Autodesk University - Zebra Imaging's mind-blowing holographic sheets
Why don't you make ...
Why don't you make 3D TVs like this bitches?
fuckinghell thats ...
fuckinghell thats cool
Apple Television ...
Apple Television is coming!
Once they start ...
Once they start making interactive computer monitors like this, I'm buying right away
Id totally play ...
Id totally play command and conquer one of these...
Now porn pictures ...
Now porn pictures can be better than porn videos again!
yeah soo much fun.. ...
yeah soo much fun... i like it..
coooool
coooool
This is a hologram, ...
This is a hologram, and no, the depth has nothing to do with the thickness of the glass, instead, the depth is created by varying different angles of reflection across a very complex surface. You will see it in "real 3D" as in seeing it pop out or sink all the way in(think of it as the hollow sphere hologram trick), because the flat image, has thousands of different perspectives encoded into it.
vay anasını
vay anasını
If you still don`t ...
If you still don`t have Nintedo iPad 2 get it now: goo.gl\8ONjl
It gives the ...
It gives the illusion of depth when standing in front of it, hence you could, in theory, use this technique for 3D TVs. The fact that the material itself is 2D doesn't really change that. You could compare it to simple holographic mirrors - you perceife an object in the air, but it's not actually there. It looks completely natural, but you can't touch it. But still in 3D. :P
But it's a 2D ...
But it's a 2D surface. The picture itself, in the glass, would be 2D. The glass would be 3D, like the rest of your surroundings, just not the actual holograph. There is no depth in the holograph - it's only as thick as the sheet - but it gives the illusion of depth when you move around it.
What? Of course ...
What? Of course there would be depth perception. Because, you know, there's space between your eyes. That's why they both perceive slightly different images, resulting in a perfect 3D perception.
Because it's still ...
Because it's still 2D... it only seems 3D when you move around, changing your angle of viewing. There would be no depth perception even if you saw one of these things IRL.
Enter: goo.gl\8ONjl ...
Enter: goo.gl\8ONjl to get iPad 2.
the next level is ...
the next level is video and games ..... fuck imagine REEGADE OPS amazing shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit
Its clearly not ...
Its clearly not cheaper than a physical model. 1 square costing over $1000 for 1 view. where as a physical model has infinite views plus that essential thing called natural light which produces natural shadows. its a fun invention, but it is insulting to suggest that this will replace physical models. Any architect that doesn't work with real physical models is in my view, a total cunt.
The future of ...
The future of centre folds
Something called a ...
Something called a buddahbrot. there are videos of it. But it's nothing I can afford at this time.
Because there ...
Because there aren't many that practical uses yet for consumers aside from a conversation piece.
Because these are ...
Because these are still images, and it costs several hundred dollars to convert it to this.
so your saying in ...
so your saying in about a decade the computing power will be able to produce live videos? :D
Because they can ...
Because they can only make static models of layered images for each angle, only visible from that angle. And it requires a lot of computational power. Take a game that computes a image every 1/60 of a second (60fps). But for an image like this you would need a image computed for for each angle you might be watching it from. So for a single frame of the game you would require to compute at least a few hundred different angles to cover all of them. That would make the game unplayable.
cant wait for porn ...
cant wait for porn that uses this.