Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Google HP Technology

HP's First Google Beam 3D Video System Costs $24,999, Plus Unknown License Fees (arstechnica.com) 38

Posted by msmash from the everything-has-a-price dept.
HP has unveiled the first commercial hardware for Google Beam, the Android-maker's 3D video conferencing technology formerly known as Project Starline, with a price tag of $24,999. The HP Dimension features a 65-inch light field display paired with six high-speed cameras positioned around the screen to capture speakers from multiple angles, creating what the companies describe as a lifelike 3D representation without requiring headsets or glasses.

The system processes visual data through Google's proprietary volumetric video model, which merges camera streams into 3D reconstructions with millimeter-scale precision at 60 frames per second. Beyond the hardware cost, users must purchase a separate Google Beam license for cloud processing, though pricing for that service remains undisclosed.

HP's First Google Beam 3D Video System Costs $24,999, Plus Unknown License Fees More | Reply

HP's First Google Beam 3D Video System Costs $24,999, Plus Unknown License Fees

Comments Filter:

  • ok... but why? (Score:3)

    by chiefcrash ( 1315009 ) on Wednesday June 11, 2025 @12:55PM (#65442735)
    Given that most folks joining a conference call have tiny little laptop webcams, I'm curious how this would actually become useful (outside of some OnlyFans shenanigans). Even Star Trek struggled to make this sort of tech seem more worthwhile than simply using a viewscreen...
    • Because nothing gets contracts signed faster then bells and whistles to impress the vendors.
    • So if you are an investor one of the things you do is meet with the people you're going to invest with because you want to read their body language.

      While reading body language is kind of a pseudoscience there is something to it. But you can't really do it effectively over video.

      I don't know if this technology actually works for that but that's the problem it's trying to sell. If you throw a bunch of money into a company you want to meet with the people you're giving that money to try and determine i
      • Still not sure about that one: they've been talking about using security camera footage to read body language since 9/11... and training AI to do it for nearly a decade now. And that is with much-crappier cameras that the subject wasn't directly in front of. Why wouldn't someone be able to read body language effectively over traditional 2D video conferencing?

        And if you're worried about someone scamming you, why trust a hologram that can be deep-faked instead of getting on a much-cheaper flight to meet
        • Because I'm fairly autistic (I'm here ain't i?) so I can't read body language worth a shit.

          Deepfakes are a relatively new thing and I would think anyone who can read body language would pick up on them pretty quickly.

          Also keep in mind it's entirely possible this tech doesn't work. You are absolutely correct that reading body language isn't an exact science in any way shape or form and has not in any way been quantified. It's also a complete clusterfuck because all sorts of things can throw off your

      • You know, sometimes there doesn't actually have to be a practical purpose to a business spending a whole bunch of money chasing the latest tech. Like, look at when Hertz decided their fleet needed a whole bunch of EVs? Terrible idea, but they went ahead and did it anyway, because they wanted to incorporate the latest shiny into their business, practicality be damned. Then of course, when it finally dawned on them that they'd made a huge mistake, they had to dump them at a loss. This actually seems kind

        • But in America no business on Earth chases the latest tech. They will sometimes spend a shitload of money on fancy text make it look like they are cooler and hipper than they really are like how back in the day .com companies would have fancy chairs and desks. But I think that's different than what we are seeing here.

          I really do think this is designed to meet a specific need but whether it actually does that or not is extremely debatable. As I mentioned before reading body language isn't an exact scienc

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The issue being that the other party needs to have bought one too.

        The most likely use-case would be linking two offices that are far apart, so $50k plus cloud subscription, to talk to colleagues without getting on a plane. In that respect it may actually be cost effective for some orgs, if their people are flying business class regularly and this could replace that. Would they actually use it though, given they have been able to do normal video conferencing for a fraction of the price for many years?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Videoconferencing setups cost ridiculous amounts of money. So you can get the sexy new 3D version, or you can get a webcam. It's going to be tens of thousands of dollars regardless.

      That's part of the reason you can practically buy webcams at dollar stores now though. Videoconferencing is like porn: it's an early adopter. Lightfield displays are likely to find all sorts of uses, but someone needs to start manufacturing before mere mortals can afford them.

      • Videoconferencing setups cost ridiculous amounts of money. So you can get the sexy new 3D version, or you can get a webcam. It's going to be tens of thousands of dollars regardless.

        That's part of the reason you can practically buy webcams at dollar stores now though. Videoconferencing is like porn: it's an early adopter. Lightfield displays are likely to find all sorts of uses, but someone needs to start manufacturing before mere mortals can afford them.

        Obviously $25k devices are not consumer devices. The hope is that expensive leading edge devices will find some initial corporate/government use, which will eventually allow the technology to develop over time into more affordable consumer devices. That's what happened to cell phones and webcams. The Motorola DynaTAC 8000X was released in 1984 and cost $4k (or more than $12k in today's money) for relatively primitive features. A Fairchild MV-100 CCD-based camera cost $4k in 1973. The price for the $25k

    • Guessing you haven't worked in IT. Installing board room video systems is depressing when you see how they splurge on themselves while they nickel-and-dime everybody else.

  • Headline (Score:5, Informative)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Wednesday June 11, 2025 @12:56PM (#65442743)
    Why is the price a headline? The first video conferencing systems in the 1990s cost upwards of $80,000 in 90's money, which didn't include the requisite leased line.

  • just like prison (Score:3)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Wednesday June 11, 2025 @12:59PM (#65442755)

    Because cubicles are not enough like cells, now you can have meetings that are just like visiting someone in prison.

    Have to keep the picture and space around you drab and boring, no colors, nothing fun or interesting. Hoping for only black and white in the next version.

  • Help me Obi Wan Kenobi (Score:4, Funny)

    by echo123 ( 1266692 ) on Wednesday June 11, 2025 @01:10PM (#65442775)

    From TFS:

    HP has unveiled the first commercial hardware for Google Beam, the Android-maker's 3D video conferencing technology

    ...you're my only hope [youtube.com].

  • Since Gavin Belson spent 20 million for his Telehuman holographic projector.

    Did they solve the problem of software updates?

  • Because showing a full light field through a large flat screen is some seriously insane technology whether done by holography or by having each "pixel" emit different light at several different angles. (At the very least, for a light field to appear 3-dimensional, the angle resolution must be finer than the spacing between the viewer's eyes at the recommended viewing distance.)
    Either way (holography or multi-angle pixels) that's quite high tech.
    Not surprised it costs $25k.
     

    • In their heyday, consumer 3D TVs actually became pretty decent in the picture quality department. There even were models that used the same type of passive polarization technology glasses as the cinemas. What killed 3D TV was the lack of content, so I'm not getting excited for any new 3D display technology while the chicken-and-egg problem still exists.

      This kind of works around that by the fact that it's for video conferencing, not watching Avatar III: Space Casino Electric Boogaloo.

    • It isn’t clear from the description, or from this article. https://www.wired.com/story/go... [wired.com] But perhaps it uses head tracking, supports only one viewer, and has the same image going to both eyes? This may give feeling of a 3D object if the viewer is walking around, even if stereoscopic parallax is missing. I’d like to know too.
      • At my job we've used some of those overpriced ACER laptops that have the built in non glass 3d displays. I know that those systems would use sensors to determine your head placement/eye placement when presenting a 3-D image.
        Testing with their software and built in models, the 3D system worked fairly well, but any movement of your head would result in losing the 3d effect until it "caught up".
  • and you will have to face the Master Control Program... End of Line.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      The game grid would be really bizarre nowadays, given how many genres of games there are now.
      You think you will go to a lethal game and you end up in something like recettear or something even worse like a gay furry dating sim.

  • If any company proudly and publicly buys this, I am immediately excluding them from my IRA's investment funds. They probably use Macbooks too. It's the same type every time.

  • That's who's going to be buying this. All that class-action money has to go somewhere.

  • I lost faith in them a long time ago. They were founded in a great revolution of Electronics.. making test and measurement instruments. They were the standard in perfection. They were instrumental in the belief that when an electronic device was sold, that it would be reliable. People did not always have that belief, but HP sold and earned that belief. HP has since became a cheap perveyor of crap in my humble opinion. National Instruments took their crown, imho, and then NI was sold off. The cr
    • For many instruments I liked HP best. Scopes were Tektronix all the way for me. One friend ended up in HP's RF group after school, another ended up at Tek's scope group. Both I thought were excellent career starts.
      • I did work at NI, and I think Tektronix was excellent. I doubt HP has an RF group anymore. HP seems like some hungry Company trying desperately trying to justify its existence at this point.
  • But the 3d Ink refill cartridges are $59,000.
  • Cool technology, too bad Hooli already invented it about 6 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember Darwin; building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter mice.

Close