http://www.macnn.com/blogs/?p=503
As expected, even Apple is mis-using the word "Holographic". There are some interesting aspects to the invention, and the fact that Apple is seriously interested in 3D is great, but this is an autostereoscopic system, and they should know better than to misuse the term we love so much!!
"Apple Working on 3D Holographic Projection Displays"
"Apple Working on 3D Holographic Projection Displays"
In fairness to Apple, the news headline was created by poo-flinging monkeys with typewriters and press cards (or their basement blogger equivalents) and does not likely correspond to the actual patent title or contents.
"Apple Working on 3D Holographic Projection Displays"
Unfortunately they don't give a reference to the patent. I just assumed that with the number of references to "holographic", it would be there in the original application.
"Apple Working on 3D Holographic Projection Displays"
It's US patent application 20080068372 (see e.g. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/200800 ... temming=on).Kaveh wrote:Unfortunately they don't give a reference to the patent. I just assumed that with the number of references to "holographic", it would be there in the original application.
The quintessence of the invention with regards to holography can be given as: “... pseudo-holographic images that mimic a hologram.”
"Apple Working on 3D Holographic Projection Displays"
Oh, there are plenty of companies who make various forms of 3D displays that are all quite happy to describe their smoke and mirrors as holography. Or more often "...yes, it's a holograph." I had a brochure a number of years ago and they used the term "hologramography" (ARGH!) but it was just a big elliptical mirror with a video monitor beneath. It was as big as a pinball machine and they were convinced that everyone would want one. And it ONLY cost $8000. I think at this time I have seen at least 4 or more versions of it, all claiming their own exclusive patent, and all truelly useless. The best part is they approach folks like us here at the Austin Children's Museum thinking we would love to spend that kind of money just because "it's so cool!"
Personaly I like to use "hologram" for the actual product we make, and "holography" for the process. The term "holograph" although correct for the finished product always seemed klunky.
Personaly I like to use "hologram" for the actual product we make, and "holography" for the process. The term "holograph" although correct for the finished product always seemed klunky.
"Apple Working on 3D Holographic Projection Displays"
The term holograph is soooo much more correct, but I agree with the "klunkiness" of it. That's only because we started off with "hologram" instead. We holograph a scene when we record it. That usage doesn't feel klunky.
"Apple Working on 3D Holographic Projection Displays"
Tom B. wrote:In fairness to Apple, the news headline was created by poo-flinging monkeys with typewriters and press cards (or their basement blogger equivalents) and does not likely correspond to the actual patent title or contents.
"Apple Working on 3D Holographic Projection Displays"
Well I have a close friend who writes copy for a radio news show. I could not resist calling her a "Poo flinging monkey" all night. She finally started to think it was funny.