Reconfigurable Immersive 3D Display


VisBox-X3 – Reconfigurable Immersive 3D Display

This takes me back a few years. I remember designing and trying to sell something like this back in 1993. Personally, I think this company could make the "boxes" a lot thinner using an extra mirror bounce. Rear-screen TVs have a much better ratio of screen size to depth, but it requires special lenses and very good mirrors (mylar, usually). I don’t see whether they put angle sensors between the boxes or they require manual calibration for adjusting the rendering to match the screen configuration, but that’s a no-brainer.

The reason I bring this up is that it’s along the lines of what I think the immersive home theater experience will look like in ten years. I hope this company didn’t try to patent the idea — there’s plenty of prior art.

Here’s how it might look. Imagine these boxes as super-thin — like a centimeter, mostly just for support. And imagine they fold at at least two crease points, but preferably they fold everywhere, so as to convert from flat to cylindrical and anywhere in-between. In flat or near-flat mode, you could maximize the number of viewers. In cylindrical mode, one person could stand inside the cylinder and be immersed in 360 degrees. The most common configuration would be somewhere in-between.

The reason the cylindrical is ultimately better is mainly because the vertical creases create a visual artifact. Right now, with rear-projection, there isn’t perfectly uniform brightness at the edges vs. the center, there are refraction angle issues, and more importantly, light bleeds from one screen to the next once it leaves the screens. Those can be compensated for eventually, and cubes and cylinders can be made mathematically equivalent for rendering purposes, but long-term, cylindrical sections are the way to go.

  1. No comments yet.
(will not be published)


  1. Donnagh McDonnagh » Blog Archive » links for 2006-11-07