Beats the hell out of a Dell 30" monitor...

[swhibble]

http://www.holografika.com/

this is quite honestly the coolest thing i've ever seen, i'd love to get my hands on one! doing 3D stuff on it would be utterly amazing, i love the fact that if you move your head you can actually see around objects... plus it's a completely 3D hologram, and people at different points in the room see different views of the objects displayed.

ok so the framerates aren't perfect (25fps MAX) but that isn't half bad considering the huge amount of floating point calculations the thing must be doing every second.

i can't wait till they improve the speed of it, imagine gaming on that thing! you'd be able to actually peer round corners and check for enemies... :wub:

[Marquee]

They need to make a holo room insted of a bunch of tvs and holo projected images. I want to see a whole room that holo projected and looks cool and real.

[CandyKid]

You guys watch too much Star Trek.

I think gaming on one of these would be incredibly difficult and a pain in the ass to boot. Since the games are meant to be viewed as a 2D projection of a 3D world, there are inherent flaws.

Also, I'm not about to walk around my room from side to side just to get a better view!

Neat idea for modelers, but I doubt it'll go much further in it's current state.

PLUR
CK

[Fibbles]

All I can imagine are headaches ( <_< ) and vomit ( :vomit: ).

[Marquee]

Yeah the idea of a holo TV is not smart, but a holo room or a Holo glass would be cool.

[Pug]

I doubt it'll go much further in it's current state.

PLUR
CK
Yeah and 64K of RAM is enough, eh? ;-)

Buncha luddites, the lot of you. :-p
It'll take a considerable time for this to become refined enough to be acceptable mainstream tech but I for one, welcome our new 3-dimensional overlords (or maybe my grand-kids will, at least... :wiz:).

[swhibble]

I think gaming on one of these would be incredibly difficult and a pain in the ass to boot. Since the games are meant to be viewed as a 2D projection of a 3D world, there are inherent flaws.

Also, I'm not about to walk around my room from side to side just to get a better view!

Personally i don't see what you're complaining about... computer games nowadays are 3D. they're modelled in 3D, textured in 3D (what with the bump maps and all), some games are even designed around the concept of playing in 3D (eve online, the homeworld series to name a couple). so whats wrong with viewing the thing in 3D? Bump maps would actually appear 3D, 3D characters in game would be a much greater asset because they would actually be 3D as opposed to looking like they're 3D.

but why would you have to walk around the room? unless you shelled out serious money on a 42 or 72" 3D display you shouldn't have to, just moving your head from side to side should be enough for 15 to 21" monitors... anything bigger might be a problem, but come to think of it, how many games have "looking round corners" as one of their main features? half the fun is walking into a room and getting jumped on..
so maybe the looking around cornes thing was a bad example, it'd be much more impressive to use that parallax display technique for presentations in places where your moving around anyway (like E3).

gaming is all about immersion and realism isn't it? they're the reasons why current game devs are spending ridiculous amounts of money on making games seem visually more realistic and in-depth. they spend hundreds of sqigillions of dollars (ok, slight exageration..) every year on new engine tech and techniques to make things ever more realistic, but at the end of the day theres only so much you can do to immerse a player in a 2D projection... graphics cards are good at making 3D look 2D, but i'd much rather leave it to my visual cortex, as its a much much more advanced processing unit than any graphics card (even a wildcat).

yes these monitors lend themselves better to 3D modelling at the mo, but im absolutely positive that when the right technology is available (if you think about it you actually need less processing power from your PC but much much greater raw data output to the screens 3D controllers and software) we'll all be enjoying gaming and maybe even high-def TV in glorious 3D.

[Squelch]

This looks like some interesting tech. Whether or not it can be applied to gaming I haven't worked out yet, but it does have possiblities. Nice find Swhibble.

Just because you can move around the room to view objects, doesn't mean you need to. We (humans) use various techniques to perceive objects in 3D space. I think everyone knows about stereoscopic vision, but this isn't used at all times in spacial awarenes. We also move our eyes and head by small amounts to work out distance and speed. Optic flow (the speed of an object moving across our field of view) combined with paralax, is used more than we appreciate. A one eyed person can judge distance very well using this method.

The 3D world rendered as a 2D picture does have it's inherent difficulties. Game developers have to compromise to portray their content on a flat screen. Various techniques can be used to improve the depth of field, but until a true 3D display is developed, then we will never recieve the full effect. Voxels were used for a time in some games but lost out to DirectX techniques. OpenGL allows people like Holografika to explore other possibilities, without the proprietary NDA's and tie ins that follow.

VR sickness is very similar to sea/air sickness. The body recieves information from many sources about it's situation to make up a picture of the 3D world. If only one part of this picture is given then this leads to the ill feeling. It is after all unnatural. A moving 3D display with the view fixed does cause VR sickness. 3D headsets for instance. This is because the natural head movements we use are not translated to visual movements in our field of view. Some have tried to alieviate this by using head tracking with mixed results. There is also visiovestibular effects (the postion our body would expect to attain when the world around us moves) again VR sickness ensues.

I believe this new tech wouldn't suffer from many of the drawbacks you guys are saying, or that I have touched on above. It's not just about vision, but how the whole body is able to view. There are some other methods in the pipline, but this one is interesting.

[Pug]

VR sickness is very similar to sea/air sickness. The body recieves information from many sources about it's situation to make up a picture of the 3D world. If only one part of this picture is given then this leads to the ill feeling. It is after all unnatural. A moving 3D display with the view fixed does cause VR sickness. 3D headsets for instance. This is because the natural head movements we use are not translated to visual movements in our field of view. Some have tried to alieviate this by using head tracking with mixed results. There is also visiovestibular effects (the postion our body would expect to attain when the world around us moves) again VR sickness ensues.

Good points Steve. :thumb:

Not only that but it minded me of when I was first exposed to using a VR headset (back in the 80's). I experienced the fact that your eyes' natural instinct is to shift focus to the depth of field. This left your muscles straining and would cause discomfort after any prolonged usage.
This is somewhat intensified by the brightness of a display causing the iris to contract (whereas, in contrast, dilation would increase tolerance for pseudo-3d, perhaps explaining the extra immersion of playing on a normal screen in a darkened room).

Holo-display tech would make VR goggles a much more acceptable technology, for one thing. :nods: