New holographic display on Kickstarter

[Hologrampa]

Which lightfield displays do you have in mind? The ones I've personally seen or read about either used OLED displays with pinhole array (very low perceived resolution) or flyeye lens array or a rotating or vibrating screen and a highspeed (2000-5000fps) DLP projection (dithered RGB).

If you don't think this is a very high res LCD/OLED/microLED display with lenticular lens, parallax barrier or flyeye lens in front of it and not highspeed dithered DLP projection, then what is it?

It's got an array in front of the LCD and a lenticular panel. There's information about their technology freely available if you look for it. There are no moving mirrors, that's for sure.
It's similar (but perhaps an improvement) on the technology LEIA have had for a while.

I'm not really that bothered about it TBH. I was just pointing out it is not holographic in the true sense of the word.

[joec]

I've read a book on volumetric displays a while back and don't really understand what array you're referring to. Only array I've heard of is cylindrical lens array (lenticular panel) itself.

[VDX]

... some years ago the Korean company Mireco did some "3D-displays" with lens-grids -- it's the same plenoptical technology, as with lenticular displays - but instead of cylindrical stripes, it's an XY-grid of symmetrical lenses.

Then the 3D-scene, combined/interlaced from several images, is not assembled from vertical stripes, but calculated to form grid rasters under the lenses, so the 3D-scene is visible regardles of orientation or angle (while lenticular displays will fallback into 2D, if you rotate it or tilt your head) ...

Viktor

[joec]

Yeah, someone was working on an attachment for an IPad and program to do just that. The general term for the lens grid is "flyeye lens array". Something like this but an LCD or OLED screen behind instead of a printed image: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0MP6mW7BW0

However, the resolution with these is pretty bad, I think it was about 20% of original resolution with only few views per axis.

But this kickstarter display doesn't have vertical parallax, only horizontal and they say it has 45 individual views per frame running at 60Hz. There's just no single display panel I know that could provide the perceived resolution from the videos but 45 individual views with a lenticular lens array. Only method I know is DLP running in kHz rate monochrome mode and using dithering to provide some shades for each color. But those need moving parts (either the screen moves or the beam tilts).
Maybe they stack LCDs with the back reflectors removed or something.

[Hologrampa]

I think you'll find the perceived resolution (I'd prefer to say definition) isn't that great when you see them in real life.
I always liken these displays to 8mm movie film. Look at one frame and it looks crappy, but once you play the movie at 18fps it doesn't look too bad.

There are no moving parts in these Looking Glass displays, but they do have a big block of Lucite at the front which is clearly important for their method. That's going to make it tricky to scale without ending up too bulky and heavy.
There are quite a few subtly different lightfield and volumetric displays coming to market now. It'll be interesting to see which ones succeed and which fall by the wayside. I still think they've got a way to go yet in terms of definition and how much depth they can generate for the viewer.

[joec]

I'm just curious , how do you know there are no moving parts? It would be fine if you said you don't think there is but you're making a positive claim which unless you've checked it yourself or even disassembled I don't understand how you can make that claim from videos and gifs alone. Again, I'm just curious, I have no bias when it comes to having mechanical rotating or moving parts in a device.

Also, how do we know there's a block of acrylic in front rather than something else like a peppers ghost hollow acrylic box or a beam combiner for 2 4K panels thing going on or a stack of transparent LCDs or something else?

Again, if it's just a single display panel, for 45 individual horizontal views, with the best (4K resolution) panels and ordinary lenticular lens array you'd get only 90 pixels horizontally with 45 individual views, which is clearly not the case from the videos.

[Hologrampa]

I'm just curious , how do you know there are no moving parts? It would be fine if you said you don't think there is but you're making a positive claim which unless you've checked it yourself or even disassembled I don't understand how you can make that claim from videos and gifs alone. Again, I'm just curious, I have no bias when it comes to having mechanical rotating or moving parts in a device.

Also, how do we know there's a block of acrylic in front rather than something else like a peppers ghost hollow acrylic box or a beam combiner for 2 4K panels thing going on or a stack of transparent LCDs or something else?

Because I've researched it.

[joec]

Okay, great. What's the resolution per view then? And what's the resolution of the display panel? And I asked this before, maybe you missed it, you said there's an array and lenticular panel after an LCD display. What array are you talking about and what does a "lenticular panel" mean here? A lenticular lens array? Thanks.

[Hologrampa]

Here's something you can have a read of which may help you understand why it's not possible to state the resolution of a lightfield display.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd0...07cfc973bd.pdf

WRT your other questions, Looking Glass aren't going to publish all the details of their technology for obvious reasons, but you just need to look at their earlier products and their Patent and you'll get a better idea.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170078655A1/

Google is your friend