A 3D Display You Can Touch 63
mikejuk writes "Are we getting closer to really effective volumetric 3D display technology? A new display, designed in Russia, uses cold fog and a laser projector to create a volumetric 3D image that you can touch. A tracking device (no, it's not a Kinect) is used to detect the user's hand and moves the virtual objects in response. There have been cold fog 3D displays before, but this one has a reasonable resolution and looks near to being a finished product that could be on sale soon. Estimated price? Between $4000 and $30,000."
Between $4000 and $30,000. (Score:5, Funny)
At last: a realistic estimate!
Re:Between $4000 and $30,000. (Score:4, Funny)
How much for just room temperature fog?
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably they use the cold fog so they can ID what you're "touching" by the heat of your hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently they hold a PMP / PMI certification.
$30,000? (Score:3)
What advantage does this offer that could justify the upper bound on pricing? Is there anything that could justify a 4K price? or is this just a novel idea thing?
Re:$30,000? (Score:5, Funny)
What advantage does this offer that could justify the upper bound on pricing? Is there anything that could justify a 4K price? or is this just a novel idea thing?
$4k vs. $30k probably depends whether they lovingly hand-craft 10 units or get a sweatshop to knock them out in quantity.
$4k would be low enough for some gadget freaks (i.e. the ones with $5k hi-fis and $10k tellys) with more money than sense to buy them for fun.
$30k might be low enough for research teams with an end-of-year surplus to get one in order to investigate your first question.
I'm sure that they'll want one on CSI but they're fictitious so its probably cheaper and more convincing to mock one up with CGI in post-production.
Super-villains will want the 20' x 20' de-luxe model to explain their world domination plans in terms that even an over-sexed British spy or Austrian ex-bodybuilder can understand - that will cost more than $30k but (a) Super-villains never pay, they just murder the creator and (b) see 'CSI' above.
Shame... (Score:1)
If it cost between 3,000 and 30,000 or between 4,000 and 40,000 I'd buy it but between 4,000 and 30,000 just sounds wrong...
Touch? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a funny definition of "Touch" - yes it responds to your finger, but there isn't anything physical there to push against, so it's no more a touch interface than Kinect is.
Re:Touch? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's worth noting that the i-programmer article that's linked first is pretty badly written, and just paraphrases the techcrunch article, anyway (which never claims that you can touch the projection, just that it's a "multi-touch" interface - ie it responds to multiple fingers)
Re:Touch? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they meant "manipulate directly". I think the most impressive bit there was when he had a full 3D keyboard model up on the display.
Re: (Score:3)
I think they meant "manipulate directly". I think the most impressive bit there was when he had a full 3D keyboard model up on the display.
You have a good eye. I noticed flat pictures. Interesting choice of media considering its a 3D display. I believe you nailed the only 3D content demoed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I wondered why he was doing so much with 2D. Maybe because the input ability seems to only be in 2D right now.
If he had a more complex input interface with full 3D positioning, Iron Man style, that would be hella cool. Much more difficult to pull off properly though.
ATTENTION: This is a 2D display (Score:5, Informative)
This is entirely 2D, not 3D.
The eu.techcrunch.com article makes no mention of 3D. It's the i-programmer.info dopes that mislabeled this as 3D. The slashdot submitter and editor also get blame for perpetuating the error.
The technology uses a base unit that blows a basically 2D "sheet" of fog upwards as a display surface. Behind that there is a 2D laser projector aimed at the fog display screen.
Some people mentioned the keyboard in the demo as 3D, but no, that was the same as any ordinary 2D windowing system. The 2D keyboard that came up merely replaced the 2D content that was supposedly 'behind' it.
-
Re: (Score:2)
That's a funny definition of "Touch" - yes it responds to your finger, but there isn't anything physical there to push against, so it's no more a touch interface than Kinect is.
There are times I have referred to reggae as "hip hop", all SUV's as Jeeps, and all mp3 players as iPods. It's not that I didn't know their real names. It's just that sometimes I think it's more important to say something people will understand.
Re: (Score:3)
For an actual touchable hologram, see this SIGGRAPH 2009 [physorg.com] presentation. It uses something called acoustic radiation pressure [wikipedia.org] based on ultrasound projection.
Re: (Score:2)
2D mockup of 3D (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like the image resulting from a texture mapping of a 3D world from the vantage point of a 2D organism. It only works, and only barely so, when standing directly in front. Start moving to the side and you lose your 3D.
Re: (Score:1)
Pron (Score:3, Interesting)
I can imagine the new porn that will come out... literally!
Re:Pron (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pron (Score:5, Funny)
4000-30000$ (Score:3)
You could buy a whole VR toolkit for that.
Re: (Score:1)
But who's gonna fly it, kid? You?
Someone's got to say it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
--from the blockbuster adult movie Star Whores: Epic Load IV: A Nude Hope
Re: (Score:2)
...and by Hope I meant Grope
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, "A Nude Hope" (or "A New Grope") is better. There is such a thing as "going too fas...er, far".
Cold fingers (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Tell that to my wife, she still doesn't understand.
Won't ship (Score:5, Funny)
It's just another piece of vaporware!
Re: (Score:2)
nah, just smoke and mirrors...
It's 2D!!! WTF?? (Score:5, Informative)
Bad slashdot reporting as usual.
The big deal here is the "mid-air" aspect, i.e. no actual surface.
However the display is 2D and the article makes no claim for it being 3D. It's not volumetric, it's not 3D. It's a projector.
It's very cool, and Slashdot has just completely misrepresented it. Well done.
Re:It's 2D!!! WTF?? (Score:4, Informative)
It's 2.5D i.e. 2D with depth trickery, but not true 3D and projected, and at least from the video there is no way to reach through objects to touch stuff behind so not really capable of true 3D ..and not volumetric
Another Classic /. summary
Amazing (Score:1)
It only seems that every other week there's a new concept or at least some advances/new implementations of old concepts for 3D displays.
It's clear that people wanna move forward but we're still laughing at those that bought 3D glasses + 3D TVs, so slow down a bit, please.
Nice, but not 3D... (Score:1)
This is 3D? (Score:4, Interesting)
While the video looks impressive at first, since this is an unusual way of displaying video and tracking user input, I didn't see them doing anything that you couldn't do with a touchscreen.
The video shows a lot of sliding and manipulating images (rotating, zooming, pinching, etc) but I noticed that they were only controlling the X and Y axes. I kept hoping that they would rotate something in the Z axis or perhaps place a 3D object behind another, but it was just one of the typical "sort through a bunch of photos" demos that we've seen many times before.
I know that this isn't the final version, but I don't see how something like this would be useful until it can actually track and utilize that third dimension. Right now it looks flashy and may lead to a true 3D display, but this seems to be a 2D screen suspended in mist with motion tracking. It certainly isn't going to be portable like a tablet, and the wavering display isn't going to be as good as a proper screen. The 200ms of input lag is rather unimpressive as well.
I would absolutely love to have a good 3D display with true 3D motion tracking, even if it led to me having gorilla arms. We've come a long way, but we've still got a long way to go as well.
NOT NEW! (Score:1)
This is not new technology, There was this Heliodisplay which demonstrated FAR higher quality (and larger size) than this very crude demonstration, and that was some 6 years ago. And yet this technology has yet to gain any foothold, which is probably because it's inherently unfeasible and people rather buy traditional screens or wall projectors, now that they have become so cheap (not to mention, they have far higher display quality than any of these fog or whatever projection screens).
Vertical resolution (Score:3)
Honestly (Score:2)
This would have the added bonus of privacy unless you opt to "share" your display with others nearby. Anyone you're not sharing the display with would just see you waving your hands around like a lunatic.
Re: (Score:1)
How long does is take to get tired? (Score:1)
I don't think that can be useful at all if you have to have your arms in the air, they will get tired very soon*.
We can write hours in our computers today because our arms rest over a table and our fingers over the keys themselves (action/reaction/force/etc).
*Unless you're Chuck Norris, of course.
Looks 2D to me (Score:1)