Is holography currently available for use and misuse?

Originally posted by Question
reply to post by deezee

 

Thanks for the explanation. It does seem like what you stated seems to be more probable. Although, do you think it's probable that they can focus this laser into taking the shape of an actual object, like say a tank? The reason I'm asking is because, again, according to this thread and the poster that cited the general, said that they were planning on using it in a similar fashion to, again confuse spies (wether persons wearing IR or spy planes overhead) into thinking there was more of an object (a batallion of tanks) when there were none. Kind of how we tried to fool the germans in WW2 with the inflatable tanks and troops (which didn't end up working as planned anyway), only they'd use this laser technology.

Here's an excerpt from an article to give you an idea of hypothetical applications

The human eye is difficult to fool, notes Dr Watt, but infra-red sensors are much less sophisticated – there is no need for the same level of colour fidelity. An infra-red hologram of a vehicle could make a very convincing decoy. Automated systems (such as missile guidance) with no humans to spot the flaws should be particularly easy to fool. However, as Watt points out the technology does not yet exist to create infra-red holograms.

DARPA is also looking into several different applications for holography including holographic radar, holographic IR decoys, etc.. From what I understand this tech is still be "story boarded" and is years away from basic testing.

Originally posted by jfj123
infra-red sensors are much less sophisticated – there is no need for the same level of colour fidelity. An infra-red hologram of a vehicle could make a very convincing decoy. Automated systems (such as missile guidance) with no humans to spot the flaws should be particularly easy to fool. However, as Watt points out the technology does not yet exist to create infra-red holograms

Yeah, that's what i was trying to say.. The IR sensors just look for patterns in the IR spectrum - engine exhausts.

I think even a 2D reflection on the ground might be enough to fool some of them.

Misguiding a heat seeking missile using an IR laser is even easyer..

You can either completelly blind it, or guide it whereever you want.

360 degree holographic displays - video

video.aol.com...

Originally posted by OrionStars
360 degree holographic displays - video

video.aol.com...

Hey, that's a great link!

But it's not a hologram.

It's an incredibly fast spinning mirror, on which stuff is projected.


Very cool tho, looks like a great idea..
Usefull for 3D modelling, chemistry or biology research, anything where you need to see something in 3D.

But it can't fly into a building..

It can do almost everything else tho... Well, except being looked at from a higher angle.. Needs camera tracking for that..

[edit on 26/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by Question

Originally posted by jfj123
Most printers don't have White ink so when a photo has to have white in it, you must have white paper and the white is where there is no ink.

I've never actually thought about that. I've always used white paper so I never wondered about this. I have had to print transparencies for a public speaking class once and the areas that were lighter on the images I printed, as well as the "white" areas on my computer were not printed.

That being said though, you have to wonder if it's the software as well. For example, in photoshop you have white color as well as a "transparent" layer, so you have to be careful with what you're working with.

This was asked after i wrote about the imaginary CMYK LASER and i thought i explained it sufficiently, but now i see i didn't.

Maybe some more clarification wouldn't hurt, as it would also help understand, why holograms can't be projected into daylight.


When i was working on programming a 3D computer graphics engine, i learned that all colours of light can be created using three basic colours Red, Green and Blue (RGB).
Using 8 bits for each one of them gives us 255 different shades of this light together with zero, being the absence of this light - 256 possibilities.
Combinations of 256 shades of all of these three light colours together can create more than 16 millions of colours (24bit) which cover the entire visible spectrum. Black is the absence of all these colours of light (0, 0, 0) and white is the presence of all of them at the max setting (255, 255, 255) and there are almost 17 millions of different colour combinations in between.

But printers use four colours Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and blacK (CMYK) to print these same colours on paper.
What i didn't understand at that time was, why do printers need four different colours to print, instead of using the same three basic colours.

After thinking about it, the answer was rather obvious. RGB is used with darkness as the base. Computer monitors are black, which gives us a base to project these lights from.
Paper, on the other hand, is white. If you put Red, Green and Blue on it it won't give you white.

On a white paper, the "colour" white is the absence of all colours and black is the presence of all colours (Cyan, Magenta and Yellow). Of course printers also use a black ink so you wouldn't need to spend the colour inks on printing black text or anything black. Some of the best printers use black together with CMY when printing black, to give it a more vivid appearance.

The difference is, that a monitor projects light out of it, to our eyes.
A picture on a piece of paper just reflects light. White light, already containing all the colours, shines on the printed image and some colours get absorbed, but the printed colours reflect from it.

So in one case, we are working with light directly, in the other case, we are just reflecting light from the colours.


The answer to first of the above quotes is, that printers don't use white ink. They assume white as the basis. If you put in a paper of a different colour, you screw up the process.
There are certain ways of "printing" on dark surfaces, and these machines first use a white colour as the basis, and the rest is the same (CMYK).


And to the second quote - The white colour in PhotoShop or transparent layers only matter inside PhotoShop.
When you finish with your image, it is presented to you in RGB on the monitor. When you send it to the printer, RGB is always converted to CMYK on the way to the printer. A printer will always assume white as the absence of all colours, just the opposite of a monitor for example..

And about the transparencies, used for projection on the wall..
These projectors use white light as the source and a white screen to project on. The absence of colours on a transparency is transparent, but the white light and the white screen will make it appear white. Other colours on the transparency will act as filters and only allow the same colour of the light to pass.


Ok, now what's this got to do with holograms and lasers you ask?

It's simple. Lasers again use the RGB principle for projection. They need darkness as a basis to work at all. They can work with slightly brighter ambient conditions, but become increasingly transparent because of this.
The problem is, that holograms don't reflect light. They are MADE OF light, which is refracted from a medium, just like a laser beam.

If one were to try to create some projected hologram into air during daylight, this presents a huge problem, as the basis already is white light and strong one at that.

Even Cyan Magenta and Yellow (and an imaginary blacK) lasers wouldn't work, since these colours only work when white light reflects off them, but light doesn't reflect off of a laser beam.

This brings me to another comparison. I mentioned, that if you want to print on a black or dark surface, you first have to create a white background for it.
Here we have the opposite problem - how to project something into daylight using more light?

It simply can't work, unless you create a dark basis first. You would have to completelly remove ambient light from the area of the hologram and then use lasers to project something into it. This would require imaginary black lasers first and then a "simple" RGB projection...



On the other hand, i just came up with a great (imaginary) idea how this could be done.

A way of creating holograms in air during daylight:

One would have to use not just one, but three anti lasers. One Red, one Green and one Blue anti-laser. Let's call it ARGB (Anti RGB)

Since we already have white light and it already contains all the colours, we would just have to use these anti-lasers, to take the colours we don't want in our hologram OUT of the light in the projected area.
Basically, we would be using light, that is already there, and only take colours out of it. What would remain would be the image of whatever we would want.

There are still some tiny kinks to work out, like creating anti-photons and anti mirrors to reflect them from.
But this idea is so great, that i will copyright and patent it right now, just in case anti-lasers are ever invented.


Copyright 26.01.2008 by DeeZee
Patend pending

ARGB is a Trade Mark of MindTech s.p.

reply to post by deezee
I see the research and development is well under way

Checked out those pics and they demonstrate the problem of background brightness very well indeed. Several of us didn't need convincing of what should be common sense but you never know - your contribution may save some from stumbling into the dark side of impossible physics and even worse science.

well done

you cannot ' copyright ' some idea just by printing the words at the bottom. You must write down the aide and send it in to the copyright bureau on paper, paying a copyright fee. Patent pendiong means that you have filed for a patent and want to market the idea or device before patent approval or rejection. All it means is that you have filed a patent application. Have you done so? If not, then you have NO ' patent pending ' on anything.

You cannot merely come up with some idea and then label it with legal terms and have it work. You must have a new idea that WORKS and is useful and logical, and then you must have diagrams and at times a working model for the examiners to see.

So anyone could take your idea, put it on paper and submit it for a patent and you would be screwed if you have done done so first. Merely saying the words does not make it real. I do not want others thinking that copyrights and patents can be had by just writing the words down after some thought they have..it doesn't work that way. You might try consulting an attorney for advice on your particular situation.

Originally posted by OrionStars
360 degree holographic displays - video

video.aol.com...

Seen this before. Very cool video !!! Just don't try and touch it Nice find though

Here's another great video

www.liveleak.com...

The video shows a version of what's known as Pepper's Ghost which is actually a classic magicians trick that orionstar was referring to a few pages back. If you look close, you'll see that the image appears inside a pyramid structure.

Here's a link that describes how the illusion is done.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_ghost

Here's a clip from the companies homepage that designed the projection system

musion eyeliner 3d hologram

Musion Eyeliner is a new and unique high definition holographic video projector system allowing spectacular freeform 3D, moving holograms to appear within a live stage setting using Peppers Ghost technology.

here's how they do it

Musion Eyeliner is an open system that uses a specially developed foil in reflecting images from high definition video projectors, making it possible to show virtual images of variable sizes and distinct clarity created using a proprietary software. The entire system consists of a truss box and a stage, where the virtual picture appears.

By the way, they're the ones that were responsible for the Prince Charles and Gorillaz holograms.

www.eyeliner3d.com...


[edit on 26-1-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by eyewitness86
you cannot ' copyright ' some idea just by printing the words at the bottom. You must write down the aide and send it in to the copyright bureau on paper, paying a copyright fee. Patent pendiong means that you have filed for a patent and want to market the idea or device before patent approval or rejection. All it means is that you have filed a patent application. Have you done so? If not, then you have NO ' patent pending ' on anything.

You cannot merely come up with some idea and then label it with legal terms and have it work. You must have a new idea that WORKS and is useful and logical, and then you must have diagrams and at times a working model for the examiners to see.

So anyone could take your idea, put it on paper and submit it for a patent and you would be screwed if you have done done so first. Merely saying the words does not make it real. I do not want others thinking that copyrights and patents can be had by just writing the words down after some thought they have..it doesn't work that way. You might try consulting an attorney for advice on your particular situation.

Yes I also agree you should most definitely contact an attorney

Originally posted by eyewitness86
So anyone could take your idea, put it on paper and submit it for a patent and you would be screwed if you have done done so first. Merely saying the words does not make it real. I do not want others thinking that copyrights and patents can be had by just writing the words down after some thought they have..it doesn't work that way. You might try consulting an attorney for advice on your particular situation.

Thanks Eyewitness for the friendly advice! I didn't know that!

OMG, i just completelly gave up the secret to how my (imaginary) ARGB system works! What if some competitor already read it?!? Maybe i should edit the post and delete it to prevent further damage, if it is not too late already...

Need to run to my (imaginary) attorney to see if anything can be done, or if all is lost already...


Such a great (imaginary) technology and what to i do? I post it on a public forum..


Holographic from laughter exploding smiley brought to you by Anti-Colour

Anti-Colour, ARGB and DASAR are (imaginary) trade marks of MindTech s.p.
(imaginary) Patend pending

Originally posted by jfj123
By the way, they're the ones that were responsible for the Prince Charles and Gorillaz holograms.

This is very interesting and usefull technology, but it's not real holograms.

Actually it is the identical thing as theaters and some illusionists have used to project ghostly images on stages since for ever....

It's actually so simple, it can be done by everyone. I posted an instructional video a few pages ago.


What i wanted to say is.. This can't be used to project holograms anywhere (before anyone says this was what brought the towers down).
Besides, it is not even three dimensional.

But because the audience is further away and the images seem to float in mid air on the stage, the imagination makes people believe it's 3D.

The further away you are, the harder it is to see the difference between a 2D representation of a 3D object or a real 3D object.


I don't know why they keep saying it's 3D. Even Musion itself says it isn't.
In the gorillaz it was 2D depiction of 3D characters..

[edit on 26/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by jfj123
By the way, they're the ones that were responsible for the Prince Charles and Gorillaz holograms.

This is very interesting and usefull technology, but it's not real holograms.

This is correct. Although the site calls them holograms, they are not actually holograms.

Actually it is the identical thing as theaters and some illusionists have used to project ghostly images on stage.

Yes, the pepper's ghost trick.

It's actually so simple, it can be done by everyone. I posted an instructional video a few pages ago.

Yes, also the wiki link even explains how to do this.

What i wanted to say is.. This can't be used to project holograms anywhere (before anyone says this was what brought the towers down).
Besides, it is not even three dimensional.

You are correct.

But because the audience is further away and the images seem to float on the stage, the imagination makes people believe it's 3D.

It looks cool !!

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes, the pepper's ghost trick.
Yes, also the wiki link even explains how to do this.

It looks cool !!

Oh, there was something wrong with the appearance of the link, so i didn't even see it until you mentioned it now. Thanks!

It does look very cool. So it makes sense, people seeing it would imagine it is holograms.

I wasn't sure myself when i first saw it. But that's because it was taken by a camera, where you can't differentiate between 3D and a 2D projection.

Otherwise, if you were standing close to it and move your head left and right, it would move a bit together with your head and become slightly thinner at the same time.


P.S. I just didn't want someone saying "See, holograms do exist and can be projected anywhere!" based on that video..


EDIT: There is still something wrong with that link. It goes to "pepper" instead of "peppers trick".

[edit on 26/1/08 by deezee]

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok hopefully this works.

Something weird with the link



[edit on 26-1-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Essedarius

 

Modern magicians are not necessarily using stages any longer. They prefer to "disappear" and "reappear" their "buildings, elephants, and Statues of Liberty" etc. in the great outdoors, primarily via the miracle of television. They even successfully "disappear" and "move" their holograms wherever they please. The Statue of Liberty will still be where it was. It is the "disappearing" of it which becomes the first illusion.

The Statue of Liberty trick was not done using holograms. Do you actually research any of the stuff you write? The Internet is a remarkable tool...

The Statue of Liberty trick was done by simply rotating the stage that the audience sat on, while the view of the statue was concealed. After rotating, the view of the statue was covered by one of the tall columns on the stage. Pretty simple, but effective.

reply to post by atcshane


If you have read more carefully, you would have seen I was not referring to any stage illusion.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by atcshane

 

If you have read more carefully, you would have seen I was not referring to any stage illusion.

you mentioned the statue of liberty disappearing trick being a hologram.
atcshane posted how it was really done and it didn't involve a hologram.
I don't know why you are picking on atcshane as he/she was simply describing how it was really done? Your post simply does not make any sense.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by deezee
Anti-Colour, ARGB and DASAR are (imaginary) trade marks of MindTech s.p.
(imaginary) Patend pending

And here I was hoping to collect some royalties for use of that acronym

Here's a fun, little article and it's an easy read !!

www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...