• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Holograms

Johnny Pneumatic

Master Poster
Joined
Oct 15, 2003
Messages
2,088
I see those "hologram" thingies in movies like Star Wars, X2 ect.
I've thought about it and can't see how they would be possible.
Are they?
 
This toy creates a perfect illusion of an object floating with a concave mirror. You can pass your finger through the image, but it looks %100 real. I think to some extent, yes it could be done. A combo of that toy and a projector...
 
Have you never seen a real hologram? One that requires a laser to make it work? They're way cool. But what we have nowadays are just static holograms, not motion.

Imagine a clear segment of pipe, 4 inches (10cm) in diameter, about 4 inches long. The pipe material is clear, and there's nothing inside. Now hit it with a collimated (made wider) laser beam, and suddenly there's an old cannon inside it. You can rotate it around and look at the details of the cannon from all directions, and it really looks like it's inside the pipe segment.

For a hologram to work, you have to take a surface where the light would pass through if the object were really there, and replicate the intensity and the phase of the light that would pass through the surface at each point. If you do that, the light will propagate out just like if the object were still there.
 
Well, we do not have the techniques to make hologram movies like one sees in Star Wars.

However, individual holograms can be made.

Also, movies of a sort, can be made by made by taking a series of holograms then running them together. But it the resulting movie only lasts a few seconds. By the way, this technique was used in one of the final scenes of the movie Logan's Run.
 
There is already a good deal of work afoot to make 3 dimensional projection part of the next gen (or the gen after) of mobile phones. They've cracked the basics of the technology, it's now a question of getting the quality adequately good while still being readily transmittable across mobile phone bandwidth, and without requiring the mobile phone to be the size of a steamer trunk. I'll have a hunt around for some specifics, if anyone's interested.
 
bewareofdogmas said:
I see those "hologram" thingies in movies like Star Wars, X2 ect.
I've thought about it and can't see how they would be possible.
Are they?

The closest thing that I've seen to a real application of this was a few years ago at Siggraph. A woman had put together an apparatus using two lasers of different wavelengths projected into a block of glass, which was doped with a material. Where the lasers crosed, electrons were promoted in the doping agent to an energy state two orbitals above the rest state (with each of the two energy states given by the energy of each of the two lasers). The electrons occasionally dropped both energy states at once, giving rise to visible photons.

It was way cool, but the block of glass was only about a centimeter squared.

Practically, the best technologies seem to be rear-screen projection technologies. The best I've seen is the CAVE, produced by the University of Illinois. (I generated and exhibited some scientific visualizations for the CAVE at SIGGRAPH a few year ago. Although we only showed thunderstorm data in the public exhibition, we actually modified a general-purpose visualization package of ours to work, so in a later private showing, we were able to do some gel electrophoresis simulations and some molecular code as well. But I digress.)

In the CAVE, flicker-stereo images are projected onto three walls and a floor. One person wears stereo flip glasses, and the computer tracks that position and generates different images. Other viewers have to wear pasive flip glasses, which of course generate a distorted image. Nevertheless, it's a pretty damn good illusion.

To make a complete system like this, you'd have to have walls where every pixel presented a 2-D image, with the different pixels within the subimage pointing out at a different angle. This is not hard for one pixel; just a lens and a screen. However, packing them all together would be a trick, and of course generating even a static image would be a 4-D problem, which would be a trick.

Some of the people writing books about Star Trek gave this some thought and suggested such a mechanism, but only for far objects. A virtual treadmill mechanism gave the illusion of being able to walk long distances. This is all posssible.

Near objects were real, made of matter beamed there with transporter technology, manipulated with tractor beams. Of course, this is, as yet, just pure fiction.

All of these technologies require something behind the image that can emit the photons. Free-standing 3-D images, such as the R2D2 Princess Leia recording, well, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to do that.
 
Brian said:
This toy creates a perfect illusion of an object floating with a concave mirror. You can pass your finger through the image, but it looks %100 real. I think to some extent, yes it could be done. A combo of that toy and a projector...

These are real images, and they are way cool. I went through a real image phase as a kid. All you need is a spherical (or, prefereably, parabolic) mirror.

Trouble is, there needs to be some sort of thing in 3-D to be reflected, and the image only works over a narrow range of depths. Go too far and it either shrinks or enlarges alarmingly.

I'd love to build a roller-coaster where you go though a big spherical mirror and it appears that you are colliding with an upside-down version of yourself.
 
The sci-fi movie (SW and others) device that just projects a hologram into thin air is rather unlikely. A hologram sends light to our eyes in the same pattern as would the real object, thus creating the illusion of a real object. However, this requires the light generator to be in our line of sight. The holographic display will then be between the generator (or a reflective surface) and the observer. So the difficulty of a "thin air hologram" is that there is neither line of sight to the signal source, nor a useful reflective surface.

Hans
 
bewareofdogmas said:
I'll have a hunt around for some specifics, if anyone's interested.-richardm

yes please.

I've had a quick trawl.

Something about still 3D images on phones to be made available this year


and News article about upcoming phones showing moving 3d images


Sorry, I can't find anything more technical at the moment :(

Note that at the moment they're aiming for a commercial phone in the next 10 to 15 years or so, so as I said it's not so much next-gen as next-next gen. I think the time to rollout will ultimately depends a lot on phone bandwidth rather than anything else, since the phone market is so very competitive. As soon as someone starts working on something nifty, everyone will want a piece of it.
 
"I can't see how they are possible either, but still think that present technology is getting darn close:
Holografika
Actuality systems"-Earthborn





Thanks... :)
 
I saw a demo of a neat solution on TV once. A moving model was videotaped through a grid of bubbles - like bubblewrap only larger. Because of the refraction of the light, each bubble showed a small image of the object from a slightly different angle.

The really clever bit was that to reconstruct the 3d model, you viewed the video recording through the same array of bubbles. This time each bubble magnified a small part of one of the smaller images on the video.

The resolution was pretty low, but it had a lot going for it - mainly cost.

David
 
Looks real to me. It appears that it blows a lot of air out of the top and it somehow uses this as a sort of projection screen. I guess a sort of Fata Morgana. It is not 3d or holographic though.
 
bewareofdogmas said:
Is this for real?
Could be real. There's a double meaning in what I say. The first meaning is: it could be legitimate.

The second meaning is, the image could be a "real image."

I've made a still hologram like this myself. My hologram showed a stack of coins. I set up the holgram so that the image would be a real image, meaning that the stack would appear to stick out of the plane of the film. (Here, the term "real" does not imply that the image is touch-able or tangible, but rather that it appears to be on "my side" of the film. If the image appeared to be "behind" the film, it would be a "virtual" image.) In my final hologram, the stack seemed to stick out about an inch or two above the film.

The techniques for creating a real image require a pretty detailed description of optics and holography, which I don't have the time to discuss.

There are several techniques for creating a holographic movie, so that the real image would appear to move. It is not clear, however, what technique the IO2 guys use.
 
The technology could be developed to display volumetric images. No world-wide volumetric (3D) standard exists, however, and there is little volumetric video content. So this development is not a priority.
would you be able to walk around the device without the image disappearing? Like the "ghostly" projectors in Return of the Jedi and TPM.
 

Yep, it's real. If you look close at one of the videos you will notice
that it is an image being projected against a series of clear plastic strips or fibers that is being blown straight up by a fan.
They are kind misleading you by having a NDA posted and saying the technology is new. It's actually kind a cool and cheesey at the same time. like those fake flame effect dealies.
 
Oops! took a closer look. It's not clear plastic strips or fibers it looks like some thing being sprayed into the air in thin streams.
maybe heated or cooled air with condensation, or some kind of fluid.
 
Oops! took a closer look. It's not clear plastic strips or fibers it looks like some thing being sprayed into the air in thin streams.
maybe heated or cooled air with condensation, or some kind of fluid.-uruk



They say it adds nothing to the air. Why the images look like they have gone through a paper shredder I don't know. Hopefully they can fix that; I find it annoying.
 

Back
Top Bottom