It seems obvious once you think about it, but if you can spin your cell phone and coordinate the display with the motion, you can create a 3D display. [Action Lab] had used such a setup to make a display that you could view from any angle. After he showed it, a viewer wrote him to mention that if you spin the picture at the same rate, it will appear in 3D. The results look great, as you can see in the video below.
The spinning mechanism in this case is an inexpensive pottery wheel. Whatever you use, though, you need a way to match the speed of the graphics to the speed of the phone’s rotation. For this example, there are just a few pre-spun 3D models on a website. However, creating your own viewer like this wouldn’t be that hard. Even more interesting would be to read the phone sensors and spin the image in sync with the phone’s motion.
We keep hearing about awesome commercial 3D stuff coming out “any day now.” Meanwhile, you can always settle for Pepper’s Cone.
I’m sure it’ll only be used for education, not adult material. /s
That’s the main reason I’d like the tech initially, of course then we can branch off into educational applications as well.
It is NOT a hologram. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography
I would have hoped the hackaday bloggers would know that.
The word hologram comes from the greek Holos meaning whole, and gramma meaning message.
Holography results in a holographic image that DOES NOT contain the whole message but rather a more dynamic perspective than a standard 2d photograph. As such this object visualization scheme is MORE of a hologram than a holographic image.
I would have hoped that a hackaday reader would have a more open mind. Its easy to comprehend hacking language, borrowing words commonly known and understood, to simply explain a rather comparable effect or result, especially when they rise to the words meaning more accurately than the 1948 application that claimed it yet still falls short 73 years later.
oops 77 years, my bad
BS. Or you mean “pseudo-holographic” ?
I meant what I wrote, that the results of holography, come short of the definition of hologram as they are not the full message. They do not include a view of all sides of the captured object. Further, Im saying, that while not all, “pseudo-holographic” displays include such capabilityies of dynamic control allowing an object to be viewed from ALL sides is in fact MORE of a hologram than the results of holography and are therefor more entitled to the term.
But mostly Im saying that language is fluid. Both Ain’t and YOLO are in the dictionary now. So there is no reason that HOLOGRAM must be limited in its use to the narrow confines of 1940s terminology and technology. Nor is it anymore necessary to throw around hyphenated disclaimers than it is to initiate a counter statement with pejoratives.
You are right. But until they can get to the point of getting metamaterials that can interact with a wide range of light frequencies under computer control, a simulation like this is the best we can do.
While I have no complaint with someone providing a clarification and pointing out that words have (specific) meanings and clarifying a mis-statement, I want to give kudos to SpillsDirt here because the main reason I read this site is because I got so tired of people saying “don’t even try what you are thinking about, you don’t do it that way” in more mainstream technology sites when I’d ask questions.
You’ll note that we used “3D display” except where we were citing the title of the video.
But we all know the difference, right? But we also all know what the guy in the video meant by it.
That’s a glory. It is proper knock-down argument for you.
(With apologies to Lewis Carroll and Humpty Dumpty. FFI https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/humpty-dumpty )
If I count correctly, that makes three things that rotate :
– the object in the video.
– the screen, same rpm as the video.
– the guy around the screen – because if he don’t, no 3D effect.
Another solution for the sync problem is to use the phone’s gyroscope. At least, if you use a phone. If you do an specific setup with a custom screen and so on, then it’s better to use a sensor.
I had the same thought. But the drift on common gyroscopes is just terrible. You might be able to glue a not moving magnet nearby and use the phone’s magnetometer. But likely you would have to be an expert at getting to the raw magnetometer data. As the phone’s own software/drivers would probably abstract, filter & combine that data for the express purposes of creating a stable tilt compass.
there’s many sources of error but if the user comes reasonably close to like shaking the phone over a repeated rotation, i think you could do a plausible job of it. it wouldn’t be able to instantaneously measure the phone’s orientation with any accuracy but after a couple repetitions it should be possible to characterize the overall oscillation reasonably well, and perhaps even to accomodate latency to get in sync. for example, you can assume that the human hand really does return to about the same position at the end of every cycle, even if the gyroscope drift shows something else. my point is to use the data to infer the real motion given what we know about wrists and users, rather than assuming that the raw data directly represents the movement.
i have hope for that approach only because it’s amazing how much error a human can accept and still perceive the effect
Can’t wait for holoporn…..it’s going to be great!!
My 1st comment didn’t make it in…
TL:DR, Unless viewer was about as close to the phone as their eye to eye distance. And unless image changed when slit at viewer’s nose. Then I don’t see this being 3D (i.e. left & right eye see slightly different images). Still, cool that any number of people can view an object as they move about.