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.
How long are we going to put up with his shit?
Forever. You kick out lamer smith, they kick in a replacement that shits just like him.
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. 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).
Think of this like an integral display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_imaging#Description
Except that instead of using microlenses to bend the rays, they are using the layered screens to produce virtually bent rays. The high FPS is because they can only produce one set of virtually bent rays for any one frame, so they need as many frames as they want points of view. IOW what integral displays need in extra pixels this display needs in extra frames.
To put it another way, this is to integral what parallax is to lenticular.
Wireless is inherently more prone to this type of attack because you can listen to it, and if you can listen to it you can try to crack the encryption. With wired connections (we're not only talking about networks here, wireless keyboards too for example) most of the time this is impossible, even if you can somehow get at the wire the chances that no one is going to notice are non-zero. With wireless they can be exactly zero.
In practice not everything that connects wirelessly uses encryption, not everything that uses encryption uses unbreakable encryption, not everything that uses breakable encryption can be retrofitted to use something better - especially if it's a standard - and not everything that uses unbreakable encryption has non-vulnerable users (ie. users ignoring SSL warnings caused by a MITM WiFi hotspot, which has been done, though I don't have the links on hand).
Actually, if you're going to go this far, maybe it's just easier to use a virtual reality headset.
Easier, yes, but the problem with VR headsets besides resolution and image size is that you can't use eye movement, only head. That gets tiresome soon and is somewhat clumsy.
The best is big curved screen, like IMAX dome, or the closest thing you can get to that. Multimonitor angled is the closest most people can get.
In retrospective it doesn't matter, either way theft - the usual criminal purpose of these tools - is more like hunting than it is like killing, and one party of a war spying on another is more like (and often leads to actual) killing, so at any rate the GGP's analogy is backwards.
I personally find the inventor's decision reasonable in this case, though I fear I'm far unqualified to tell wether it's indeed a good decision or not.
imagine the inventor of the firearm deciding to call it quits because someone found a way to hunt with it instead of kill people (in self defense even?).
Except in this case, unless I'm missing something (is the Syrian government considered better or worse than the activists?), it's the other way around.
Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell