Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

Holographic lightsabers

zxn474l

zxn474l

0
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
204
Points
0
Could it be possible using a actual size starwars hilt to build a holograhic light blade having mirrors reflect the image like a mirage from what is on the inside of the hilt to above the hilt pulsating and add sound effects? Imagine that! I have seen youtube videos using this principle on toy cars and other small objects...why not just make a "light blade"?
 





you'd need to somewhat see the reflective material inside the hilt...plus for a light saber, lets say the blade size being around 50cm, ud need a HUGE hilt. and everytime ud raise it above your head ud stop seeing the blade, which would look stupid.

So no, not possible in normal sizes and "usability".
 
How then can holograms work from just a projecter that look real even life size people? If that can be done surely a simple blade could be made to appear in mid air above the hilt...even CNN hade life size holograms of real people during Obama's canadicy race before becomming president...look it up on youtube!
 
BobH I think you need to get informed more about science... there are MANY things that ARE possible with science TODAY that an older person couldn't even dream off!
 
The title of the youtube video is: CNN Hologram TV First it explains how this was possible BobH.
 
zxn

Interesting video. The Hologram did not exist however. It was just a 360 degree camera image merged into the feed. Nothing was projected into the room. Oh well it would have been nice IF they had actually done it. Probably developed by one of the old people that never dreamed of what is possible in science today.

Yes I am one of the old people. :beer:
 
Last edited:
yes, as Alshere said, there is no hologram, in the CNN station. Only in ur TV. What they done was get her in an all-blue or all-green background, and had several cameras, at exactly same distances as the cameras in the CNN sation were (imagine there were 4 cameras in the CNN station, pointing to the place where they wanted her to be, and lets say they were exactly 1,2,3,4m each from the spot where she was supposed to be. In the other broadcasting station, she had 4 cameras poiting to her at exactly same angles and exactly the same distances, again 1,2,3,4m each and moving exactly like the ones in the CNN station). What the blue or green background does is inform the cameras, and the software used to rend her into the CNN station image that whatever was blue(or green) is supposed to be transparent.
So if she had no blue or green on her, everything else was transparent, and they just slapped what they were recording in her station onto what was being recorded at the CNN station.

Now imagine she was using Pants the color of the background (blue or green). Then you would see her without legs xD
 
  • Like
Reactions: mfo
I made a theoric study times ago ..... you can, THEORICALLY, produce a 3D image from a plate (like, a 3D TV screen where you see also the depth), if you get to build a 2-phase tv screen, that is able to produce interference schemes with the resolution of half of the wavelenght of the color that you are representing ..... but i said THEORICALLY with a good reason ..... do you have an idea about what mean, in terms of resolution ?

Also just for the more easy dark red color (say, 700nm), you need a real resolution from the screen of 350nm ..... that, if i recall correctly, means something like 7.250.000 DPI, and this for the lowest one :p ..... just a little bit more of the actual better TV screen, i think :crackup:

And anyway, ofcourse, inside the range of the screen, not outside it ..... that mean, you can see the 3D effect only looking the screen, not projected in the air as "film holograms" effects.

An alternative project, but abandoned for impracticability after few study, was the one that i made as theorical exercise at school, for a science exam ..... suppose to have a sphere made from a substance that, under normal light, is perfectly transparent, but when it become hit from a certain amount of electrons (and only over a certain threshold) become fluorescent like the normal TV phosphors ..... then, you can "scan" tridimensionally the image with an electron beam that have a focus point where the intensity is over the threshold of the material (and make it fluoresce), and where instead the beam is not focused, the intensity is under the threshold of the material (so pass through it without make it fluoresce) ..... shifting the focus point inside the material, it draw a line (like the point of a pen where the focus is) when the beam is on, so you can use it same as on the inside part of a cathodic tube for create the image, scanning it .....

Only, the scan needs to be in 3 dimensions, not just in 2 as in the cathodic tubes ..... the needed speed and the inherent difficults at the time when i made that exercise, was making all this practically impossible, a pure speculation exercise (like, 28 years ago ..... and, before you ask, my professor at that time said that i had a "weird" fantasy ..... the exact words was "with your weird fantasy, i just hope you never become a criminal, otherwise we're all done" :p) ..... maybe with the modern technology, the idea can be revised, but i doubt about this ..... and, anyway, is still NOT an holographic projection in air .....
 
and i already have a lightsaber... after i take a bath, i just shut the light off, close the bathroom door, fire my LASER and watch that magnificent beam :p
 
BobH how much suger is is in that nasty old ENSURE Drink gawd old grumpy andy griffirth watching diaper wearing fart. gawd!:lasergun: =P
 
um, the story linked to there can be summed up fairly easily:

1: green room.
2: many different cameras.
3: Signal feed to your tv, AND to the set. AND back to the green room.

Pretty much exactly what people explained to you above. only change is nobody above mentioned that they set up a couple screens for people to see to better interact. Zxn4741 You are seeing in the story only what you want to see. not what is. The story focuses on the pickup point. it mentions the camera count several times (35 HD cameras) What it does NOT mention is ANY mention of display.... Why mention the cameras so many times, but say nothing more then "projected" A display like you believe was used would be bigger news then the election coverage. All that would be needed to meet the criteria listed in that rather badly written story would be a TV present on stage, and in the studio. They could even make it an Autostereoscopic display. however looking at those makes your head hurt pretty nicely after only a couple min. As for the companies listed. Cisco makes telepresence HD screens. this is essentially a TV screen nothing more. VizRT, and SportVu, make the video capture tech. The only company mentioned that handles display is Cisco.

As for the validity of this badly written story....
The way it works, explains Kopp, is that tracking cameras were set up in the main CNN studio in New York City. A type of software in the cameras communicated with plug-in software that runs the Viz engine, which is a graphical broadcast engine created by the partner company VizRT. In Chicago’s Grant Park, CNN created a broadcast center with 35 cameras set up in a 220-degree circle. Jessica Yellin sat in front of the cameras in a remote green room. The cameras, which use the same censors used to capture sports field movement, then captured images of the reporter from 30 different angles and sent them to the tracking cameras in the main studio in New York City. The cameras in turn broadcast a full 3-D, lifelike graphical image on the stage in the Election Center, so it looked to viewers -- as well as to Blitzer -- as though she were actually present on the set. (Yellin also got to see a return feed of her image just in case she needed to fix her lipstick.)
Click to expand...

Lets see here. first it's 35 cameras. but then it's 30 angles? perhaps 5 cameras were just there to look pretty. or perhaps 5 cameras simply occupied the same space at the same time as 5 others. physics schmysics...... Given for this sort of thing even 2 inches is a different angle, providing a different view. regardless of if that view is left, right, up, or down, it's still another angle.

Next it says the cameras broadcast a 3D image. well if you read the story literally as if the journalist knows anything about science and what is going on, then I guess the cameras are really magic projectors. Problem solved. just use a magical projection camera to make your lightsaber!!!!!!

Moral of this long story? You can't just assume science has lept forward simply by reading a story written by some journalist, who is simply trying to write a story based on a few facts given to him, facts which he doesn't remotely understand. This is a story about 3d capture. not display. Everyone keeps trying to explain that the tech to make a 3d display like you want doesn't exist. You can make an image appear in 3d to a person sitting at point "X" easily. This isn't new tech. What you can not do is make a 3d image visible to anyone viewing it at any angle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.





Back
Top