As a sound engineer, let me refer you to my answer given here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2979739&cid=40651157

No, live performances aren't needed, making music for Internet distribution is just fine. My acoustically designed studio and high [record|mix|master]ing skills are still needed and my job is safe. And if they aren't because home recording and your skills have gotten good enough and I'm out of a job, that's fine. Not everyone can make a job out of an enthusiasm. I'll just go get a crappy job like everyone else - I can work anything that requires a ponytail and a goatee - and keep my studio an expensive hobby. (In reality I'd just dedicate full-time to audio algorithm design, which you would still pay for indirectly when you buy your gear)

Wrong. Did you even read my freaking post? I'd be getting my cut of those $60,000 acquired through crowdfunding.

I'm not RMS (thankfully, my hygiene is a little better) but I refer you to my answer given here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2979739&cid=40651157

If people want to get paid for their creations, then why do they bloody insist on giving it away for free on a $10 CD or $2 of Internet bandwidth?

Musicians just don't seem to be able to understand that they're not CD manufacturers, and they're not Internet Service Providers, they can't charge for CDs, and they can't charge for Internet copying. What they can charge for is only their music... which they're stupidly giving away. People is already being generous when they buy plastic or bandwidth from them (being able to buy it from cheaper stores) just so they get their cut and try to recover their creation costs, but that's the wrong way to go about it.

Artist, does it cost you $60,000 to make your work (include your own salary)?... Pro-tip: Sell it for $60,000, not for $0.99. If your work is really worth that, people will pay the cost. Set up a kickstarter and watch it happen. If your work isn't worth what it costs, then there's no market for you. Tough. But please stop all this lunacy, we need it to stop freaking yesterday.

-Sincerely, an audio engineer who understands what is wrong with the businesss

Comparing the wrong thing. GPL is not about lawfullness, GPL is about morals (it just happens to have a legal background, "because we can", or as I've read somewhere, "to turn copyright against itself and make it copyleft"). We think it's not moral to try to restrict the natural flow of information, which GPL promotes, and "proprietary copyright" forbids. Enough said. There are no inconsistencies in RMS's support of file sharing.

With properly produced content, no, this doesn't have these problems.

The camera that films video for this display is a light-field camera: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_camera

Surprisingly they're already being sold to mere mortals, but those are early models that are not mature enough to be used for video production (the Lytro is for consumers but can only take pictures, the Raytrix can take video but is for industrial applications).

In the meantime while these cameras mature, any way you can turn imagery into 3D models is fair game, maybe a wide-angle high resolution Kinect, or interpolation from two normal cameras (it's a bit more complex than interpolation but you get the idea), or mere image recognition a la gimmicky 2D-to-3D conversion, etc.

Forever. You kick out lamer smith, they kick in a replacement that shits just like him.

/facepalm...

I didn't think anything of the time-varying, but maybe I'm just spoiled because in my field we convert from PCM to PDM and back, every day for breakfast, and once again for dinner, and the mindset of resolution--time equivalence sort of sticks with you.

But yes, your version is more accurate.

No, that's pretty clear. Though irrelevant, as this is 3D and not stereo 2D.

No. The content itself is at a normal video frame rate, the extra frames are computed out of a map of the deltas between POVs at the displaying site.

Of course you still need to store that in the video somehow, but it's only the inevitable overhead of holographic vs. 2D, which isn't going to be anywhere near 1000 times bigger and is only going to get smaller as compression methods tailored to it are developed.

You know, you have a point regarding movies, I hadn't thought of that. However your point is invalid re:games. The only thing you achieve by flattening a game into 2D is that now you have to move your character to see occluded things, whereas the multiscopic 3D gives you the additional option of moving your head instead of your character, which can be a severe advantage when aiming (ie. you don't have to un-aim to look around).

Also, they are abusing the property of most real 3D scenes that not everything changes from one POV to another (ie. the middle of a diffuse-lit diffuse surface doesn't) to try to cram more POVs in less frames.