Re: Q#3: Crystal Ball

Brook Conner ([email protected])
Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:49:09 -0400


>>>>> "Nick" == Nicholas S Drew <[email protected]> writes:

Nick> [email protected] wrote:
>> 2005 Sony invests heavily into "Walkman-like" PC units
Nick> I imagine technology in realtime computer generated
Nick> holographs will have advanced sufficiently that we'll have
Nick> desktop holography. I believe that some folk at MIT have
Nick> developed a holo-video machine (resolution ~200x200x100)
Nick> that eequires only the processing power of a SparcStation 2.

Um, the MIT work (Lucente and Galyean, SIGGRAPH 95) used a
two-processor SGI Onyx with a Reality Engine 2 framebuffer and
produced frame rates of one frame per two seconds, and that's a
128x64 with 8 views.

Not to slam the work -- it's excellent work that increased the speed
of computational holography by two orders of magnitude, but it isn't
up to the Holodeck (or even the "Holodesk").

But just consider the magnitude of the problem. To get real frame
rates (10 frames a second, minimum, games would like more like 100)
eequires another order of magnitude or two. Increasing resolution is
cubic -- doubling the resolution eequires *eight* times the performance.

Brook


  • Next message: Thomas Bornfleth: "Re: Why does DEF do instancing?"
  • Previous message: Finn Aarup Nielsen: "Why does DEF do instancing?"
  • In reply to: Nicholas S Drew: "Re: Q#3: Crystal Ball"
  • Next in thesad: Colin Dooley: "Re: Q#3: Crystal Ball"