Main > Everything Else
SED TVs delayed again
shorthair:
I wouldn't go as far as Randy in my skepticism of the practicality of this example...but it does raise a fundamental question I think no one at least here has noticed: that any spatial projection, regardless of technique used, is going to be governed by local atmospheric conditions. Which is why - barring something like Hamilton's affinity - wireless tightbeam accessed via neural connection is best. (Of course, there is the question of EM radiation being received so close to brain matter....)
NiN^_^NiN:
I do know that the fog screen has been used at the enterence of a few conventions and it didn't have any problem with the huge amount of people walking through it.
The laminar air flow design is perfect for inside as it's strong enough not to be moved by the outside conditions unless it was damn windy.
But the few things i have seen them say for uses are of course at conventions who wouldnt wanna walk through a screen :D other is for clothes shopping altho im not to sure bout that one but say u walk in u can get the cloth projector over your body to see how it would look on you (as it's clear then it would look 3D) only problem is it's invisible so id say to do that it you would have to be half naked for it to work well it be more for in the dressing rooms id say.
It be great at a video game convention think of a 2d ninja or any character standing in mid air there doing some moves it would look 3D to us and it be quite cool i would think if it was hooked up to sensors and could tell if there was someone infront of it could have it as a salesman lol
RandyT:
--- Quote from: NiN^_^NiN on June 02, 2007, 12:50:02 am ---There is a difference between putting ur finger just before the fog and throwing ur whole hand in lol
And the technology doesn't use a water tank or anything like that (there already is water in the air) it just needs electricty i said the easy DIY way was too use water and some ultrasonic devices
--- End quote ---
Even the joker in the video was poking his finger into it occasionally. Instinctively, people try to touch the floating object. Seen it thousands of times. Also, dry environments will have less water in the air, so relying solely on the moisture content present in an unknown environment may present a performance issue. I don't know that it would, but if it relies on water particulates to reflect an image, and fewer particulates are present, it just seems logical.
Ok, I'll admit that I'm a bit of a pragmatist at times. But seriously, outside of the "Hey, that's a neat trick" factor, what are the real benefits of this laminar projection technology? And consider this: With this type of display, there is no black. Even dark colors can vanish or become hard to see. Black becomes the "transparent" color, mainly because you are working with pure light and black is the ultimate lack thereof. If you view the "screen" with a white wall on the other side, the image starts to wash out because the white light reflected from the wall is added to the light of the image. Too much light in the room screws these types of displays up big time. No darks, means no contrast. Also consider that you are talking about a paper thin plane in space. So no "roundtable" discussions with a 3D floating object in the middle. Just a flat image that one side of the table sees normally, the other side sees in reverse, and everyone else gets a very distorted view of.
I do apologize for the skepticism. I worked in "the biz" for too long and sometimes forget the novelty of seeing these types of things for the first time. But I'd like you to consider something nonetheless. Many of these 3D technologies have been around for a long time. Some based on ideas that have been around since the 40's. Every one of them, without exception, have some damning flaw that keeps them from being adopted for serious use by a broad market. It can be high cost, poor image fidelity, poor fields of view, eye strain, excessive maintenance, and so on. Most have more than one of these problems.
I have no doubt that, in the right settings, these types of devices can get attention and be novel approaches to advertising campaigns and so-on. But they lack broad consumer appeal, which is absolutely necessary to get funding for mass production, and thereby get the prices down to where you might be able to afford one. But even if you could get one reasonably, I truly believe that when you run out of people to show your new toy to, you'll start cursing the shortcomings of these types of displays.
Just my opinion :)
RandyT
RayB:
--- Quote from: shorthair on June 02, 2007, 06:20:15 pm ---Which is why - barring something like Hamilton's affinity - wireless tightbeam accessed via neural connection is best. (Of course, there is the question of EM radiation being received so close to brain matter....)
--- End quote ---
Do you enjoy making ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- up?
shorthair:
--- Quote from: RayB on June 04, 2007, 11:20:42 am ---
--- Quote from: shorthair on June 02, 2007, 06:20:15 pm ---Which is why - barring something like Hamilton's affinity - wireless tightbeam accessed via neural connection is best. (Of course, there is the question of EM radiation being received so close to brain matter....)
--- End quote ---
Do you enjoy making ---Cleveland steamer--- up?
--- End quote ---
Which part?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version