I've built a non-trivial prototype application for the Looking Glass, and once you are past the initial 'cool' moment the downsides start to rear their head:
- Split a 4k signal into 45 view planes means the effective resolution sucks, bad.
- Likewise, if your content is complicated at all you need a monster GPU because you are rendering your scenes 45 times per frame, meaning 45 times the draw calls.
- Field of view is very limited
- The amount of z-depth you can put content in without major blurring is much lower than even this video would indicate.
- You need to design your scene so important content never reaches the edges or things look yuck.
- Some patterns lead to artifacts like moire, and it can be hard to predict. Your content needs to work around this.
- They are (understandably) very expensive.
All that said, these things are cool and would be a perfect fit for some use-cases. After the prototype I built was green lit for full production, the decision was made to ditch these displays for all the reasons above.
1) Isn't this just based on "naive" implementations? Surely there are optimizations to not have to render all 45 view planes at all times similar to how 3d rendering doesn't render scenes that are not visible until the character moves to change perspective?
2) The difficulty with layout and design doesn't seem that different from any 3d or game design challenges to make sure the person can't see the wizardry behind the curtain. Is it?
I guess what i'm thinking is if you take an Introduction to Computer Graphics course, you can learn all the math, all the concepts, and all the abstract ideas about building 3D worlds. Then you try to implement them and you immediately realize that none of the ideas are performant enough to actually put into practice in a video game without MAJOR optimizations that on the surface seem 1/ Hacky, 2/ Extraordinarily difficult. We've been doing a range of them for 30 years. But some are only TODAY entering the mainstream despite being the simplest possible concept to explain to a student (ray tracing).
Is it not the same situation with these kinds of displays (and other VR/AR)? We're in the super early stages and we need the John Carmack equivalents to identify all the super insanely clever optimizations to squeeze something practical out of them?
This is autostereoscopic, not holographic. It is however really nice, 10 yrs ago we were playing Quake on a WowVx display from Phillips when not working on autostereoscopic digital signage content. Phillips stopped with as3d and spun off Dimenco which are also selling As3d products, newsight, tridelity, and a few others are around... but all of this is NOT holography. Its high res display with a lenticular sheet splitting viewpoints.
Thanks for the info -- I had assumed this was the case[0].
When I looked at the animations/video, I thought it was really slick and as I read more about the tech it appeared to be as I expected, but I'm not sure if I should be disappointed by that.
I think it was quite intelligent for the company to offer a smaller, relatively inexpensive ($249 early-bird isn't bad) display because I fully expect it'll be impossible to properly evaluate the quality of the tech without actually seeing it live. The few times I've played with some of the more exotic screens (even oddball LCD screens like the promising, but brief IGZO LCD panels) are very difficult to evaluate. The videos are usually far from what it looks like in-person (and I'd wager about 75% of the time, the video makes displays look worse than it is).
I'm curious if you can speak to the down-sides of doing things this way. Were this screen a "real holographic display" but with the similar constraints[1], would it be substantially better? From the videos, I get the impression that this screen can only display 3D within the bounds of the "box", so if a real holographic display behaved similarly, what could it do that an autostereoscopic screen cannot?
I'm curious because I was left behind during the 3D craze (that disappeared, as I predicted, a few years later). I can handle about 30 minutes of 3D-glasses before I start getting the early symptoms of Migraine. I was hopeful when the TVs came out that I might be able to watch Avatar[2], finally, but I tried various sets with different types of 3D glasses (active/passive, I recall?) and they felt more uncomfortable than at the theaters[3]. I've never been diagnosed with lazy eyes/other eye problems, but I feel like my eyes go cross-eyed with the glasses on.
I'd have to see this, physically, to be comfortable with buying it. At the price-point of their smaller option, that's getting pretty close, though. If they had a very convenient/complete return policy, I'd probably check it out.
[0] That's not to diminish the value of the comment, I had only assumed it was some form of "Glasses-free 3D", but know nothing about the tech or how it works.
[1] As in, the dream is a "projector like" screen where a hologram could just be displayed in an arbitrary location in a room, is out.
[2] I have not seen it, yet. When it had finally died down in theatres, I had read that the story was "not very interesting/creative" and "kind of dumb". This was supported by the fact that everyone I know who went to see it told me nothing about what the movie was about and not one of them mentioned anything they liked about the "story". I think the best summary I received was from a close friend who said "I left the theater and 'the world' seemed a little less real" and I was interested to see the result of this camera that was invented for the purpose of filming that movie, but I haven't seen a second of it, yet.
[3] I thought it was normal to feel "off". I call it "almost dizzy" because I don't feel off balance, it just feels like it takes an amazing amount of effort to pinpoint objects with my eyes -- screen or otherwise -- with any kind of 3D glasses on. I wear a very low prescription pair of glasses (not required for driving, I'm nearly 20/20) and other than really cheap sunglasses, I generally have no difficulties otherwise.
This is... way cheaper than I thought it would be at $250(pre-order price?).
But I don't understand how it works. Seems like... head/hand tracking? But then why the weird-looking screen?
A bit disappointed, at first I thought it was something similar to those cards we had when we were kids, that change image depending on which angle you look at them (forgot the name).
Edit2: Okay so it does work like the cards we had when we were kids. The screen shows 45 different views of the scene at once. I'm back at being non-disappointed.
I did this at the time. I downloaded his Wii app that shows the little red/white discs, and bought a battery powered Wii-bar thing that had the IR leds in it and strapped it to my head.
Can confirm, the 3D effect is 100% spot on, even the smallest move of your head caused the display to adjust perspective and your brain is totally fooled into thinking the Wii display is a just a window into a 3D scene.
tbh, it was the only cool thing I actually did with my Wii!
TrackIR and variants are quite popular for simulator type games like flight simulator or truck simulator. They let you look around in the game just by moving your head.
I'm just going to link https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/rainbow/research/autostere... here - an autostereo display that was working way earlier than that. "The first displays were built in the late 1980s and early 1990s". They worked by projecting different images out to different horizontal areas in front of them, so your right and left eyes would see a different image, you could move your head and see around objects, and multiple people could look at it and see an appropriate view for their position.
Well, if it’s as simple as head tracking with a IR emitter on your headphones or the like, then I’m a little surprised first person shooters don’t enable peeking around corners with head motion.
Incredible stuff! I first saw Looking Glass Factory [0] at Maker Faire in San Mateo around 2016. It was simple back then, probably 64 x 64 pixels "display". Imagine a bamboo garden made of 64 LED strips standing up, about 3'x3'x3' cube. Playing screensaver type light displays, entertaining at low res.
Then I saw a more recent version at a coffee shop in Providence. They're up to legit resolution now, and as a poster said, the light is split so all you're doing is moving your head. No head tracking/whatever.
It's one of those things that's tough to "get" without seeing yourself. Feels like a definitive piece of the future. I joined their Kickstarter awhile back as well.
Cool, but it's not using the correct FOV to make sure the viewer/eye is at the focal point. That would look way cooler, I've seen a demo like that before. You get the impression you're looking through a window to another world.
Edit: the video linked here by teekert does it correctly
They have some good footage (though obviously it's setup as a hype reel too).
Edit: Skip to follow for "beauty shots": 4:45 and 8:50. 6:12 for funky shot of the 'flattened' image to give you a sense of what 'trick' they're playing
i love these displays, but the smaller one feels too small for anything other than a photo-frame, and the large(r) one is CRAZY expensive (and still too small...)
Every hacker's basement[0] (with enough money) is going to be walls of these. Can't wait for the first take on a holodeck[1]
[0] Garage/shed/lab
[1] Not implying this would come even close, especially not being a "true hologram", but it'd still be the closest we could probably get with current tech outside of headgear.
[+] [-] hesdeadjim|5 years ago|reply
- Split a 4k signal into 45 view planes means the effective resolution sucks, bad.
- Likewise, if your content is complicated at all you need a monster GPU because you are rendering your scenes 45 times per frame, meaning 45 times the draw calls.
- Field of view is very limited
- The amount of z-depth you can put content in without major blurring is much lower than even this video would indicate.
- You need to design your scene so important content never reaches the edges or things look yuck.
- Some patterns lead to artifacts like moire, and it can be hard to predict. Your content needs to work around this.
- They are (understandably) very expensive.
All that said, these things are cool and would be a perfect fit for some use-cases. After the prototype I built was green lit for full production, the decision was made to ditch these displays for all the reasons above.
[+] [-] deanCommie|5 years ago|reply
1) Isn't this just based on "naive" implementations? Surely there are optimizations to not have to render all 45 view planes at all times similar to how 3d rendering doesn't render scenes that are not visible until the character moves to change perspective?
2) The difficulty with layout and design doesn't seem that different from any 3d or game design challenges to make sure the person can't see the wizardry behind the curtain. Is it?
I guess what i'm thinking is if you take an Introduction to Computer Graphics course, you can learn all the math, all the concepts, and all the abstract ideas about building 3D worlds. Then you try to implement them and you immediately realize that none of the ideas are performant enough to actually put into practice in a video game without MAJOR optimizations that on the surface seem 1/ Hacky, 2/ Extraordinarily difficult. We've been doing a range of them for 30 years. But some are only TODAY entering the mainstream despite being the simplest possible concept to explain to a student (ray tracing).
Is it not the same situation with these kinds of displays (and other VR/AR)? We're in the super early stages and we need the John Carmack equivalents to identify all the super insanely clever optimizations to squeeze something practical out of them?
[+] [-] staticautomatic|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boboche|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdip|5 years ago|reply
When I looked at the animations/video, I thought it was really slick and as I read more about the tech it appeared to be as I expected, but I'm not sure if I should be disappointed by that.
I think it was quite intelligent for the company to offer a smaller, relatively inexpensive ($249 early-bird isn't bad) display because I fully expect it'll be impossible to properly evaluate the quality of the tech without actually seeing it live. The few times I've played with some of the more exotic screens (even oddball LCD screens like the promising, but brief IGZO LCD panels) are very difficult to evaluate. The videos are usually far from what it looks like in-person (and I'd wager about 75% of the time, the video makes displays look worse than it is).
I'm curious if you can speak to the down-sides of doing things this way. Were this screen a "real holographic display" but with the similar constraints[1], would it be substantially better? From the videos, I get the impression that this screen can only display 3D within the bounds of the "box", so if a real holographic display behaved similarly, what could it do that an autostereoscopic screen cannot?
I'm curious because I was left behind during the 3D craze (that disappeared, as I predicted, a few years later). I can handle about 30 minutes of 3D-glasses before I start getting the early symptoms of Migraine. I was hopeful when the TVs came out that I might be able to watch Avatar[2], finally, but I tried various sets with different types of 3D glasses (active/passive, I recall?) and they felt more uncomfortable than at the theaters[3]. I've never been diagnosed with lazy eyes/other eye problems, but I feel like my eyes go cross-eyed with the glasses on.
I'd have to see this, physically, to be comfortable with buying it. At the price-point of their smaller option, that's getting pretty close, though. If they had a very convenient/complete return policy, I'd probably check it out.
[0] That's not to diminish the value of the comment, I had only assumed it was some form of "Glasses-free 3D", but know nothing about the tech or how it works.
[1] As in, the dream is a "projector like" screen where a hologram could just be displayed in an arbitrary location in a room, is out.
[2] I have not seen it, yet. When it had finally died down in theatres, I had read that the story was "not very interesting/creative" and "kind of dumb". This was supported by the fact that everyone I know who went to see it told me nothing about what the movie was about and not one of them mentioned anything they liked about the "story". I think the best summary I received was from a close friend who said "I left the theater and 'the world' seemed a little less real" and I was interested to see the result of this camera that was invented for the purpose of filming that movie, but I haven't seen a second of it, yet.
[3] I thought it was normal to feel "off". I call it "almost dizzy" because I don't feel off balance, it just feels like it takes an amazing amount of effort to pinpoint objects with my eyes -- screen or otherwise -- with any kind of 3D glasses on. I wear a very low prescription pair of glasses (not required for driving, I'm nearly 20/20) and other than really cheap sunglasses, I generally have no difficulties otherwise.
[+] [-] monsieurbanana|5 years ago|reply
But I don't understand how it works. Seems like... head/hand tracking? But then why the weird-looking screen?
A bit disappointed, at first I thought it was something similar to those cards we had when we were kids, that change image depending on which angle you look at them (forgot the name).
Edit: seems like it's a bit of both: https://docs.lookingglassfactory.com/KeyConcepts/how-it-work...
Edit2: Okay so it does work like the cards we had when we were kids. The screen shows 45 different views of the scene at once. I'm back at being non-disappointed.
[+] [-] frankenst1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kgwxd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teekert|5 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
[+] [-] mattowen_uk|5 years ago|reply
I did this at the time. I downloaded his Wii app that shows the little red/white discs, and bought a battery powered Wii-bar thing that had the IR leds in it and strapped it to my head.
Can confirm, the 3D effect is 100% spot on, even the smallest move of your head caused the display to adjust perspective and your brain is totally fooled into thinking the Wii display is a just a window into a 3D scene.
tbh, it was the only cool thing I actually did with my Wii!
[+] [-] Jemm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] detaro|5 years ago|reply
That it's not based on head tracking, and in a product you'll be able to reasonably buy.
[+] [-] mnw21cam|5 years ago|reply
Not sure if they ever ran Doom on it though.
[+] [-] jcelerier|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runawaybottle|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tito|5 years ago|reply
Then I saw a more recent version at a coffee shop in Providence. They're up to legit resolution now, and as a poster said, the light is split so all you're doing is moving your head. No head tracking/whatever.
It's one of those things that's tough to "get" without seeing yourself. Feels like a definitive piece of the future. I joined their Kickstarter awhile back as well.
Go Looking Glass crew!
[0] https://lookingglassfactory.com/
[+] [-] 0-_-0|5 years ago|reply
Edit: the video linked here by teekert does it correctly
[+] [-] alvarlagerlof|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgotpwd16|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icegreentea2|5 years ago|reply
And here's a Linus Tech Tips video of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw
They have some good footage (though obviously it's setup as a hype reel too).
Edit: Skip to follow for "beauty shots": 4:45 and 8:50. 6:12 for funky shot of the 'flattened' image to give you a sense of what 'trick' they're playing
[+] [-] ekianjo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bredren|5 years ago|reply
So far “holographic” seems to describe the experience of the viewer more than a technical spec.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Traveler_(video_game)
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] elyobo|5 years ago|reply
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[+] [-] tumetab1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supermatt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Black101|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdip|5 years ago|reply
[0] Garage/shed/lab
[1] Not implying this would come even close, especially not being a "true hologram", but it'd still be the closest we could probably get with current tech outside of headgear.