Support NeoGAF

[Gahiggidy]

This bit from the 3D display article got me thinking....

Heading Toward Holograms

The ultimate in 3-D would be a true video hologram, such as the holographic message from "Princess Leia" depicted in the first "Star Wars" film. The image could be seen from any angle, both horizontally and vertically.

"We're not quite there with real holographic images projected into the air yet, but we're definitely moving very rapidly in that area," Fredericks says.

The problems are considerable, though not insurmountable, Sullivan says. For example, a 20-inch-wide flat video screen might have perhaps 1,200 pixels, or points of light, per horizontal row. A hologram would require 1 million pixels per horizontal row. Multiply that by the million pixels needed per vertical row and the display would contain 1 trillion pixels, far beyond what today's technology can produce. And that doesn't include the as yet unavailable computing power needed to make the image move in a realistic way.

"It's unclear to us in the industry as to how you might actually make that," Sullivan says. "We constantly think about what we could do to skin that cat, to solve that ultimate of 3-D challenges."

Now, this all assumes that the holographic image would have to match that of today's TV resolutions. Okay, but is all that detail really neccessary for games? As I understand it, the original Atari was running at a 320 x 192 resolution, bringing it to 61,440 pixels. Now add in a third dimension at 250 pixles deep and we are at 15 Million pixels. Are today's processors not capable of handeling that level of video bandwitdth?

 

[Burger]

I still don't understand how you can get a point of light to illuminate in thin air.

 

[bitwise]

I still don't understand how you can get a point of light to illuminate in thin air.

i remember reading about one awhile ago that would form in a mist of water droplets, but not just thin air

 

[Borys]

Not there yet. Give or take 15-20 years. Move to holographic displays will be a natural evolution, people will freak out first, just like when they were escaping from cinemas in 1900 thinking the train would come out of the screen and run over them.

 

[Shaheed79]

i remember reading about one awhile ago that would form in a mist of water droplets, but not just thin air

Exactly. You would need an element slightly thicker than air to produce an image but it would have to be sustained at a constant rate and density which makes it impractical. I don't even see the point in producing a hologram on a 2 Dimensional television screen.

EDIT: Ahh I get it. They use some sort of optical illusion with light images to produce a holographic affect. I think.

 

[Triumph]

Ah, Gah. You don't ever give up, do ya buddy? That's admirable and sad at the same time.

The Revolution will have nothing as cool as holograms. Probably touch pad enabled controls or some other gimicky crap. By the time holograms for video games are possible, Nintendo will be just another 3rd party developer.

 

[Crankenstein]

Ah, Gah. You don't ever give up, do ya buddy? That's admirable and sad at the same time.

The Revolution will have nothing as cool as holograms. Probably touch pad enabled controls or some other gimicky crap. By the time holograms for video games are possible, Nintendo will be just another 3rd party developer.

We'll all be playing Nintendo and Sony third party titles on some future iteration of the Xbox.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Why can't you produce a holographic "pixel" by crossing a vertical laser/light beam with a horizontal counterpart? Each cold be made from an invisible spectrum light, but when cobined form a pixel of light.

btw, they had a giant holographic images of a double-helix at the Athens summer Olympics. At the opening ceremony. I remember, because at the time I got a phone call from Smapty screaming "LOOK!, LOOK!. Its the Revolution, Gahiggidy! Right before te world to see. Xbox be d00mewd now!!"


Here's a pic...

 

[Donnie]

Ah, Gah. You don't ever give up, do ya buddy? That's admirable and sad at the same time.

The Revolution will have nothing as cool as holograms. Probably touch pad enabled controls or some other gimicky crap. By the time holograms for video games are possible, Nintendo will be just another 3rd party developer.

I don't know if you've realised but Nintendo are the most profitable company in the games business by far. Making profits of 7 billion dollars over the last 6 years. Sony don't come close to them (at around 4.5 billion) and Microsoft are minus 3 billion.

The most telling thing here is that the biggest software publisher in the world (EA) only made 1.8 billion in the same time! See that's the difference between a massive publisher releasing their games on other companies systems and a massive publisher releasing games on their own system! Why would Nintendo want to go third party and cut their profits by 4 times?..

Check out this financial report and wise up.

 

[Father_Brain]

The technology for a consumer-level, gaming-friendly 3D display does NOT FUCKING EXIST. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding himself.

 

[monchi-kun]

The technology for a consumer-level, gaming-friendly 3D display does NOT FUCKING EXIST. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding himself.

but reggie said so....

 

[Jive Turkey]

By the time holograms for video games are possible, Nintendo will be just another 3rd party developer.

---

You don't ever give up, do ya buddy? That's admirable and sad at the same time.

Wow! Works well that way too!

 

[refreshZ]

I don't know if you've realised but Nintendo are the most profitable company in the games business by far. Making profits of 7 billion dollars over the last 6 years. Sony don't come close to them (at around 4.5 billion) and Microsoft are minus 3 billion.

The most telling thing here is that the biggest software publisher in the world (EA) only made 1.8 billion in the same time! See that's the difference between a massive publisher releasing their games on other companies systems and a massive publisher releasing games on their own system! Why would Nintendo want to go third party and cut their profits by 4 times?..

Check out this financial report and wise up.

Wow, you sure showed him.

Fukkin noobs.

 

[PkunkFury]

i remember reading about one awhile ago that would form in a mist of water droplets, but not just thin air

I've seen mist and water walls used as 2D projection screens, they're often used for mixed reality applications as a method to allow users to "step through" the virtual environment into the physical one. Basically they work like a normal rear projection system but replacing the screen with a thin wall of mist. Not exactly sure how anyone could truly project in 3 dimensions using this method though, but I'd be interested in learning more if it has been done. The stuff I've seen are still 2D pictures, just projected on 3D water droplets.

 

[INTERNET]

The problems are considerable, though not insurmountable, Sullivan says. For example, a 20-inch-wide flat video screen might have perhaps 1,200 pixels, or points of light, per horizontal row. A hologram would require 1 million pixels per horizontal row. Multiply that by the million pixels needed per vertical row and the display would contain 1 trillion pixels, far beyond what today's technology can produce. And that doesn't include the as yet unavailable computing power needed to make the image move in a realistic way.

That calculation is overstated by a factor of 1000 - such a display (a 1000p x 1000p x 1000p cube of three-dimensional "pixels") contains one billion discrete units - I would argue that that is not out of reach in the next decade.

Also not taken into account is that the human eye and the human mind can be tricked - an example is the prototypes that consist of twenty stacked screens (each either opaque or clear at any given time) with a synchronized rear-projection system giving depth - here the tradeoff is a necessary frame rate increase of an order of magnitude - but 300 fps is not unthinkable, especially if as stated above, viewers are willing to accept a reduction in detail similar to the change from the best 16-bit, 2-d graphics to the first 3-d graphics of the next generation.

 

[FoneBone]

The technology for a consumer-level, gaming-friendly 3D display does NOT FUCKING EXIST. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding himself.

This bears repeating. How many fucking threads like this do we need?

 

[Gek54]

Did Time Traveler have polygon objects?

 

[Jive Turkey]

Did Time Traveler have polygon objects?

Haha! I totally forgot about that game!

 

[Zaptruder]

aw cmon you pig fuckers. Stop fucking around with holograms, big fucking impractical machines that requires ridiculous amounts of processing power

and start working on a personal augmented reality device... instead of having real 3D displays, have the 3D displayed via 2 panels situated very close to the eye... this way you can overlay images onto the world; and with a simple device you can have a point of reference from which the device can work with (so that you can imagine having a floating screen in front of you, swivelling your head and that screen would disappear or move away from your sight as you'd expect a real screen).

This is like... the 100th time I've championed an idea like this on this message board; met to very little reception, even though the idea is far more practical, realisable and powerful than any holographic technology.

 

[GaimeGuy]

aw cmon you pig fuckers. Stop fucking around with holograms, big fucking impractical machines that requires ridiculous amounts of processing power

and start working on a personal augmented reality device... instead of having real 3D displays, have the 3D displayed via 2 panels situated very close to the eye... this way you can overlay images onto the world; and with a simple device you can have a point of reference from which the device can work with (so that you can imagine having a floating screen in front of you, swivelling your head and that screen would disappear or move away from your sight as you'd expect a real screen).

This is like... the 100th time I've championed an idea like this on this message board; met to very little reception, even though the idea is far more practical, realisable and powerful than any holographic technology.

I can't imagine that would be good for the eyes, though.

 

[Zaptruder]

I can't imagine that would be good for the eyes, though.

That would be in the details; but it's not like the glasses would be CRT or some such.

 

[Gahiggidy]

I don't care if it costs $300,000 to make. It should be made as a proof of concept. The industry needs a point of refrence to the future. Something to work towards.

 

[Dilbert]

I don't care if it costs $300,000 to make. It should be made as a proof of concept. The industry needs a point of refrence to the future. Something to work towards.

Why do you think that holograms are anything to work towards?

 

[midnightguy]

The technology for a consumer-level, gaming-friendly 3D display does NOT FUCKING EXIST. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding himself.

ahhh, but REGGIE will save us from your disbelief. because he is the Regginator. he will Reginate your type of thinking.

 

[Fafalada]

This is like... the 100th time I've championed an idea like this on this message board; met to very little reception, even though the idea is far more practical, realisable and powerful than any holographic technology.

The idea is not only more practical - it has already been realized in certain amusement parks, and worked better then any other VR demontration I've seen. The googles required to wear were quite thin and light as a regular pair of glasses (none of that huge ass headset nonsense).
Moreover it wasn't just a "3d screen", you're actually inside the "virtual world", which is overlayed over the real world in semi-transparent fashion.

And this was roughly 5 years ago - I'd imagine the tech must be far more evolved by now.

 

[aoi tsuki]

The problem with 3D methods such as Zaptruder suggested and true HMDs is that a significant amount of the population is subject to motion sickness from such displays, even moreso than those who are just prone to seizures due to flashing displays IIRC. Until that and the price issue are solved, we won't see such technologies from the big three console developers.

 

[Zaptruder]

The problem with 3D methods such as Zaptruder suggested and true HMDs is that a significant amount of the population is subject to motion sickness from such displays, even moreso than those who are just prone to seizures due to flashing displays IIRC. Until that and the price issue are solved, we won't see such technologies from the big three console developers.

HMDs?

And if implemented correctly, I don't see motion sickness been a problem... I mean, if they can get it so that objects can be focused on naturally, and the response to head tracking fast and natural enough, it shouldn't and I daresay wouldn't cause any headaches.

Faf: of course such a device would allow full visual overlay; ideally would have opacity change local to the pixels as well, so you could fully or overlay or partially overlay with transperancy/translucency. The technology would be a bit out there; but once it's done, it would be easier and more practical to put into use and practice than even HD flat displays. But I can see more use for the device as something that didn't fully obscure vision; like a HUD, or simulating multiple substanceless floating screens for an operating system (kinda like real windows) type environment.

 

[Fafalada]

Well motion sickness is mostly result of lack of physical feedback - it happens with standard "2d" displays for the same reason.

But consider that real 3d coresponds to your movements (at least for looking around) - that aspect is certainly less disorienting then FPS on a 2d screen - at least that's how it felt to me when I tried it.

And if implemented correctly, I don't see motion sickness been a problem... I mean, if they can get it so that objects can be focused on naturally, and the response to head tracking fast and natural enough, it shouldn't and I daresay wouldn't cause any headaches.

It might be nauseating if you see world around suddenly move at high velocities in random directions, especially if it starts going up and down - and lacking the physical feedback of acceleration.

But I can see more use for the device as something that didn't fully obscure vision;

Certainly there'd be a variety of uses - the ride I tried overlayed some kind of toomb/maze over the room you're in, with creatures and stuff passing you by. You could still see real stuff under it all.
It also had pretty seamless headtracking (of course I may have been a bit overwhelmed by it - I was taken by surprise when I first turned around seeing a full 360 view), but it felt really immersive.

 

[FightyF]

Anyone else remember the following?

At a CES a while ago, there was a company showing off it's holographic technology. They were doing small objects and putting them around CES. So people thought they saw an orange, or a cellphone lying around, when in actuality it was a hologram.

 

[Azelover]

Those of you who ever thought this would be in Revolution should have to think twice about how worthless it would be. It's just yet another form of displaying the same damn things that play the same way. Unless you could touch the hologram and play that way but I don't think that'll be happening anytime soon, much less on Revolution. Visual awe wears out fast, good gameplay is eternal.

 

[midnightguy]

Im looking for that StarFox hologram display thing that was on display at a game show... maybe E3


edit: nevermind, it got posted in the other thread

 

[Gahiggidy]

Those of you who ever thought this would be in Revolution should have to think twice about how worthless it would be. It's just yet another form of displaying the same damn things that play the same way. Unless you could touch the hologram and play that way but I don't think that'll be happening anytime soon, much less on Revolution. Visual awe wears out fast, good gameplay is eternal.

Huh? Perhaps if you are refering to 3D Television/Projection, then yes, it would basically be mostly for visual awe and not neccessarily change the gameplay. But actual holograms? No way that is "another form of displaying the same damn things". Freestanding vitual objects that can be controlled are whole differant beast than what we have with today's video games. I'd argue the shift to holograms will be bigger than the switch from 2D TO 3D.

 

[Triumph]

I don't know if you've realised but Nintendo are the most profitable company in the games business by far. Making profits of 7 billion dollars over the last 6 years. Sony don't come close to them (at around 4.5 billion) and Microsoft are minus 3 billion.

The most telling thing here is that the biggest software publisher in the world (EA) only made 1.8 billion in the same time! See that's the difference between a massive publisher releasing their games on other companies systems and a massive publisher releasing games on their own system! Why would Nintendo want to go third party and cut their profits by 4 times?..

Check out this financial report and wise up.

Blah blah blah blah profit doesn't freaking matter if your audience shrinks each successive generation. And now Nintendo's cash cow, portable gaming, is gonna be eaten into. Sure, Nintendo is still profitable, very much so. You can't play profits, though. And if you think all that money is resulting in better games, you're deluded.

And Jive Turkey- step off my jock, fella. This is the second thread I've noticed you harassing me for telling the truth about Nintendo in. If you want to have at it and throw down, I'm not hard to find, bubba. I'm terribly sorry that you get your panties in a bunch whenever I engage in some good ol' fashioned Nintendo mocking. Hell, if I had to wake up every morning thinking Nintendo was the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'd probably be upset at strangers too. Thankfully, I was blessed with intelligence and great reasoning faculties. Use of these allows me to realize that Nintendo has sucked for about 5 years now(other than Zelda, anyhow).

 

[Jive Turkey]

And Jive Turkey- step off my jock, fella. This is the second thread I've noticed you harassing me for telling the truth about Nintendo in. If you want to have at it and throw down, I'm not hard to find, bubba. I'm terribly sorry that you get your panties in a bunch whenever I engage in some good ol' fashioned Nintendo mocking. Hell, if I had to wake up every morning thinking Nintendo was the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'd probably be upset at strangers too. Thankfully, I was blessed with intelligence and great reasoning faculties. Use of these allows me to realize that Nintendo has sucked for about 5 years now(other than Zelda, anyhow).

Woah woah woah Mary Jane! No need to go PMSing all over the place. If you're pissed that someone is mocking your very tired and weak-ass attempts at Nintendo trolling why don't you take a page from Drinky's book? Even though I don't agree with 99% of the things he says he at least ATTEPMTS humor and thought into his posts where as you simply recycle the same crap you spouted off in a different thread. I never claimed Nintendo was the "greatest thing since sliced bread" either. I just simply said you sound like a ham-fisted retard. Bash Nintendo all you like. I'm just requesting that you at least put some effort into what you post or shut the fuck up.

P.S.--I don't want to get anywhere near your jock...

 

[Gahiggidy]

No fighting. Please.

I don't wanna fight anymore. I'm tired.

 

[StrikerObi]

Alright I'm brining this one out of retirement:

 

[PkunkFury]

Im looking for that StarFox hologram display thing that was on display at a game show... maybe E3


edit: nevermind, it got posted in the other thread

I wasn't at this E3, but is this really a hologram? It looks like a volumetric display, with an image being projected onto a conitnuously spinning screen, like Actuality's Perspecta machine.

 

[Tekky]

That calculation is overstated by a factor of 1000 - such a display (a 1000p x 1000p x 1000p cube of three-dimensional "pixels") contains one billion discrete units - I would argue that that is not out of reach in the next decade.

Also not taken into account is that the human eye and the human mind can be tricked - an example is the prototypes that consist of twenty stacked screens (each either opaque or clear at any given time) with a synchronized rear-projection system giving depth - here the tradeoff is a necessary frame rate increase of an order of magnitude - but 300 fps is not unthinkable, especially if as stated above, viewers are willing to accept a reduction in detail similar to the change from the best 16-bit, 2-d graphics to the first 3-d graphics of the next generation.

It's not overstated.

There's a difference between a 3D display and a holographic display.

With a holographic display, you are essentially computing an image for every pixel on a flat display. A 3D display just has voxels in 3D space.

Let's back up for a moment and consider the physics for a moment.

When you have a 2D image such as a computer screen, the light from each pixel is going out in all directions (as much as possible), and it's all the same color and intensity (although the intensity does drop off as you look at it off-angle). For this reason, the image looks the same regardless of the direction you look at it from.

For a holographic image, the light rays that come from one pixel are different depending on the direction that you look at it from. Thus the pixel that shows the front of an object when you look at it from one direction might show the side of an object when you look at it from another direction. Like I said above, each pixel is shining out an "image", except the "pixels" in this sub-image are each varying light rays going out in different directions.

A typical 3D (volumetric) display is doing something different altogether. Rather, it is emitting the same light in all directions from any given point in a volume. For this reason, such displays cannot render solid objects - you can always see through them.

And of course this is different from a stereographic display that is merely showing 2 images - a flat image for each eye's view. While this is very close to 3D-looking, it still doesn't account for depth of focus. That would take a whole lot more work.

Btw, the StarFox thing looks like a cylindrical hologram.

 

[Gahiggidy]

I believe that StarFox display is one of those illusions you get when you spin a stick around and around and a "flatened" image is revealed. There is a more basic version as a kids toy where you wave the wand back and forth to reveal pokemon and stuff.

 

[StrikerObi]

I believe that StarFox display is one of those illusions you get when you spin a stick around and around and a "flatened" image is revealed. There is a more basic version as a kids toy where you wave the wand back and forth to reveal pokemon and stuff.

Bingo.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

Atari had a better chance with those 3D glasses releasing for the Jag than a quality version of holograms being displayed by a game console that display large and clear enough to be more than a gimmick.

I think Nintendo should check the potential for those 3D glasses Atari had in mind, now that prices for good quality should ave dropped, that could really kick ass if developers incorperated the in game camera with head movements from those glasses.

 

[PkunkFury]

I believe that StarFox display is one of those illusions you get when you spin a stick around and around and a "flatened" image is revealed. There is a more basic version as a kids toy where you wave the wand back and forth to reveal pokemon and stuff.

Yeah that is how the Perepcta works, only it reveals a volumetric image instead of a flattened image. Basically the image is being projected at the same speed and angle as the spinning screen to create the 3D effect.

http://www.actuality-systems.com/index.php/actuality

I've played a couple games on these, but all of them have a 2-D representation running on the screen along with the volumetric display. I usually just end up looking at the 2D screen so I can make better sense of what is going on. I'll take a couple pictures if I get a chance.

For example, when playing Tetris, you can see through all of the blocks, so when they stack on top of one another the graphics become a mess of transparent colors. I think this will be a problem with hologram gaming that only stereo displays can correct. When you use a genuine 3D display you need to create graphics that are solid enough that the viewer doesn't get confused while watching them pass by one another.

With smoething like virual reality, the user is wearing a tracker so the computer can render objects as solid based on z depth from the user's field of view. But with a 3D display, the images are supposed to be position independent.