| theprof00 said: A projector is its own technology, like a monitor to a computer. A monitor is not a computer, but it allows for unique interactions with the computer. Everything about LIGHTSPACE is a COMBINATION of input and output (depth capture facilitated though display, and effect, respectively). running through a central computing unit. Saying lightspace is the abstract capability of 3d depth input, is like saying a computer is a keyboard. 3D depth cameras are their own tech, and groups, like Microsoft Research are exploring what they can do IN ASSOCIATION with the input afforded by a 3d depth camera. Like I've said a thousand times now, depth camera tech is its own concept. Lightspace is not a 3d depth camera, it is a seperate thing, similarly to how cheese is not milk but comes from alterations to it. 3D depth technology, as I've also said a thousand times now, is a cool, interesting technology. But it has been done. It's already out there. There are numerous researchers using it and exploring things it does. As proof, the scientist who wrote the article alludes to, and thereby contrasts with, other researchers who are working on 3d input/output in different ways. "Fails and Olsen [8] argue that many computing actions can be controlled by observing specific user interactions within everyday environments. For example, they propose designating edges of the bed as virtual sliders for controlling lights and providing user feedback through projections. Holman and Vertegaal [12] argue similarly for exploring the use of existing objects in the environment as interactive surfaces, in particular noting that many non-flat or flexible surfaces could become compelling user interfaces." and here they admit that lightspace is simply someone elses work:
Underkoffler et al. [25] demonstrated that combining projected graphics with real physical objects can enable interactive tabletop experiences such as simulating the casting of shadows by a physical architectural model. This prototype is embedded within a presentation of the larger (unrealized) vision of the “Luminous Room”, where all room surfaces are transformed into interactive displays by multiple “I/O Bulbs”: devices that can simultaneously sense and project. In many ways, LightSpace is the most complete implementation of the Luminous Room concept to date."
25. Underkoffler, J., Ullmer, B., and Ishii, H. (1999). Emancipated pixels: Real-world graphics in the luminous room. In Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH ‘99. 385–392. |
Research demonstrates concepts. Your argument is that Lightspace itself is not useful. I and most other people happen to disagree, and you don't give any real argument as to why it you deem it useless, especially when utility is defined by the person who needs it. I'd say presenting in a boardroom, or dynamically working with kids in an interactive classroom are all useful, legitimate demands for this technology.
Furthermore, insuinuating that these researchers did nothing but copy someone else's concept, when what you quoted tells you EXACTLY what they did and how they build upon it tells me you do not understand how science is done. I suppose you'll tell me ALL papers out there are copies of other things, because they ALL cite relevant research.
"Underkoffler et al. [25] demonstrated that combining projected graphics with real physical objects can enable interactive tabletop experiences such as simulating the casting of shadows by a physical architectural model. This prototype is embedded within a presentation of the larger (unrealized) vision of the “Luminous Room”, where all room surfaces are transformed into interactive displays by multiple “I/O Bulbs”: devices that can simultaneously sense and project. In many ways, LightSpace is the most complete implementation of the Luminous Room concept to date."
You even underlined it, but you say they just copied someone else's work, when it is the "most complete implementation of the Luminous Room concept to date."
It demonstrates and embeds their previous work, adds the volumetric space between objects as interactive space, and uses multiple projectors to illuminate multiple surfaces. It is hardly just "copying" someone else's work.
I knew from the beginning that you had an agenda, and it's clear that you are just arguing for the sake of hearing your own voice. You should really get rid of the "prof" part of your name, because it's clearly obvious you've never been around higher education let alone real world research.
