Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 10th Oct 2011 19:55 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces Within the last few days we read the news about Apple's Siri AI personal assistant, and about a brain implant that lets monkeys control virtual limps & feel virtual objects. I believe that if someone is to also combine a few more technologies (e.g. high-res eyeware, appropriate operating system changes), we will be looking at the next user interface revolution, after the inventions of the computer mouse and touch interfaces.
Thread beginning with comment 492508
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not holography
by zima on Tue 11th Oct 2011 09:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Not holography"
zima
Member since:
2005-07-06

Main point was - don't call it holographic, don't reinforce such usage, don't waste the "holography" term by using it on some pop-cultural contraptions of, probably, ever dubious practicality. The term is much more specific, and at the same time might very well give something much (figuratively) bigger, nicer, broader than limited visions of directors or visual effects artists would suggest.


But also don't dismiss it so readily. Few points:

Remember, a good proper holographic display, if it also tracks viewers (comparatively trivial, relative to its other advances), could easily display completely different thing to each and every pair of eyes looking at it, that is just its inherent property.
(those constraints of "imposed imagination", ultimately limited one - vs. actually "applied" one, on the basis of how the world, science, etc. are - that I mentioned)

If some promising paths prove fruitful (possibly, say, applications of graphene and their implications), decent holographic displays could as well end up covering almost everything, at least in places with any notable ("valuable"? ;/ ) human concentrations and where they would likely look. And/or they could have the physical form of, essentially, wallpaper.*
Yes, to you (or to me for that matter) that would seem "crazy" and insanely wasteful - but, consider how people living just few short centuries ago would think the very same thing about covering whole facades with something so valuable as glass (especially one so incredibly translucent and smooth!), or aluminium and such.
Heck, "glass houses" were used less than a mere century ago in one locally notable novel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spring_to_Come )
as an idea, symbol representing unrealistic dreams of perfect place. Now look around you ...no perfect place in sight, glass houses everywhere. ;)



And that's only when touching on physical in-setting screens.

Because, see, what you don't realize is that there would be most likely a major technological overlap between such good holographic displays and ...good eye-displays. They are not so separate as they appear, able to use fundamentally similar technology in their quest to be any good.

What present eye-screens seem mostly "good" for - if they don't have optical systems making their size, weight & price not trivial - is giving people headaches.

However: the "substrate" required for good holographic screens basically would be also a perfect optical system (for the wavelengths larger than its "pixels", at least). You could possibly, perhaps, even hack a "wallpaper display" and reconfigure it (via ~firmware!) into something acting as & easily rivalling (being perfect optically) some tediously laboured lenses or mirrors in best telescopes.
That's also something which would be very helpful in good eye-screen (the other approach which seems promising is a direct laser projection on the retina, though possibly with more "schematic" graphics - but that's OK, since it will most likely be practical much sooner)


Generally, unspecific fantasies (how would it work, roughly, while doing it good?) are not ingenuity. Too often they are closer to wishy-washy visions which miss both the issues of what they propose, and many upcoming opportunities in somewhat different approaches.
We don't "waste" glasses for anything (good), not at this point.
(but BTW, I do have a related small & silly pet project on hold / waiting for some basically already "here" technology... but that's all I'm saying now! ;> )


*Best of all, if covering the inside walls, imagine: it could easily seem like every room has great view ;) ;) Also when it doesn't actually have any windows! ;) (say, in some monolithic mega-unit to find housing space for massive overpopulation ;) ). More, each of the occupants could have the view they prefer (as long as all scenes comparable lighting, I imagine; otherwise it would probably often lead to weird mood mix in the room), even "back to nature" - for example, looking like an open tent inside of a forest ;) (yeah, probably more depressing if anything; but perhaps it points to implications of another hypothetical major advancement way further down the line - if we would "augment" our bodies with some forms of technology allowing us to not care about cold, rain, elements overall, what difference do the walls make?)


"especially if someone has to carry lights"?

Reply Parent Score: 2