
Looking Glass starts shipping its 8K holographic display - prostoalex
https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/26/looking-glass-starts-shipping-its-8k-holographic-display/
======
ebg13
The thing that strikes me the most is how absolutely terrible they are at
showing off their product. Their whole promo video is extreme closeups on 3D
renderings that look no different than what my cellphone can do because it's
just a boring video of boring renderings and I'm watching it on my boring
cellphone. It's like they're trying to show the grand canyon by filling the
frame with a small bit of rock.

This shitty gif from techcrunch is infinitely more impactful in every
conceivable way despite being a shit quality gif. [https://techcrunch.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Aug-22-201...](https://techcrunch.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Aug-22-2018-15-55-45.gif)

Looking Glass people, if you're reading this, you need to zoom way the fuck
out, turn the lights on, and quit with the artsy bullshit fading to black
every few seconds because it looks like you're hiding something. You cannot
show pictures. You need to show the experience.

~~~
2bitencryption
Remember the reveal of the Nintendo 3DS?

They _did not_ allow press to take images of the device when the display was
on.

They knew images couldn't capture the 3D so they did what this company is
doing and used a bunch of vague renderings to try to express how the thing
worked.

Since it's probably the same underlying parallax tech powering both, I'd guess
the reasonings are the same.

~~~
ebg13
That's a bad reason, and they executed poorly. The techcrunch gif I linked
_kills_ the demo (in the good way) in a second. Random schmoe cellphone took
their marketing department to school without an ounce of preparation.

~~~
comex
Yeah. The 3DS only supports one viewing angle, holding it straight parallel to
your face. At that angle, you see 3D; at any other angle, you see distortions.
So indeed, _the 3DS_ very hard to demonstrate in a photo or video. But Looking
Glass supports multiple angles, which makes the gif you mentioned possible and
is also what makes it unique as a product!

------
bane
I saw an earlier prototype at a Demosplash at CMU. It was _really_ incredibly
cool in certain instances. 3D objects really looked like they were "in" the
volume of the display and moving my body or head from side-to-side was pretty
flawless.

That being said, it also had limitations. 3D effects that extended beyond the
display (like a tunnel, or some larger effect) lost that depth to me, and
there's no up-down 3D, only side-to-side. The one I saw was also not as high-
resolution as you might think, the effective resolution was the
resolution/elements where each element was a particular angle the display was
to be viewed from and the computer had to render the display from each angle
simultaneously. The prototype I saw had the effect of looking a bit like 3d
objects underwater.

Still, it was the closest thing I've seen to a volumetric display outside of a
lab, and in the cases where it _really_ worked (things inside the volume of
the display) it was kind of jaw dropping.

 _edit_ here's the pouet page for the demo I saw
[https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=78756](https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=78756)

This video is from a handheld camera that moves around the display that's
helpful to understand how it works
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US7hzM0a21E&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US7hzM0a21E&feature=youtu.be)

~~~
etaioinshrdlu
So if you rotate your head 90 degrees the effect falls apart?

~~~
numpad0
Looking Glass is just lenticular sheet glued to LCD, same technology as cheap
3D postcards and stickers from the ‘90s made of vertical grated plastic that
you tilt left and right and picture changes. Probably not even 3D. Acrylic
block part is just a gimmick as well.

But reportedly they execute that principle super well, gimmick part included,
to the point it looks almost VR.

~~~
VikingCoder
Yeah, that's not remotely accurate.

45 angles for each pixel:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw&t=4m18s](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-...](https://www.engineering.com/ARVR/ArticleID/17613/In-Through-the-
Looking-Glass-Holographic-Startup-Wins-Big-on-Kickstarter.aspx)

~~~
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...](https://hackaday.com/2018/11/21/supercon-alex-hornsteins-adventures-
in-hacking-the-lightfield/)

"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."

------
fermienrico
It is difficult to predict how successful a technology will be and how widely
it will be adopted.

Does anyone use their 3D glasses that used to ship with "3D TVs" circa 2013?
My Samsung TV came with a pair of active 3D glasses that were collecting dust.
On the other hand we've had adoption of touch screens on handheld devices, it
almost swooped the entire mobile market between 2007-2012 after iPhone's
introduction. But the same thing didn't happen with Keyboard + Mouse input on
a desktop computer. Infact, the market just exploded with new mechanical
keyboard aficionados sometime around 2010, I still remember hanging out on
geekhack a decade ago and now mechanical keyboards are everywhere.

We've seen in the past and we will see this in the future - a whole lotta
focus on aesthetics, UI and presentation - i.e., cool graphics in video games,
touch screens, holographic displays like the one in the article, AR/VR tech
(magic leap?) without proper attention to content will lead to nowhere.
Probably just make headlines.

Another thing is that people don't take ergonomics into account. Pretty much
any sci-fi movie has people moving their arms about to interact with content.
That would never take off in real life. Unfortunately, people like Elon Musk
are hell bent on horrible UI/UX depicted in their favorite sci-fi movies and
shoehorning it into Space craft (dragon capsule has all touch screen interface
with literally no buttons, checkout the Everyday Astronaut channel's tour).
Elon's vision about UI/UX is misguided through movies, it is embarrassing. The
giant touch screen panel in a Tesla is the main reason I would never get one.
I think he might put this 8k Holographic display as an option, please don't
tweet him about it.

Sci-fi movies are the cancer of design. It is the victorian design equivalent
of modern times, pure decoration. You can find traces of it in professional
equipment, this thing looks like it was pulled from a space ship:
[https://images-na.ssl-images-
amazon.com/images/I/61cGhQ0begL...](https://images-na.ssl-images-
amazon.com/images/I/61cGhQ0begL._SL1024_.jpg)

~~~
cptskippy
> The giant touch screen panel in a Tesla is the main reason I would never get
> one.

For me, the interesting part about owing a Tesla is the realization of just
how badly designed traditional cars are. Dedicated tactile controls are better
in an automotive context for fiddling while driving, and the Model 3
implements almost everything necessary while driving as physical controls.

The two things that I fiddle with while driving that don't have physical
controls are the stereo and windshield wipers. The stereo has a physical
volume and tracking controls, I don't think a physical interface for any other
part of the stereo would be much better than the touch screen. Windshield
wipers should have a physical interface, in the Model 3's auto mode is great
99% of the time but when it isn't it's too hard to manually adjust and when
you need to adjust wipers is precisely the wrong time to be fiddling.

~~~
adamweld
I don't know, I think the controls [0] on my car (VW Golf 2017, <20k new) are
pretty close to perfection.

Physical buttons or dials for everything except for infotainment settings, but
minimal with no clutter. Steering wheel input for cruise control/audio/wipers
and the heads up display, while the climate controls are dead simple and easy
to work without looking down. Infotainment has both touch and a context
sensitive dial. Everything is grouped contextually and I never have to look
away from the road.

I was especially impressed that a single dial (left, next to the lights) dims
_every_ light in the entire cabin to the same brightness, across many
different subsystems. Great design shields the driver from the complexity of
the system.

[0]: [https://i.imgur.com/wiqfh1w.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wiqfh1w.jpg)

~~~
andrepd
The car I drive has the same problem as that image: undifferentiated buttons
to control the AC. I want to turn on the windscreen defogger (or whatever it's
called). Now which button is it, oops, now I have to look down cause I can't
remember nor can I locate it by touch if I did.

~~~
adamweld
On the golf it's not a button but a dial (furthest right).

I leave it on Defog most of the time (straight up) and change from there
without needing to look. If I'm unsure a quick glance tells me the angle and I
can make the adjustment without having my eyes on it.

------
colechristensen
I wish they wouldn't call it _holographic_ because it seems like it has
nothing to do with what are traditionally called holograms which involve using
interference patterns, diffraction, and coherent light to record and reproduce
light field information into and from a 2d medium.

What this appears to be is recording pseudo-light felid with thin strips of
vertical prisms or lenses with many vertical strips per micro-lens so that you
get depth from the horizontal but not vertical perspective (tilting the
display up and down won't change the image, but panning left and right will)

------
slg
I was reading the article trying to guess the price of this thing. I was
thinking $20k before I got to the last paragraph which mentions the price is
quote only. I assume that means I was very low on my guess, but then I checked
the website and they have 15 inch dev kits for as low as $3k, so I have no
idea. Anyone have a rough ballpark for what this would cost?

~~~
bane
IIR, the prototype was surprisingly reasonably priced. I would guess that this
display would be less than one might expect.

~~~
arthurcolle
What was the prototype priced at?

~~~
soylentgraham
I don't know about "prototype", but If it helps, the Kickstarter was $2k (I
remember it as a grand, but I guess my memory was wrong) for the big(now
medium) 15" ones, and $400 for the small 8". After it arrived, I kinda regret
not gambling on the bigger one

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lookingglass/the-
lookin...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lookingglass/the-looking-
glass-a-holographic-display-for-3d-cre/rewards)

------
bsanr
These remind me of the holography exhibit at the MIT Museum. If you haven't
seen it before, I highly recommend it. For those of us whose main experience
with holographic images are the little foil sticker on the backs of credit
cards (and, increasingly, whose main experience with the world more than 50
miles from our homes is through a screen), it is mind-blowing. The detail and
visceral dimensionality struck me profoundly; they look as if someone has cut
out a piece of reality and copied it into another space, frozen in that
instant forevermore.

(I recognize the irony of trying to illustrate this with a Youtube video, but
nevertheless:
[https://youtu.be/LkpBYne7SlU?t=54](https://youtu.be/LkpBYne7SlU?t=54) ; I
wish that the one with a man at his desk was viewable.)

This looks to have the same effect, in full color, and animate-able. Light
field technology is truly amazing.

~~~
Udik
Cool, I have that 1984 issue of National Geographic with the hologram on the
cover! (At 0:53 in the video). I was fascinated by it as a kid.

------
jFriedensreich
I remember seeing glasses-free 3D displays from sharp many years ago and
thinking this would be everywhere within 2 years. The technology was used in
some asian novelty pre-smartphone handsets and in one gameboy model but then
disappeared. This was not light field technology like the Looking glass, so
only one angle and one viewer could really enjoy it, but i assume the market
will behave pretty similar this time: After the novelty wore off, nearly every
single user i talked to preferred 2D displays if it had even slightly
increased display clarity, brightness and resolution. Of course that insight
sounds nearly trivial, but what really surprised me was the extreme degree of
this preference: People were not even interested enough to make 3d Monitors a
second mainstream option next to super retina 2d displays or whatever, but the
whole market did not even come to existence outside very small niches. In a
completely different context i was extremely surprised how many early "VR"
experiences did not even mention they were just in 2D with head-tracking and
no one except me seemed to find that odd or super annoying. It is as if no one
really cares for 3D.

------
ashtonkem
It's unclear to me how the "K" rating is affected by the holographic features,
but for normal monitors 8K is a waste.

Every monitor size and resolution has an "optimal" viewing distance where the
human eye can resolve the maximal amount of detail. Unfortunately sometimes
the "optimal" viewing distance deserves its scare quotes, as it results in the
viewer sitting so close that they hurt their neck trying to get away from said
overwhelming screen.

For a 55" 4K display, the size of my TV, the optimal viewing distance is
3.7ft, far closer than I sit to my TV. Between 3.7ft and 7.2ft (ideal distance
for 1080p), you get some benefit from 4K, but not all of it. In order to even
detect the difference for an 8K display I would need to sit somewhere between
3.7ft and 1.7ft (ideal 8K distance) in order to reap the benefits of my
purchase. Needless to say, I am not sitting that close.

For monitors the story is a bit different, because they're small and we sit
close to them. A 32" 4K display has an optimal range 2ft, which is actually
pretty reasonable, while an 32" 8K display has an optimal range of 1.1ft,
which is again too close. I personally suspect that this is _part_ of why
Apple started pushing to 5K and 6K (although the latter might be cinema
related), because ~5-6K is probably the maximum useful resolution for a
desktop monitor.

This is a long winded way of saying that 8K is kind of a gimmick, at least for
desktop and home use.

Source: [https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-
calculator](https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator)

~~~
Taniwha
I think it's different in this case .... essentially that 8k is split up among
a bunch of smaller screens that are then displayed as layers (this is a very
simplified description) - the actual effective screen is much smaller than 8k

------
fxtentacle
FYI, the 8K is their Input Resolution.

That resolution is then divided into the 45 viewing directions:
[https://docs.lookingglassfactory.com/Appendix/how-it-
works/](https://docs.lookingglassfactory.com/Appendix/how-it-works/)

We need to divide 7680x4320 by the 9x5 grid.

Thus, the effective resolution is only 864x853 scaled in width to make each
pixel about 1.75x wider than tall.

At that resolution, it might be difficult to read normal-sized text.

~~~
Retric
Yea, it’s really not designed for 3D movies or replacement of a normal
monitor. It’s great for viewing or editing individual models that seem to fit
inside the display which while a niche is a fairly wide one.

Also, “only 864x853 ... it might be difficult to read normal-sized text.” That
makes me feel really old, I spent a long time coding on 640×480 in 16 colors

~~~
unnouinceput
I remember VESA256 when you could go from 320x240x4 to 640x480 x8 and I
thought "wow, this is insane". Nowadays anything under 1920x1080 makes me
avoid it.

~~~
fsniper
I am also shocked when people call HD (1920x1080) panels "shitty". Even though
I am using a pretty hi resolution ultra ultra wide, HD still feels like the
bleeding edge for me.

------
agys
The people at Marpi Studio did some interesting interactive demos for the
Looking Glass display:

[https://www.marpi.studio/artwork/ocean/algae-
lux](https://www.marpi.studio/artwork/ocean/algae-lux)

[https://www.marpi.studio/artwork/ocean/algae-
aux](https://www.marpi.studio/artwork/ocean/algae-aux)

------
thorum
Holographic displays are one approach being studied for use in VR/AR headsets.
My understanding is that they may help solve the vergence-accommodation
conflict, which causes a lot of the motion sickness, headaches, eye strain and
other issues people have with VR:

[https://xinreality.com/wiki/Vergence-
Accommodation_Conflict](https://xinreality.com/wiki/Vergence-
Accommodation_Conflict)

Current headsets use two flat screen displays positioned a fixed distance from
your head showing two slightly different 2D images. This tricks your brain
into thinking you're seeing a 3D environment with objects closer or further
away than the displays actually are, but some parts of your visual system are
not fooled - leading to a conflict where your eyes try to focus and adjust to
what you're seeing in two different ways at the same time.

Holographs may be able to provide more depth cues to each eye, helping to
convince the visual system that the images are real.

~~~
WhatIsDukkha
You are making a bold and incorrect claim.

"""vergence-accommodation conflict, which causes a lot of the motion sickness,
headaches, eye strain and other issues people have with VR"""

This is untrue. It actually a pretty minor amount of the issues. There are
individuals that suffer from this disproportionately but the estimates I've
seen were in the low single digits.

The major issues are in the source to the link you posted -

[http://doc-ok.org/?p=1602](http://doc-ok.org/?p=1602)

"""Accommodation-vergence conflict is the one remaining aspect of vision that
is not simulated by current VR headsets. While it is not as big a deal as
simulator sickness induced by poor tracking, high latency, or artificial
locomotion, """

These are the major sources of vr discomfort which are increasingly handled by
the baseline vr specification being increasingly in the reach of more and more
hardware systems.

I'd also note that as the poor tracking and high latency issues have
disappeared people have found they are comfortable with radically wider ranges
of artificial locomotion styles.

At this point, in my opinion, the utter uselessness of any text based
applications (ie what people actually DO all day long) is what is holding VR
back. The resolution needs to scale up fairly radically.

This monitor may have better text results but its not clear what the
boundaries of it as a 3d display are as I haven't seen a review from
knowledgeable sources (Oliver Kreylos/ docok is one of the people that I'd
like to hear from).

~~~
outworlder
> artificial locomotion

That's the biggest culprit. Some people even get nausea without VR headsets.
There was a presentation at the California Academy of Sciences where the
camera was panning as if it was travelling. A few people nearly barfed.

I wonder how much of it is training. Lots of people are ok with flight
simulators, or simulated cars, train rides, etc. It's mostly when they think
_they_ are moving that the problem presents itself.

> At this point, in my opinion, the utter uselessness of any text based
> applications (ie what people actually DO all day long) is what is holding VR
> back.

In non-gaming scenarios, yes. Resolution could be better. However, it is not
so bad at all. You need bigger "displays" in VR than what you would have in
real life, but you can code alright.

I would personally prefer lighter, less intrusive devices, even if the
resolution was the same.

~~~
WhatIsDukkha
The user moving themselves around the world is artificial locomotion.

In vr, taking the camera control away from the user (as if in a film or
cutscene) is an absolute no go and whoever did that in the example you
experienced should be professionally embarrassed and apologize to the people
they put through that.

------
craneabove
Oh techcrunch, 2 typos in the first sentence.

~~~
goldenkey
They really need an editor. It's even worse than the syntax errors, saying
something `felt more like a proof of concept [...] was immediately an
impressive concept` is amateur wordsmithing. Better wording would be
"Immediately, viewers were left with a strong impression despite the display
being a proof of concept.`

> When Looking Glass Factory showed /of/off/s its first holographic display
> way back /on/in/s August 2018, it felt more like a proof of concept than
> anything — though it was immediately an impressive concept

------
ortusdux
Ever since I first saw one of these I have been wondering if it would be
possible to display as-shot light field camera images. If it is, they should
seriously think about collaborating with Lytro.

~~~
lovecg
Yes! They have some examples here:
[https://blog.lookingglassfactory.com/announcements/the-
memor...](https://blog.lookingglassfactory.com/announcements/the-memory-
machines/)

The live stream of the bird cage is a very interesting application.

------
Vanit
We got one of these in the office (much smaller) that we only bring out for
conventions. It's a nice conversation piece but serves no practical purpose.

------
itronitron
[https://lookingglassfactory.com/product/8k](https://lookingglassfactory.com/product/8k)

------
causality0
The only advantage this has over a parallax-barrier 3D display is you can move
your head to look around an object. I don't see how that makes up for having
24 times the processing footprint, greatly reduced resolution, and enormous
pricetag, especially if you equip a parallax display with similar hand-
tracking sensors.

~~~
taneq
Multiple viewers can see the same scene from different angles simultaneously.

~~~
causality0
As long as they all stand within a 55 degree arc in the middle of the display.
Hope you're real friendly with your coworkers.

------
peter303
Thats why I will regret not attending an in-person SIGGRAPH in person this
year. You could see amazing demos of frontier technology not yet
commercialized.

Ditto watching the NVDIA keynote recently. They were bragging about how good
their AI-driven 8K raytracing was. But I could not see much before and after
difference on my puny tablet screen.

------
scrumbledober
Is this the technology being used on Disneyland's smugglers run ride? I
remember moving my head around and the 3d perspective following my viewpoint,
but my Google Fu at the time could only find articles about the real-time
rendering used on the screens.

------
imhoguy
That may be quite cool for demos and entertainment. But no way in the office -
eye strain after 8h day must be severe. I would spend same money on 27" e-ink
display once such is available.

------
mncharity
When some of those 45 perspectives don't go near any watching eyes, do they
still need to be rendered? If not, one might use head/eye tracking to save
computes.

------
sovande
Hmm, this techcrunch URL redirects me to
[https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers](https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers)
which my little snitch ad-filter blocks. In fact
[https://techcrunch.com/](https://techcrunch.com/) does the same. Not a good
move by techcrunch, I can't be the only one running host blocking of ad-
servers

------
etaioinshrdlu
Apparently this is not even an actual hologram, it is a LCD or OLED with a
linear lenticular lens attached. Big difference!

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Actual no-compromise panel-sized laser-bending holography is far beyond
current tech. You need micrometer resolutions - think 5k dpi as a blurry bare
minimum, and more like 50k dpi for high quality output - combined with 3D
rendering at that resolution, passed through a holographic transform which
maps a 3D scene to a holographic plane.

For animated holograms you have to do this in real time. And colour is still a
problem - ideally you want at least three different planes for RGB, all
correlated with sub-micron accuracy.

Shortcuts are possible - actually with stereoscopic 3D TVs and monitors
they've been and gone - but the real thing won't be happening any time soon.

3D-like emulations - like this product - are much more plausible in the short
term.

------
pvsukale3
I guess this were Hollywood like holographic screen less display start coming
into reality.

------
empath75
My guess is we'll see these first used in advertising, a fancier lenticular
billboard.

~~~
ortusdux
I was thinking high end jewelry store window display.

~~~
wlesieutre
Could also be neat for museums to virtually show jewelry and other small
objects. Hard to justify the price for consumer use, but for an exhibit with
thousands of people passing through you’d get more mileage.

The benefits being that you can share the items across many museums at once
without exposing them to UV or theft risk, and without taking the originals
away from wherever they belong.

~~~
Lichtso
I have seen the real holographic photographs [1] being used in museums.
Actually, they are getting cheaper and there are some hologram kits you can
buy to make your own at home. Obviously not animated, but in principle it
should be possible to do a holographic movie with a chemical film as well.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography)

------
person_of_color
The back button is screwed up on Safari iOS. This is a joke of a website.

------
zelon88
Is there anything on the market that will work with this out of the box?

------
jacquesm
Depending on the sticker price this could be a game changer.

------
fangorn
Only one thing to say: shut up and take my money!

------
Vysero
Send it to me, let me try it out. If I break it I will buy it and if I like it
I will buy it, but your crappy commercial isn't a sell.

------
vsskanth
how well does it do with objects at infinity ? Trying to imagine if this can
be used for sim racing.

