Here read this for new AR inspirations.

No need for AR gloves anymore

I call bullshit. They make all these claims, any one of which would be a huge leap forward in available technology (not to mention pose rather frightening privacy considerations), yet they don't provide any evidence that it actually does the things they're claiming, or that anyone has seen it do so. Then they finish the article with "this is very much a work in progress"

Tell me this isn't like those "concept cars" that are just futuristic-looking shells with a lot of bulldrek about what features it would have if they'd actually bothered to build it/finish inventing the tech.

Judge for yourself.

This is the research page,
And the main scientist's CV
And the other projects of the institute.

Might be a good location for a run, with all the new tech stuf.

Mmm, still looks fishy. There's very little hard information, and the one visual of this thing supposedly working looks like a shopped concept photo rather than an actual picture of the device in action.

They use alot of hedge words like "this project is currently demoable" without explaining what that actually means or how far along they really are. Hell, there's more information of the credentials of the people involved than there is about the project itself--as if they're trying to convince you it works because so-and-so's working on it. It's the kind of linguistic trickery you get used to from watching ads on tv. Sounds like they're trying to overstate what they've actually accomplished here, and barring any evidence to the contrary, I just don't buy it.

More Information

This is really just AR tagging, only using a projector to create the overlay, rather than goggles or such.

hmm, ir camera for detecting hand movement and gestures.

pico projector for image overlays.

smartphone/pda/mid/umpc for the computing.

imo, it could actually work.

its something similar to what this guy have done, using the wiimote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0awjPUkBXOU...re=channel_page

its also basically a mid air variant of what powers something like the ms surface.

and i kinda recall some kid building his own ms surface like device...

Every one of those things already exists. The only difference with this is it supposedly combines them all into a portable something.

I do not see it working very well due to positioning, but otherwise doable.

There's no real reason why this wouldn't work with existing technology, but using a battery-powered pico-projector for the overlay is not exactly ideal. It will work under some conditions, but there are plenty of conditions where it wouldn't work very well.

Look down the posts for one called "WHAT."
It is on the same topic, and it contains a link to a video of the device in action.
This is 100% real.

Let me rephrase, yes, the tech to do this exists, has for years. I've yet to see any part of it effectively implemented, however, implying that R&D teams have yet to get their heads out of their asses. Hell, it'd only take a few lines of code in a graphics driver to turn any computer monitor into a 3D holographic projector, we've had the necessary math for around 60 years but nobody seems to have done it yet.

@ Gawdzilla: Could you post a link? I have no idea what you mean by "Look down the posts." Which posts on which site?

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Modern monitors (& any older monitors) are unable to project 3D holographic images. This is hardware, not software. The software may already exist, as you imply, but the hardware does not. I am strongly inclined to believe the software also does not exist - the theory does.

No need to be insulting. As I said, the software doesn't exist, to my knowledge, but only because no-one's bothered to write it.

Any CRT or backlit LCD display already has the necessary hardware. All you need to do is use ray tracing to model the process of recording a transmission hologram, then display the finished interference pattern on the screen. The illumination of the monitor will work like light being shown through the film of a transmission hologram, causing the image to form in front of the screen. It might be a bit dim, and calculating this in real time would be a bitch, but it'd work pretty well for watching pre-rendered trid movies with the lights out.

The other potential problem is resolution, you'd need a pretty high-end monitor to exactly replicate the interference pattern, so the quality would be very limited with non-HD screens. It would also work perfectly with movie film, allowing old-style reel projectors to create a high-quality moving 3-D image. Sure beats buying those goofy-looking glasses.

So, yeah, I did use a significant amount of hyperbole in my previous statement, but it's still completely feasible--just not practical when consumers will still buy flat images produced with less render-time.

Something like this?
I think that AR glasses are a much better solution than a projector; especialy if both lenses are 3D-displays (so that the overlay stays on the target even if the glasses are not worn perfectly) and steroscopy betwen the lenses.

Transmission holograms are not 3-dimensional light images; they are 2-dimensional images that you can change the viewing angle on.

The hardware technology does not currently exist to project a light 3-dimensional image; this can be done inside a crystalline structure, but that is projecting it onto a 3-dimensional screen. So yes, if you want a 2 ft x 2 ft x 2 ft crystal monitor on your desk, you can have this. If you want a projection without a solid to display it, to fucking bad.

The list of posts on this very site.
At the time I posted it was on page 1, now it's on page 2.

Here is the link to an article with video.
Here is the link to the post I was talking about.

More like this, but yeah, it seems they're finally catching up. Admittedly, I haven't been paying as much attention to the SOTA in this field as I used to--I got fed up with the lack of progress, and the lack of funds to build the damn prototypes myself.



You're mistaken, sir, I've seen it done. In fact, I've played an arcade game that used 3-D light images, although these were created with a parabolic mirror rather than holography. Too bad the game sucked.

If you mean 3-D in the sense that you can actually walk around and see the back of the image, no that game doesn't qualify, but I have seen such holograms in person, as far back as the mid- to early- 90's.

I may be misusing the term transmission hologram, as I said it's been many years since my interest in holography waned. I was referring to the type of hologram which is displayed by shining light through the interference pattern, causing the waves to interact and produce a 3-D image above the surface of the recording media.

There are a number of difficulties with getting this to work--generally the light source has to be significantly more powerful than the ambient light in the room for the image to be visible, among other things--but it can and has been done.



Ah, that does seem much more believable.

I stand by my earlier statement, that they were trying to make it look like the device was capable of more than it really was. The pictures they have up now are different from the ones they had before, which did not show the colored tips on the user's fingers and one of which clearly showed the device projecting a display in mid-air with much better clarity and brightness then the surface-reflected images they're currently showing. Like I said, it looked like a 'shopped concept photo, and it probably was.

What they're showing now is much more believable given the current level of development in those fields, and much less impressive, though it's still pretty damn cool.

Provide support for your claims, or they are nothing. A 3-dimensional light image projection is possible with existing technology only when it is projected within a solid, such as a crystal dome or cube. It is not currently possible to project such an image into "thin air", & most certainly not with existing monitor hardware.

Perhaps you should explain your definition of "a 3-dimensional light image". Also, please take your own advice. You have not provided any support for your claims, I have. The wikipedia quote in your post is from the article I linked to, as support, and does not counter my statements. Yes, the parabolic reflector produces an optical illusion: The illusion of figures standing in the viewing area, when in fact they are only 3-d images composed of light.

I suspect you either misunderstood or are intentionally trying to misrepresent the meaning of the text you bolded.

here is a recent presentation held about the system:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/pattie_...ixth_sense.html