High costs and technical limitations of creating dynamic holographic displays

Signals over time

2 observed signals across 1 sources, tracked for 2 days. Confidence: low.

What people are saying Observed

• “> Though that also is part of the reason that a they're not more common. Each hologram is the film rather than a "print". This might be true for current processes but it seems like it should be possible to duplicate a hologram - use a hologram as a stand-in for the original scene when creating a new hologram. The result might have some blur (that progressively gets worse the more 'generations' you are from the original) but that seems like a solvable problem if someone worked at it. I think the real reason we don't see them is more practical - it's amazing tech but a bit too much of a novelty in its current state, it's just not something that most people would want to put on their wall.”

  Hacker News · frustration

• “The Science Museum in London used to have a life-sized holoportrait of Denis Gabor. It looked like a milky plate until you pushed the button that turned on the laser, and... there he was. Stunning. There was a short-lived flurry of art establishment interest in high quality glass holograms, but the process is just too expensive and fragile to create non-niche art. I always expected that at some point we'd have dynamic holographic displays, but the processing and resolution requirements are insane. Holographic film has a resolution in the region of 100,000 to 250,000 ppi, which is quite a bit more than 300dpi for print or a few thousand PPI for plain old film. If you could build a 27" display with that resolution you'd need maybe 1TB per frame at a minimum. You could probably apply quite a bit of compression to get that down on input, but that's still the order of a workable frame store memory. Multiply by three for colour.”

  Hacker News · frustration