AVATAR progress

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
Oh they have tried. I'm sure they know what you do. And more. Thats their job. The results were quite good but still far too limited to be attraction based instead of an AA.
Seriously, I've spent a number of years investigating this and spent tens of thousands of dollars on experimental equipment to put this idea I have to the test. Behold, it works and I'm in the process of patenting it. It's 3D without glasses all done through analog projection technology and it has a near-holographic semi-transparent look to it. It's not exactly holographic because a hologram changes as you move around it. This uses 60 fps (per eye) full motion full color high definition elongated imagery. I'm slow in developing it because it's just me working on it and I have no development funds...
 

SirLink

Well-Known Member
Seriously, I've spent a number of years investigating this and spent tens of thousands of dollars on experimental equipment to put an idea I have to the test. Behold, it works and I'm in the process of patenting it. It's 3D without glasses all done through analog projection technology and it has a near-holographic semi-transparent look to it. It's not exactly holographic because a hologram changes as you move around it. This uses 60fps (per eye) motion full color high definition elongated imagery. I'm slow in developing it because it's just me working on it and I have no development funds...

Ya may as well look up Musion then.
 

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
Seriously, I've spent a number of years investigating this and spent tens of thousands of dollars on experimental equipment to put this idea I have to the test. Behold, it works and I'm in the process of patenting it. It's 3D without glasses all done through analog projection technology and it has a near-holographic semi-transparent look to it. It's not exactly holographic because a hologram changes as you move around it. This uses 60 fps (per eye) full motion full color high definition elongated imagery. I'm slow in developing it because it's just me working on it and I have no development funds...
Don't bother with small fry theme parks then. You'll make billions from big corporations, the military....

Just drop me a million when you've made it. Call it an encouragement fee. :)

In the meantime, research Golden Dream at DCA and compare it to The American Adventure. That's why AAs win over screens.
 

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
Ya may as well look up Musion then.
Thank you for sharing that. The technique they've employed is more an illusion than actual 3D projection. It's like a combination of the Pepper's Ghost illusion of the HM and the facial projections on the singing busts also at the HM. The technique I've created is 3D - not a trick of an illusion. All 3D Blu-Ray titles can be watched in 3D without wearing glasses, for example, if watched through the method I created. No conversion is necessary. The technique I created sends left eye images directly to the left eye and right eye images directly to the right eye no matter of the position of the viewer or viewers of any 3D content of stereo images (moving or still) as long as the image pairs are pre-separated, the viewing software can image it. My method also uses an extremely small footprint - the length of the screen and just a foot or two of width behind the screen. The image quality is true 3D with limitless depth and near field depth (screen to eyes). Unlike Blu-ray, the screen width can be as wide as an iMax screen. I also developed a system where sound objects can sync three dimensionally with the objects on the screen and can adjust to each viewing position so that each person, in theory, can have a different experience, depending on where they are in the room, but that requires special digital codes embedded into the sound track to make use if that feature; otherwise, everyone in the room experiences the same thing. Another feature I will add later to it will add peripheral vision projections for a realistic 180 degree projected vision field!
 

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
Don't bother with small fry theme parks then. You'll make billions from big corporations, the military....

Just drop me a million when you've made it. Call it an encouragement fee. :)

In the meantime, research Golden Dream at DCA and compare it to The American Adventure. That's why AAs win over screens.
This will go no where until I get backing to take it places. I don't care if the backing comes from investors, partners, stock offerings, or a big initial customer like Disney.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Thank you for sharing that. The technique they've employed is more an illusion than actual 3D projection. It's like a combination of the Pepper's Ghost illusion of the HM and the facial projections on the singing busts also at the HM. The technique I've created is 3D - not a trick of an illusion. All 3D Blu-Ray titles can be watched in 3D without wearing glasses, for example, if watched through the method I created. No conversion is necessary. The technique I created sends left eye images directly to the left eye and right eye images directly to the right eye no matter of the position of the viewer or viewers of any 3D content of stereo images (moving or still) as long as the image pairs are pre-separated, the viewing software can image it. My method also uses an extremely small footprint - the length of the screen and just a foot or two of width behind the screen. The image quality is true 3D with limitless depth and near field depth (screen to eyes). Unlike Blu-ray, the screen width can be as wide as an iMax screen. I also developed a system where sound objects can sync three dimensionally with the objects on the screen and can adjust to each viewing position so that each person, in theory, can have a different experience, depending on where they are in the room, but that requires special digital codes embedded into the sound track to make use if that feature; otherwise, everyone in the room experiences the same thing. Another feature I will add later to it will add peripheral vision projections for a realistic 180 degree projected vision field!

Unless you are creating a physical object, then any type of projection is technically an illusion.
 

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
Unless you are creating a physical object, then any type of projection is technically an illusion.
It's more like a method to route two different streaming light projections to multiple viewers left and right eyes, respectively. Current 3D systems that use glasses send both left and right visual streams everywhere at once. The streams have polarized encoding (different polarity for each eye). The glasses simply filter use two types of filters to filter one polarity out and the other one in on both eyes, but light intended for just one eye is still being sent to both. The system I've created produces light that is sent only to the left eye and light sent only to the right eye spontaneously, regardless of the number of people in the room and where they are in relation to the screen. The only flaw I've found so far is that the theater must be dark in order to get a bright and solid picture, but most theaters are already dark so I don't consider that an issue.
 

SirLink

Well-Known Member
It's more like a method to route two different streaming light projections to multiple viewers left and right eyes, respectively. Current 3D systems that use glasses send both left and right visual streams everywhere at once. The streams have polarized encoding (different polarity for each eye). The glasses simply filter use two types of filters to filter one polarity out and the other one in on both eyes, but light intended for just one eye is still being sent to both. The system I've created produces light that is sent only to the left eye and light sent only to the right eye spontaneously, regardless of the number of people in the room and where they are in relation to the screen. The only flaw I've found so far is that the theater must be dark in order to get a bright and solid picture, but most theaters are already dark so I don't consider that an issue.

They already have made that you are basically describing 3d glassless screens for which HP are developing a few plus Sharp have made one in current consumer hardware ....
 

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
They already have made that you are basically describing 3d glassless screens for which HP are developing a few plus Sharp have made one in current consumer hardware ....
Yes, that's the polarized method. My computer monitor by Zalman has this. The screen uses two layers (one transparent) of polarized LCD light. Movie theaters use polarized projections of six colored bulbs (two each per basic color of each polarity). Some consumer television brands (such as LG) use the layered polarized method.

Others brands use 120 kHz method, which alternates the left and right images every other frame (so that there's a left and right image every 60 frames) and the glasses you wear use LCD to block one eye at a time 60 times a second. An IR sensor on the glasses receives IR signals from the TV which tell it which eye the current frame on the TV should be synced to. This method is cheaper to manufacture sets for but the glasses are expensive.

There's a third method that is extremely expensive to manufacture and does not require glasses. This method puts eight microscopic lenses over ever pixel on the television set. Each lense is angled differently so that wherever you are you can see the image in 3D. I have a 3D digital camera from Sony that takes stills and HD video with a small 3D screen that uses this method. The new 3D Nintendo handheld game system also uses this method. Besides the prohibitively expensive cost of manufacturing large screens, it is harsh on the eyes and can make people feel nauseous and dizzy. It also takes some time before an average person can focus on the image.

The method I'm using is none of the above and is nowhere even close to how those work. As I said, no glasses are required. No eye strain or ill-feelings. Immediate focus like it's a natural object you're seeing. No microscopic lenses (or anything microscopic) involved. Small footprint. All off the shelf electronic parts. There are some custom parts involved in housing of the frame.
 

yeti

Well-Known Member
Question: Is this the same ride that's at TDS? If so, they knew it was flawed going into DCA and they had even more time to figure that out going into FLE!

No way is that ride good enough for TDS.

I like the idea of the walk-through in Pandora, very consistent with AK's vision I think.
 

SirLink

Well-Known Member
Yes, that's the polarized method. My computer monitor by Zalman has this. The screen uses two layers (one transparent) of polarized LCD light. Movie theaters use polarized projections of six colored bulbs (two each per basic color of each polarity). Some consumer television brands (such as LG) use the layered polarized method.

Others brands use 120 kHz method, which alternates the left and right images every other frame (so that there's a left and right image every 60 frames) and the glasses you wear use LCD to block one eye at a time 60 times a second. An IR sensor on the glasses receives IR signals from the TV which tell it which eye the current frame on the TV should be synced to. This method is cheaper to manufacture sets for but the glasses are expensive.

There's a third method that is extremely expensive to manufacture and does not require glasses. This method puts eight microscopic lenses over ever pixel on the television set. Each lense is angled differently so that wherever you are you can see the image in 3D. I have a 3D digital camera from Sony that takes stills and HD video with a small 3D screen that uses this method. The new 3D Nintendo handheld game system also uses this method. Besides the prohibitively expensive cost of manufacturing large screens, it is harsh on the eyes and can make people feel nauseous and dizzy. It also takes some time before an average person can focus on the image.

The method I'm using is none of the above and is nowhere even close to how those work. As I said, no glasses are required. No eye strain or ill-feelings. Immediate focus like it's a natural object you're seeing. No microscopic lenses (or anything microscopic) involved. Small footprint. All off the shelf electronic parts. There are some custom parts involved in housing of the frame.

That is what is produced by Sharp which are in certain mobile handsets in japan as well as 3DS. Ya know what you just quoted. Plus it takes no longer to focus with 3D using this method than any other. I suspect you haven't seen a 3DS in action with 3D enabled. Sharp's screen is also not in the Sony consumer hardware. Onto the next point all 3D that is produced - no matter what method you will always get a percentage of people who have an adverse affect whether it be dull headaches or worse.

Basically think of 3D as an inception style of effect. We naturally see 3D on a daily basis and can sense depth when you produce fake depth and what to auto focus it can't be done as what the eye itself perceives as 3D is the TV itself not the images on the TV...
 

JungleTrekFan

Active Member
Just dawned on me, since no bad idea dies at Imagineering could the Avatar boat ride be a re-theme of the Dinoland boat ride that was blueskyed way back when.

Also I’m very excited for AK to finally be expanded and to have a nighttime show now. Is it time for D23 yet?
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Just dawned on me, since no bad idea dies at Imagineering could the Avatar boat ride be a re-theme of the Dinoland boat ride that was blueskyed way back when.

Also I’m very excited for AK to finally be expanded and to have a nighttime show now. Is it time for D23 yet?

If I was forced to choose, I'd rather have a dinosaur based jungle cruise. Hopefully counter-programmed to the IoA version by being family-friendly.

I know where they can get some of the dinosaurs from on property for free. And it wouldn't take much 'energy' to move them.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom