Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Highest Resolution Wall Around 103

Posted by Hemos from the anyone-for-home-use? dept.
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!) "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Highest Resolution Wall Around More

Highest Resolution Wall Around

Comments Filter:
  • I should stop by after work today and see if they need someone to help them test Quake on it.

    They do, occasionaly, let tourists play Quake in the CAVE [uiuc.edu].

  • I want to see this with some Plasma screens. Take the packaging off (all the plastic crap to make it look nice) and i bet you could get them close enought to eachother to be useful. - 2nd post to Slashdot in my life

  • 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....

    • Actually it is 4 projectors wide and 5 high. The screen is 9'x12', but the image is about 8'x8'. Each tile is about 2 ft. wide. You're right that the resolution in dpi is less than a monitor, but there are no monitors that can seamlessly display 4096x3840 or 8192x3840. The idea is that you can look at a large dataset and see the whole thing without panning and zooming. It will definitely be used for "real work".
    • Even if you have a third reduction in dot pitch, it's ok. You probably aren't going to be at the same distance as from your monitor. Being at arms reach from this thing is not a design goal, I'd think.

      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.)
    • > OK, let's do some simple math. Let's say I run 1024x768 Not to mention that I run my screen at 2048x1536. The press release say "20 times" the average resolution of a monitor, but it's only 4 times the resolution of my screen. Instead of using 20 boxes, they could use 4 (and use Geforce3's to make up for the fill). h.
      • The idea is to have a seamless high resolution display. The only way to do this is with projectors. You're right that a single graphics card can produce a QXGA signal, but there is only one projector that I know of that can display that many pixels (JVC DLA-QX1) and it will cost around $200k. There isn't any way to drive 4 projectors from a single output (that I know of). If you know of something, let me know.
  • At 8,096x3,840, those desktop icons are gonna be really small...
    • No actually they're going to be freaking huge. You have to consider the dots per inch. Someone already did the math and came up with 28pixels per inch. That would make a 32x32 pixel icon over an inch square. On my screen they're about 1/3 inch x 1/3 inch.

      ~LoudMusic
  • ... they'll have the 80' model ready for U2's next tour
  • The problem I've run across so far with really cool display tech (Xinerama, etc) is that it is sort of transparent to apps. I would love to have complete transparency to apps (ie quake) so I could set my fov to 180 degrees with 5 monitors arranged all around my noggin. Just think of all that lovely radiation.
  • and the story about VisuaLABS groutfree wall display technology is related?
  • "Display Wall in a Box" ... 40 projectors by the time they're finished. Too expensive for my blood. They're running the projectors at 1024x768, which explains why it's compared at "20 times a typical system"; most projectors I've come across in a sane price range can't do more than this.

  • Cool! The Prime Radiant is next (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gentlewizard ( 300741 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2001 @05:42PM (#23252)
    In Issac Asimov's [sciencefictionbooks.net] third novel in the Foundation series, Second Foundation [amazon.com], mathematicians used a video wall projector to display their equations. As described in the book, the Prime Radiant did not cast a shadow, yet the walls were covered with equations. The coolest thing was, you just thought about a part of the equation and those lines marched down the wall to eye level. So combine this video wall with the mind-activated cursor talked about in this issue of Wired [wired.com] and we're almost there.
    • The coolest thing was, you just thought about a part of the equation and those lines marched down the wall to eye level.

      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.
    • Ahhh, I remember. But the Prime Radiant was more than just a display devices; it was also data storage. It pretty much contained all of Mathematical knowledge if I recall correctly.

  • Already done? (Score:2, Funny)

    by ratguy ( 248395 )
    Didn't someone already create one of these, back in the 1500's, only at a much higher resolution?

    Oops.. my mistake.. that was a ceiling [wayne.edu], not a wall.

    Ratguy

  • Nobody wants a display wall in the box
  • http://brighton.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~prajlich/wall/newpi cs.html
    1. "A 20-node Linux PC cluster powers the display wall, with each node consisting of a dual processor, 550 MHz HP Kayak machine equipped with a GeForce2 graphics accelerator card".
      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....?
    2. "Although it is already the largest display wall in an academic setting, the wall is only half complete."
      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?
    • Why? Wouldn't the computers work just as well with no display card period, booting off of a network card that images them

      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.

      Um...how do you build half a display?

      It's not a screen, it's 20 projected images on the wall. Just remove 10 and you have "half" a display.

    • Presumably each Linux PC is responsible for generating a subrectangle of the display. Yes, that would make it one of those "wussy grids of normal displays", but since they are using LCD projectors to throw up the image, they can calibrate them so as to make the tiled display fairly seamless.

  • A couple of nits (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2001 @05:28PM (#24037)
    Twenty times the number of dots as a typical PC sounds a lot like tired claims of "50 times faster than a phone modem!". This display has basically five times as many dots as the current high-end of CRT monitors. If you are going to build a high end system, you have to compare it with other high-end systems.

    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?

    • The resolution is more like 40 dpi (1024/25). The cumulative light output of the full size wall will be around 40,000 lumens.
      • The article says it has 4096 pixels across a width of 12 feet. That's 28 dpi.
        • The screen is 9'x12'; the *image* on the screen is about 8'x8'. We're still using an old screen from our original 2x2 CRT based IWall. Each tile is 1024x768 and is about 25" wide. 1024 dots / 25" = 40.96 dpi. If you look at the image referenced in the news release or the ones I posted earlier, you can see what I mean.

    • Re:One of the nits (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Liquor ( 189040 )
      A resolution of 28 DPI sounds low until you figure that a typical display is only in the 72 to 100 dpi range, and is viewed from only about two feet away. A screen 18 feet wide by nine feet tall is unlikely to be looked at that closely -- It's more likeley to be viewed from about 10 feet or more away - any closer would effectively prevent someone from seeing the whole picture. And at that distance, that's the same apparent size per pixel, or better, than even high end monitors and displays.

      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-Oedipal complex. Thank you, Onion [amazon.com], for that one.
  • The US Air Force has been working on the Interactive Datawall [af.mil] (http://www.rl.af.mil/tech/programs/ADII/adii_dw.h tml [af.mil]), which includes laser pointer tracking and voice recognition among other things.

    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]"...
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • finally (Score:2, Funny)

    by Phork ( 74706 )
    finally, someone has made a beowulf cluster of monitors.

  • 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?

    • We're using WireGL, which is a distributed OpenGL implementation out of Stanford. It has some code in it to synchronize the displays. Since we're using Myrinet (gigabit network with low latency), the pipes sync up pretty well. As for the stereo, we don't plan to do either. There are no projectors of this cost and form factor that are capable of active stereo and the complexity of mounting the projectors for passive stereo are too horrible to contemplate! :) We've got the other 20 projectors and plan to build another identical block next to the one we've already got.
      • For stereo, that is...

        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?
        • It would work if we had projectors with some kind of optical keystone correction. The problem is that we would need to project rectangular (as opposed to trapezoidal) images that overlap on the image plane but are coming from two different places. We'd have to do some kind of over-under mirror configuration. It's not impossible; it would just be pretty complicated mechanically. It would also be kind of tough to maintain the polarization. Who knows, we may be called on to do this some day.
  • Don't these "video walls" remind you of the ones from Fahrenheit 451? The ones that people would stare at to watch TV, and consider the lifesize people there "family"?

    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)

    by Sc00ter ( 99550 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2001 @05:22PM (#30953) Homepage
    "I'm one of the guys that built this sucker (and have the scars to prove it!)"

    If you get scars from building it, I don't wanna build one!

  • Porn? Quake? Porn with Quake mods? Natalie Portman? what else do we normally talk about with new displays or display technology?

    Ah hell, I'll just do a "predicted posts" style post instead.

  • Astonishing, but how does it really benefit? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by starseeker ( 141897 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2001 @05:33PM (#31013) Homepage
    This is an honest question, not a troll. I have been trying to think of what types of data display you could do on this type of screen that you couldn't do with more conventional technology. If it is sheer size you want projection technology can do that, and if you want fine grained imaging you can use high resolution computer monitors and zoom in and out. How does this really large, finely detailed display benefit the research? Again this is an honest question. The cost of this thing cannot be trivial. What do you see here that you can't see anywhere else?

    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 :-) So, anybody have any ideas?
    • Having the ability to zoom in and out on a high resolution monitor isn't enough. Neither is having a huge picture. They want both of these attributes in the same device. It makes it easier for a group to crowd around or for someone to do presentations with. They keep the detail and have it the size of a wall.

      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

      • "Having the ability to zoom in and out on a high resolution monitor isn't enough. Neither is having a huge picture. They want both of these attributes in the same device. It makes it easier for a group to crowd around or for someone to do presentations with. They keep the detail and have it the size of a wall."

        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.
    • Well, for one, visualizing massive data sets without windowing, or reducing the data density. I would think that in order to do zooming you may need more horsepower then to simply render a data set. This really is for the "Big Picture" type of applications. Think atmospheric interactions or galaxy simulations...
    • Oh, that's all BS. Let's just admit, that once again, the quest for better Pr0n and maximum gibs has led to better technology. Banners ads, high bandwidth database and server products, better resolution monitors and video cards, it all for pr0n and fragging! :P
    • I have been trying to think of what types of data display you could do on this type of screen

      some kick-ass fractals, ;]
    • Very large dataset display, a couple of things come to mind:

      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)

      by akhaksho ( 233506 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2001 @06:34PM (#36666)
      One of the drivers for this wall is a scientist we have here that has 8kx8k images of radio astronomy data. He wants to be able to compare different regions by eye. Panning and zooming on a small monitor doesn't cut it. If you're going to image or calculate high resolution data, you don't want to throw it out when viewing.
    • There are interesting psychological and ergonomic factors that play a role here. Humans have evolved to optimally perceive and respond to visual stimuli that are their own size, give or take an order of magnitude. A normal computer display is below the middle of this range, and most objects displayed on them are at or even below the size range to which we optimally respond. I expect that blowing up the szie of a display to make displayed objects be our own size more or less will have vast and to some extent unforseen positive consequences on our ability to perceive, digest and react to information.

      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.
  • I found this link [hammacher.com] which looks to be the same type of thing, only a lot smaller. It's priced at 20k, and would fit easily in a normal sized room.

  • Materials... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Moonshadow ( 84117 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2001 @05:23PM (#31902)
    Does this by any chance use VisuaLABS GroutFree(tm) technology?

    Wow!

  • Wow... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sir_Real ( 179104 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2001 @05:27PM (#32949)
    "... 8,096 pixels across and 3,840 pixels high on an 18-foot-wide screen ... "

    Porn wouldn't be any fun...

    "Good Lord, I think I can see her kidneys!"

  • On my computer (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I only have a resolution of 640x452.

    I'm jealous.

  • So basically its like running multiple monitors only there highly converged projectors. One hell of a time coding a driver for that, but wouldnt offsetting the projectors to cover the pixelation effect yeild a higher resolution.
  • ...is the PowerPoint presentation from Hell!

    Shudder!

  • Do you really need 40 PC's? And GeForce2's? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nehemiah S. ( 69069 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2001 @06:57PM (#43418)
    I guess i'd have to be more familiar with the WireGL and how it renders frames, but as long as most of the crunching is done on the video cards, I would think that you could do this with many fewer systems. Especially since you are only running at sub-1024x768 resolution per screen. How about 4 dual athlon PC's with 1 AGP and 4 PCI dual-head cards each? That would still give you the same number of pixels, at a significant savings in hardware cost.

    Although you probably couldn't play quake on it, could you do most other things?

    Neh
    • It is an issue of bandwidth. There's no way we could feed that many pixels or vertices at an interactive rate with only 4 machines. If there were something like a 64bit 66Mhz PCI video card, it would help, but doing it like this is the way to get the best performance. The Myrinet network is approximately the same bandwith as regular PCI, so it's well balanced. Also, the resolution per screen *is* 1024x768. I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that it's less.
    • The article says the resolution on the display is 4096x3840 pixels. That is exactly 20 (4 wide, 5 tall) 1024x768 displays generated by 20 Linux boxen, which is what they're using now.

      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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Close