear that sunglasses do a good job of blocking radiation. For another level of protection, close your eyes.
Re:Is this transparent to the apps (Score:1)
There was a slashdot story a while ago with an article linking to this - with shots of Q3A and UT running across 3 monitors...
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/08/04/1534250.shtand the article is at...
http://www.planetquake.com/mhg/ [planetquake.com]Re:Is this transparent to the apps (Score:2, Informative)
Hmmmm I wonder if this (Score:2, Funny)
Projectors - holy $ (Score:1)
Re:Projectors - holy $ (Score:1)
Cool! The Prime Radiant is next (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cool! The Prime Radiant is next (Score:2)
I've been wanting to find the time for years to work on a touch-screen LCD whiteboard that people could write complex equations on, and have them solved automatically by an internal computer. I don't know a thing about OCR, so I requested the NIST's OCR software and never had a chance to work on it.
Re:Cool! The Prime Radiant is next (Score:2)
Already done? (Score:2, Funny)
Oops.. my mistake.. that was a ceiling [wayne.edu], not a wall.
Ratguy
From the island of misfit toys... (Score:1)
Some better pictures for you guys (Score:1)
two questions. (Score:1)
Why? Wouldn't the computers work just as well with no display card period, booting off of a network card that images them, afterward using remote tools only? And even if it DOES have a graphics card, why a GeForce2? I can't imagine that it's actually used. Can anyone see how it would be....?
Um...how do you build half a display? Unless of course it's one of those wussy grids of normal displays, wtih two inches of dead space between each node on it. Anyone know?
Re:two questions. (Score:2)
and the image on the wall would come from ... where exactly? Those 20 graphic cards are rendering the image fed to the LCD projectors that, uhm, project them into the wall.
It's not a screen, it's 20 projected images on the wall. Just remove 10 and you have "half" a display.
Re:two questions. (Score:2)
Re:two questions. (Score:1)
Re:two questions. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:two questions. (Score:2)
Re:two questions. (Score:2)
Sorry.
A couple of nits (Score:3, Interesting)
The other thing that gets me is the use of the term resolution. In raw terms, this display actually has very poor resolution: about 28 dots per inch. If you stand way back from it, it might have a high number of dots per degree of arc of vision. But then, how bright is it from 100 feet away?
Re:A couple of nits (Score:1)
Re:A couple of nits (Score:2)
Re:A couple of nits (Score:1)
Re:One of the nits (Score:2, Interesting)
As for brightness - as you get further away from a uniformly emitting planar surface, the brightness per unit angular area remais constant - merely the apparent total area decreases. If it's bright up close, it's bright enough at any distance at which it is a significant part of your field of view.
And with a fairly high powered cluster to generate the graphics, this can probably render animations of various problems (e.g. turbulent airflow over a surface) in real time on a 1:1 scale - not to mention 3d walkthroughs of complex structures and simulations of advanced weaponry.
Quake, anyone?
Military Industrial... (Score:1)
...along similar lines... (Score:2)
Eventually they hope to have a portable version so various mil units can just cart them around to whatever theater they're needed in.
We've come a long way from LeMay's old "Big Board [fas.org]"...
Re: (Score:1)
finally (Score:2, Funny)
How do you sync the graphic cards? (Score:2)
Hi, in case you guys want to spend some time answering questions here, how are you syncing the graphics cards across the wall? SGI claims you need an Infine Reality to achieve decent syncronization, which otherwise is very noticeable. Personally I've seen one CAVE type of installation driven by PCs syncronized over a RS-323 port and I can't honestly say I noticed the projectors being out of sync.
Which takes me to the other question: are you using or do you plan to implement active stereo projection or do you want to install another 20 projectors and use a passive system?
Re:How do you sync the graphic cards? (Score:2, Informative)
What about this? (Score:2)
I will be making a few assumptions (my bad), so bear with me.
Imagine that you have all 40 of the projectors set up, but instead of 4 x 5, it is now 8 x 5, like so:
RLRLRLRL
RLRLRLRL
RLRLRLRL
RLRLRLRL
Now, imagine that the R's are one set of projectors, aligned to project onto the screen as the system currently is set up (4 x 5), and the L's are set up the same (so that an adjacent R and L project onto the same area, overlapping perfectly). Throw a set of polarized filters in front of each (or, for that funky 70's effect, red/blue filters - or just tweak the colors), then wear the proper glasses.
The drivers (and the cluster) would have to be set up to throw the proper image to the proper sections - I don't know if you would have to divide the cluster in half, or what, to do this (maybe even need driver mods - ouch)...
Actually, it shouldn't be too hard to set up - other than requiring double the horizontal space (plus there might be distortion issues as well, due to space between the projectors, I would imagine). Besides, you already said:
We've got the other 20 projectors and plan to build another identical block next to the one we've already got.
Could this work?
Re:What about this? (Score:1)
Fahrenheit 451 (Score:2)
I don't know... huge video screens, like VR, kind of freaks me out. Too much of an opportunity to forego reality.
SCARS?! (Score:3, Funny)
If you get scars from building it, I don't wanna build one!
Re:SCARS?! (Score:1)
Re:SCARS?! (Score:2, Insightful)
should i post about ... (Score:1)
Ah hell, I'll just do a "predicted posts" style post instead.
Astonishing, but how does it really benefit? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for technology for it's own sweet sake. But I'm curious how this is cost justified. Those reasons/rationalizations could prove very useful. (I doubt anyone I am likely to work for would consider Quake sufficient motivation, now that the golden days of the dot coms are over. Maybe these guys are just the coolest folks on the planet
Re:Astonishing, but how does it really benefit? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also (and I'm serious here) having big expensive toys that people look at and think "WOW THAT'S SO COOL" draws attention, which draws clients, which generates funds. Hey, they got posted on Slashdot, and now a million geeks know about their work. If even a fraction of them put any interest into the company, it will fund the "Highest Resolution Wall" project and pick up a few more participants.
Just my thoughts,
~LoudMusic
Re:Astonishing, but how does it really benefit? (Score:1)
I agree that's very nice, but the price of this thing is enormously high for such a relatively small convenience. In a cost/benefit analysis I'd be very surprised if that would fly.
"Also (and I'm serious here) having big expensive toys that people look at and think "WOW THAT'S SO COOL" draws attention, which draws clients, which generates funds. Hey, they got posted on Slashdot, and now a million geeks know about their work. If even a fraction of them put any interest into the company, it will fund the "Highest Resolution Wall" project and pick up a few more participants. "
That's the only reason I can think might actually explain it, and the idea of that actually flying with a budget group is mind bending, to say the least. Maybe though.
Re:Astonishing, but how does it really benefit? (Score:1)
Re:Astonishing, but how does it really benefit? (Score:1)
Re:Astonishing, but how does it really benefit? (Score:2)
some kick-ass fractals,
Re:Astonishing, but how does it really benefit? (Score:2)
Pictures of the universe, it is hard to get things visible, and yet to scale from other things.
Very large graphs, the graph of the distribution of hosts across the internet.
Modeling of large molecules.
Re:Astonishing, but how does it really benefit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Astonishing, but how does it really benefit? (Score:1)
Also, blowing up display size such that it extends beyond our natural field of vision fully exploits our ability to process visual information, as opposed to staring down a virtual tunnel at an undersize screen. Just ask someone who wears very strong prescription glasses how much they would give to get rid of the heavy frame limiting their field of vision.
We sort of take it for granted that displays are small, be it paper, CRTs or flat screens. But this is an artificial limitation that does not need to be perpetuated. When was the last time you stared at a fixed point out in nature for more than a few minutes because this was where all the action was?
Happens very rarely, right?
I am all for fully utilizing our senses when it comes to dealing with vast quantities of data.
The home version (Score:1)
Materials... (Score:3, Funny)
Wow!
Re:Materials... (Score:2)
Re:Materials... (Score:1)
Wow... (Score:3, Funny)
Porn wouldn't be any fun...
"Good Lord, I think I can see her kidneys!"
On my computer (Score:1, Funny)
I'm jealous.
Oooooh (Score:1)
All I can think of... (Score:1)
Shudder!
Do you really need 40 PC's? And GeForce2's? (Score:3, Interesting)
Although you probably couldn't play quake on it, could you do most other things?
Neh
Re:Do you really need 40 PC's? And GeForce2's? (Score:1)
Your math is wrong (Score:1)
They eventually plan to upgrade to a 8096x3840 pixel display (I bet that's a typo and they meant 8192x3840) -- 8 wide, 5 tall -- using, you guessed it, 40 (8*5) Linux machines.