HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Linus Tech Tips covered them before that gives a pretty good overview [0]. It's a really cool tech and I hope it becomes more affordable in the future. I'd imagine actually feeling like a person is physically present will make Zoom meetings and such a lot less boring.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw

⬐ wlesieutre

The small one is $300 with shipping estimate in October. Early Kickstarter pledges have shipped but still working on the rest of them. My batch is currently scheduled for next month.

https://lookingglassfactory.com/portrait/

⬐ mleonhard

What is the process for taking iPhone portrait-mode photos and moving them to the LookingGlassPortrait for viewing in stand-alone mode?

Like other people have said, this looks like a Looking Glass dev unit or something.

And here's a Linus Tech Tips video of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw

They have some good footage (though obviously it's setup as a hype reel too).

Edit: Skip to follow for "beauty shots": 4:45 and 8:50. 6:12 for funky shot of the 'flattened' image to give you a sense of what 'trick' they're playing

It looks like their kickstarter has all the info:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lookingglass/looking-gl...

Linus did a decent review of the tech back in 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw

⬐ zamadatix

ctrl+f resolution -> nothing

ctrl+f pixel -> the android phone "Pixel"

ctrl+f hz/refrash/ rate -> nothing

What's the effective resolution of a view? What's the refresh rate? What's the color depth? What's the max viewing angle? What's the max perceived depth? How bright is it?

Somewhere in the 11 minute Linus video it might touch on these for the version of the product their reviewing but certainly not in one place and not for the final specs of the version listed above.

E.g. if this were a cell phone I don't want to hear about how they reached a stretch goal for a video camera which enables you to capture life's experiences in motion... I want to know the specifications of the video camera, and all of the other components.

⬐ ortusdux

Lytro made a depth field camera and people made the exact same complaints. Lytro cameras and a 35mm are apples and oranges. Same goes for a phone screen and this display. It is 45 sandwiched light field displays. It projects 8.3 million rays of light over a 50 degree arc. 16m RGB color @ 60hz. It's viewing area is measured in liters.

How much do you think this display would need? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw, also assuming HDR and 60fps+

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw

Sounds like these, which seem to be in early stage production:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw

That’s wrong: technically it is nothing like the vertical grated sheet you see on cheap 3D posters etc.

At 6 min 30 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw they show the pixel sub mapping - and it isn’t just vertical bars.

Edit: If they used a vertical grated sheet, there should be vertical lines at high contrast edges at a 45 pixel pitch. look at the green book at 6:22 and close-up at 6:27, and there seems to be vertical smear (not just what you might expect from horizontal smear). Example of a 3D lenticular print without the lenses to compare against: https://cdn.instructables.com/FKG/KDGQ/I0290WOV/FKGKDGQI0290... from https://www.instructables.com/id/Computational-3D-Lenticular...

I believe they are shy to show it in high-quality video because the effective resolution is <900px. See my comment below for the math.

Even in that TechCrunch gif, I believe I can already see pixel borders on the specular shading of the top part of the h.

For an even clearer example, see the frog in full-screen at 3:31 here: https://youtu.be/-EA2FQXs4dw?t=211

⬐ robocat

(Edited) The frog was on the low-res developer device.

The much larger “8k” version introduced half way through https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw has some good tech detail, with the raw pixel mapping shown at 6:30. Calcs seem about right since raw pixel count was stated as 43 million, although it was implied elsewhere they split RGB sub pixels too (which sounds wrong I admit), so maybe 43 million divided by 15? Our eyes are more sensitive to luminance than colour, so maybe they did something there (however, not that I could see from the raw pixel mapping at 6:30).

⬐ fxtentacle

The frog was on their "4K" device, so the 8K one will only have 30% smaller pixels.

100% / sqrt(2)

⬐ p1necone

If they're counting subpixels as separate whole pixels and omitting the fact that the "effective" resolution is much lower because of the 3d layering just so they can say "8k" in their marketing material that's suuuper dishonest.

⬐ fxtentacle

That's exactly what they are doing. The real resolution is 45x lower.

⬐ ebg13

I don't think the video quality or display quality is the problem though. The 8k screen itself looks plenty high quality in the Linus video bouncing around this thread. The problem is that their promo material entirely eliminates any sense of the _one_ thing that they bring to the table that makes them special.

They need to throw up a _static_ 3D image that the viewer can easily understand and then move the camera. That's it. That's all they had to do, because literally the one thing that makes this screen special is showing different viewing angles, and they failed wildly.

⬐ fxtentacle

I have designed lenticular prints in the past and also I'm the person that wrote the vray plugin for rendering CGI to lenticular.

The main thing that everyone wants is a lot of depth, a wow effect. Lenticular technology can only deliver that while your head is static. As soon as you move, you either see stripes move across the image or you need to introduce an unnatural amount of bokeh blur.

The reason for the stripes is that from your eye / camera, different parts of the image have slightly different angles, so slightly different subpixels are visible.

So if they follow your suggestion, they need to ensure that the final video is low quality enough so that you don't see the striping artifacts.

Here's a lenticular print that I had made at 4800dpi, so at a much higher resolution than what a display can hope to achieve

https://www.dropbox.com/s/10nquohksew1fhe/fertig.mts?dl=0

Note the strong blur to hide artifacts, yet you can still see some striping on the background and in the top right corner.

Here's a simulation of the best possible result that one could hope to achieve with 70lpi sheets and 1200dpi effective resolution, which should be close to what this display uses:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1s69k5gmt1n4i5l/simulation_L.jpg?d...

For anything better than that, they need much more subpixels. 2x the pixels for half the banding width.

⬐ ipsum2

Sorry for derailing the thread, but would love to read how you make the lenticular prints.

Yeah, that's not remotely accurate.

45 angles for each pixel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw&t=4m18s

That's far more complicated than a lenticular sheet glued to LCD.

⬐ Miraste

Undoubtedly it's harder to build, but it is the same technology.

⬐ VikingCoder

Here's an article which discusses it, and it appears to explicitly not be lenticular.

https://www.engineering.com/ARVR/ArticleID/17613/In-Through-...

⬐ kaffeemitsahne

"There’s a lot more to the evolution, enough for a book on the subject, but if you had to create a list of what kinds of technology and methodology went into the Looking Glass (since they do not list it), it might look like this:"

Pure speculation.

⬐ Miraste

That's not what that article says. It's speculation from before the display launched. Here is a later article in which the founder of the company says it is lenticular:

https://hackaday.com/2018/11/21/supercon-alex-hornsteins-adv...

"since he happens to be head honcho at a holographic display company he can show us the result. Looking Glass Factory’s display panel uses a lenticular lens to combine the multiple images into a hologram, and is probably one of the most inexpensive ways to practically display this type of image."

⬐ VikingCoder

I was wrong - Miraste shard an article where apparently the combining technology really is a lenticular lens.

I think this linus tech tips video shows it better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw

⬐ RileyJames

Wow! Their own tech demo make it look crappy compared to this demo. He explains the tech really well and gives great examples/demos.

Watch this video, NOT their own demo if you want to be impressed.

⬐ dugditches

Interesting to see the 'modified' image before it's put on the display(https://youtu.be/-EA2FQXs4dw?t=375)

Seems similar to how pixel art worked, and tricks artists used to get a better image with CRTs. https://66.media.tumblr.com/8d2cf7adae94fde97d1a8c9cf78a46a2...