Projector claims 8 foot holograms are here!

[planters]

I think we are reaching that point. 30 years ago a laser beam projecting across a room was much like a weapon in Star Wars. It was not much less sophisticated than a synchrotron and very rare. If the only discussions here were about laser projectors then this site will eventually get as boring as another pointer on LPF.

[laserist]

Technological "wow" just serves as a marketing hook. People are willing to run your story if it seems "new". Once it stops being new you have to actually do something compelling with it or quit and chase the next "new" thing.

[Photonbeam]

I think we are reaching that point. 30 years ago a laser beam projecting across a room was much like a weapon in Star Wars. It was not much less sophisticated than a synchrotron and very rare. If the only discussions here were about laser projectors then this site will eventually get as boring as another pointer on LPF.

True. In the early to mid seventies we blew people's minds with just 3 static beams, total 500mW, projected from behind the band to the back of the auditorium. No one had ever seen anything like it. Just the word "laser" had a lot of mystique. Now you see concerts with a dozen or more full color multiwatt laser projectors, used on every song, and the audience is not that impressed compared to the wow factor of some of the new technology that Brad mentioned. I still love lasers but I'm an old fart. The glory days of lasershows may be history. Unless someone comes up with something "new". I hope they do.

[mixedgas]

So how does this work actually?

The question my friend, is: "Does it work at all?"

Right now the web site claims pulsed RGB diode lasers run thru a spatial light modulator driven by RF waveforms to produce a interference pattern that when imaged by the eye, produces a 3D image. What it DOES NOT say is how it routes that image to each eye or allows you to have your head level when viewing the image.

225,000$ is not enough to start serial production of such a device in the US.

They have a very cool animated video that pushes certain expectations of a future world. When you get the egg, if you get the egg, it probably works very differently then what is shown in the animated video.

After some futher googling:

Another marketing website claims they are using a "plasmonic metasurface" to create the display. If that is the case, they are writing an interference pattern to a material like a LCD. This is tricky. When my former employer tried it, we needed 1/2 watt of SLm TEM00 UV to write one square cm of surface.

If that is the case, you still have to look into it like a TV.

Steve

[steve-o]

Pipe dream. A lot of those investors are gonna be pissed.

[planters]

Another marketing website claims they are using a "plasmonic metasurface" to create the display. If that is the case, they are writing an interference pattern to a material like a LCD. This is tricky. When my former employer tried it, we needed 1/2 watt of SLm TEM00 UV to write one square cm of surface.

Ya, but it is the mid air, levitated virtual image that is the weak link. Their definitely not doing the femtosecond plasma breakdown thing. So, how on earth are they projecting into the moving retinas of multiple viewers around a well lit room? They're not!

[mixedgas]

It gets even worse. To do color with a metamaterial means they have to update at 90 Hz or better. Ie run sequential color. That might just flicker like mad as you tilt your head.

So we have five issues:

1. Image is not virtual nor does it levitate above the projector. So the video is a clever lie.
2. A huge bandwidth is needed.
3. They claim they will be using the 3D camera technology of another group.
4. No one has published a RGB metamaterial LCD material in working order.
5. One heck of an expensive 2D modulator is needed.

I was given a sneak peak of a electrically switchable LC holomaterial five years ago. The image size was tiny and the speed was slower then molasses in January. I just cant see these guys having all the parts in place.

Steve

[loopee]

1. Image is not virtual nor does it levitate above the projector. So the video is a clever lie.
2. A huge bandwidth is needed.
3. They claim they will be using the 3D camera technology of another group.
4. No one has published a RGB metamaterial LCD material in working order.
5. One heck of an expensive 2D modulator is needed.

and 6. and all designed and made for $225 each (not including any content costs, what I'd imagine would not be cheap)

[White-Light]

Wondered if this was just pie in the sky. Guess we'll see eventually. However, it sounds doubtful.

I'm guessing from what you've said Steve that at the very least, there'd have to be an integrated small particle hazer to get a floating image without plasma formation. Seems unlikely when a Phantom costs £1500.

The word Pulse also has me worried when it comes to eye safety.

[VDX]

... plenoptical 'holographic' cameras with more than 1 optical entry are known since 1920 ... lightfield-cameras used to 'recalibrate' the focus depth are around there some years too ... but real plenoptical/lightfield displays (similar to lenticular, but optical grid in X+Y, not only in X), which should be not much more complicated/priced than lenticular displays weren't there until now :-/

I've made some tests with fixing hole-grid plates to 'naked' camera sensors and made some videos without any optics wich resamples a regular grid of 'pin-hole' cameras, that wieved with relaxed (parallel) eyes already shows stereographs between any of the 'pin-hole' vignettes.

With correct adjustment and a lense-grid before the monitor (in contrary to linear lense-stripes with lenticular displays) this would show a perfect 3D-image without goggles ...

Viktor