Scientists Seek 'True' 3-D Video (Moving Holograms)

[michael zaletel]

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16036/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=PozwYf9z

Excerpt:

"Bove compared the state of holographic video research to that of developing television about 80 years ago. Different groups are taking different approaches, and it is not clear which technology will prove best, he said.

In any case, he said, the Arizona system "produces bright, sharp holographic images. ... This thing is beautiful."

[Dan Hudgins]

I have papers going back to the 1960's for holographic TV tests done at Bell Labs.

One problem with holographic systems is the speckle noise, even with high resolution electro-optics you will get speckle noise from the monochromatic light used through the electro-optic plate.

I published papers on a auto-stereographic system that would produce better looking images because it can use bandpass light rather than monochromatic light, and still have parallax and acomidation depth clue etc.

You should not expect home holographic TV sets any time soon, as making the many views by interpolation and the speckle noise and high bandwidth through the electro optic array would limit the size and resolution and increase the cost.

Maybe in 100 years such displays would be able to be made with poly-band light that would reduce the speckle noise but, there will still be issues with the interpolated images used since the bulk of the camera for parallax systems would continue to be an issue.

And if you are viewing an interpolated simulation, then is it TV or computer graphics?

[michael zaletel]

What? :)

[Mark Toia]

Wow... You lost me at speckle noise.

[mike ogden]

You should not expect home holographic TV sets any time soon...

So very wrong. Someone out there has done it. That's all I can say. Exciting tech times.

[Tim Hole]

Even if it has been done, if I understand Dan correctly, we'd be stepping way back to in image quality 25 years.

That would be typical. You spend decades perfecting image quality and then it all gets thrown away because now it is all about holograms. I would love it, and have written it into most of my sci-fi scripts in one respect or another, just want it all...image quality and holographic projection.

[Jason Goodman]

I agree with Tim, I think a manned mission to Mars is less of an engineering challenge than full color truly holographic motion images at HD quality. Having "done it" is not the same as making it a practical reality.

[Dan Hudgins]

So very wrong. Someone out there has done it. That's all I can say. Exciting tech times.

We will see what "It" is.

And yes my point was how good the images can look, including with one eye closed.

Holographic images have a serious flaw for color results, when you change the wavelength of the light the image size changes.

If you make a "rainbow" hologram the height of the viewing area is limited because you need to be in the RGB overlap area of the three encoded rainbows.

If you use monochromatic light to reproduce the RGB then you need to compensate for the size change in the images.

If you do the size change for parallel reproduction you get crosstalk between the wave fringes that can add moire and noise to the images.

If you do the RGB monochromatic in temporal sequence you need a much faster Electro-optic element or other light valve matrix.

Its one thing to demonstrate transmission or computer generation of a hologram, but even the best holograms on film and glass plates with bandwidths many times what can be done with electro-optic arrays do not match a good color photograph in natural vision quality.

I started out looking into making a holographic television system, but switched to auto stereographic so that what you see could be closer in quality to natural vision.

When you make a computer generated hologram you use square dots, and those have rough edges. They do not have the same detail as holograms made on photographic plates.

If I can go to a store and purchase a auto-parallax holographic (wave front) 32" full color TV set with computer generated interpolated views that works on compressed signals that are so good I cannot tell that it has any artifacts and looks better and more natural than the best HD TV of today in my lifetime I will be very Surprised, because I have been involved in the subject for a long time and know what is involved in making a system that would do that.

There are limits to what you can do with light because of its nature. There are limits to how much bandwidth there will be both in the TVs circuits and in the broadcast channel. There are limits to how much people will pay to see such a display. And there are serious issues with how to capture the images for displays with wide auto-parallax angles of view since you cannot do it with simple cameras from one point of view for all subject matter, and get a true and natural looking result.

When will IT be shown to the public, and when will IT go on sale? Is IT even a Holographic display, or something else? Will IT be a flat panel display or a large deep thing that will not fit in peoples homes? Will IT be a projection device that will require a darkened room?

[Nick Burridge]

We will see what "It" is.
When will IT be shown to the public, and when will IT go on sale?

IT is available now! (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153051/flexi-grips)
(sorry, couldn't resist... link is slightly NSFW)

[Mark Allen]

A well known studio executive told me that while president of of one of the main studios he saw a working version of a 3D hologram so breathtaking that it seemed like it was absolutely the future of movies. But he saw that 20 years ago.

[Jeff Coatney]

When the rubber hits the road on this stuff, we'll likely have bypassed it with fully realized digital avatars of ourselves that will render within the span of the refresh rate of the "display" we'll watch it on to match our viewing angle.

It would be nice if an equal amount of effort were going into developing better content.

[Frank Glencairn]

Do you really want to watch a movie that looks like it came out of a R2-D2?

Aside from the color and speckle problems, holograms are always translucent, you can see your living room behind them. Holograms (same goes to stereoscopic films) don´t make any sense at all cause they don´t add any information to the image.

As long as you have only a princess Leia delivering some message it may be a nice gimmick, but what about a sky? How would a sky look in a hologram?

There you got it, big distant objects are a NoGo in holograms. Imagine a scene in a city, do you really want to look at it as a little model sitting on your table?

Holograms are amusement park stuff.

Frank

[Neil B Smith]

3D images have been produced over 100 years ago. Even Queen Elizabeth II's coronation was filmed in 3D, and that was in 1953!! 3D tech has moved on leaps and bounds. With the revitalisation of the 3D industry taking place expect NEW 3d tech to begin to show its face in the next decade. A lot of research is being produced under the radar. What you see on websites is only the half of it. Technology for 3d video mapping has already been in use by the military. I would expect the Japanese or Chinese to get something out first. Do you know teleportation has already been tried successfully with a single particle?...other larger objects, well thats another matter, but the principle has been proved to work. Beam me up Scotty!!

[Neil B Smith]

It would be nice if an equal amount of effort were going into developing better content.

That I'm afraid is going to be the ongoing struggle. :boxing_smiley: