Jonathan Tustain

3D Printing Gets Brainy

2012-10-17T12:03:33-04:00

With this weekend's 3D Printshow almost sold out, interest in a technology that promises to change the world, is clearly high. But how will a 3D chocolate brain, tree sculpture and helmet from The Iron Man boost economies, save lives and get us to Mars?

Well, in actual fact, lots. They are just a few of the many exhibits at the 3D Printshow and, for me, it will be a chance to really see the future of where this technology is going. When creative minds explore new technology, it is an incredibly exciting time, as technology is nothing without imagination. Almost daily there is a new announcement about 3D printing and the social ramifications of its advancement and, like most disruptive technologies, it both excites and concerns.

First of all, what is 3D printing? Generally, it involves building up an object layer by layer, from a range of materials such as sand, glass, plastic, metal and even paper. This technique allows for the production of individual bespoke products, without the cost and waste of a traditional assembly line.

With less shipping requirements, production can be more localised and prototyping speeded up. Combined with a scanner, you can even effectively make 3D photocopies of real objects!

We have a while to go before absent minded people like myself can replicate lost keys and phones. Low cost 3D printers such as the $1800 MakerBot Replicator or $1300 Cube from 3D Systems, are impressive but still the reserve of prosumers. At that price point, objects have limited practical uses. However, MIT Media Lab plan to launch a low cost high resolution 3D printer capable of producing objects that are refined enough to replace parts or materialise complex jewellery designs that were once in your head. With over $2 million already pledged on Kickstarter, the FORM-1 might be a major step forward towards putting disposable cutlery makers out of business at least.

One of the biggest concerns is that the technology could threaten intellectual copyright laws in a more dramatic way than the Internet did. After all, if you can download a blueprint to instruct your home 3D printer to layer up a new chair, how would that 'instruction' be protected against copyright theft?

Former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold has recently achieved an expansive patent on 3D printing Digital Rights Management to prevent users of 3D printers from plagiarising object rights. The principle is that, before any printing takes place, a remote server would check you are authorised to print the object from a digital file.

While lawyers, economists and commentators debate the impact on order, the economy and society, this weekend's 3D Printshow will be a hub of creative minds using the technology to create value, inspire and even have some fun with.

The term '3D' has recaptured the public's imagination but rather than the virtual world of 3D television, it's the tangible world of 3D printing that has the media talking.

What has especially grabbed my attention is Inition's range of exhibits including a chocolate brain. The Shoreditch based company acquired its first 3D printer in 2005 and were responsible for scanning and 3D printing a replica of John Cleese's head for gadget show Batteries Not Included.

Guests will encounter a life-sized chocolate model of Inition co-founder Andy Millns' brain, created using MRI data and 3D printing technology.

Inition's 3D print team used the sliced image data from a scan Millns previously had. This has been converted into a STL file format (a 3D geometry format widely used for 3D printing), which was fed to a 3D printer to craft an exact replica of his brain. Liquid silicone was poured on, creating a hollow mould for the chocolate to form the shape of his cerebral cortex.

The following video features Andy Millns eating his chocolate brain as part of an Instructables competition in the summer.

How To Eat Your Own (Chocolate) Brain! from Inition on Vimeo.

Rob Jeffries, 3D Scanning and Printing Consultant, Inition, tells me that this is a novel way to showcase potential practical uses: "A wide range of companies have utlised our 3D printing technology and services and we are looking forward to showing 3D Printshow visitors how, by combining 3D printing with other technologies, you can open up a world of possibilities. A more serious example of this approach is an application we conceived with our architectural client Zaha Hadid. By creating an AR application and 3D printed model of a Zaha Hadid designed museum, guests will be able to use an iPad to view superimposed layers on a real-world model. This could offer massive benefits for various industries who want to improve collaboration and visualisation of projects during the design stage."

Referring to the more flavoursome project, Jeffries said: "Re-producing our co-founder's brain in chocolate has been a lot of fun, especially as we had plenty of chocolate left over, but it also opens up the potential of other applications by combining MRI data with 3D printing technology."

It is not the first time 3D printing has got chocolaty. Dr Liang Hao, from the University of Exeter, founded Choc Edge Ltd, a company that could strike fear into chocolatiers around the world. The Choc Creator is the world's first commercial 3D chocolate printer that produces simple chocolate designs using CAD software rather than a piping bag and recipe book. Carb lovers at Google don't need to put up with generic food either, as a 3D printer in the Google HQ kitchen can design custom pasta shapes for diners (Fusilli is so dull after all!)

Other cool stuff will be a live fashion show where all clothes, jewellery and hats will have come out of a printer; a full-body scanner will scan and reproduce visitors at the size of a mouse; a wood consisting of individually printed trees where the thickness of the trunk, number of branches and colour of the tips are all based on online survey results, and a digital home where everything, from the lights to the furniture, have been 3D printed.

So while some of these might initially sound gimmicky, from humble beginnings come great things. A chocolate brain can lead to improved medical training tools; a printed tree sculpture can lead to giant structures in space and an Iron Man helmet could lead to more effective life saving bespoke helmets designed for cyclists.

We may have read the recent horror story about 3D printed guns but 3D printing appears to offer the potential to affect so many aspects of our lives for the better.

The 3D Printshow takes place at The Brewery, London EC1 from 19-21 October. For more information visit 3dprintshow.com.

Could the Time Travelling Killers of 'Looper' Actually Exist?

2012-09-28T19:00:00-04:00

The futuristic movie Looper has hit the cinemas nationwide, which sees people sent into the past for assassination by hitmen. But is there a neutron of possibility of such a frightening future? A leading time travel expert suggests the film's plotline may not be that outlandish.

It is 2074 and time travel has been invented but outlawed. Rather than disposing of enemies with a spade and car boot coffin, the mob send their tied up victims back into the past, where contract killers known as Loopers execute the unwilling time travellers in an untraceable way. Financially rewarding but morally draining, it is a cat and mouse lifestyle distinguished by suicide as Loopers are sent back to 'close the loop' on their past selves.

The movie, already being described as one of the best science fiction movies ever, throws up some thought provoking questions; Will people ever be able to weave inbetween the past and the future? Will paradoxes always spoil the time bending party? Could humanity ever be trusted to cope with the moral responsibilities time travel would demand?

Surprisingly, the concept of time travel is anchored in real physics and we speak to time travel expert Dr Ronald Mallett, to discover what plot elements of Looper are plausible. Dr Mallett made the headlines with a breakthrough blueprint for a working time machine using light.

Many in the scientific community believe that backwards time travel is highly unlikely, due to the potential problems of causality. In Looper, Joe (played by Bruce Willis) is sent 30 years into the past, so is this the first suspension of disbelief required on behalf of movie-goers? Maybe not according to Dr Mallett.

"Time travel to the future and past is really possible based on Einstein's theories of relativity. There are experiments that show time travel into the future has already been achieved and there has been recent theoretical work that has proved time travel into the past is possible".

According to the Professor, travel into the future is 'relatively' simple as space and time are intrinsically linked. If we were to travel towards the speed of light on a super-fast rocket, our heart beats and metabolism would slow down. When we returned to earth, decades would have passed on earth during a time that have might only been a year in the spacecraft.

However, in Looper, Joe is sent back in time, a far greater space/time bending feat surely?

Dr Mallett offers a solution for retro-travel.

"Einstein says light can also create gravity. My breakthrough was that if gravity can affect time and light can affect gravity, then light can manipulate time. If you generate a circular pattern of light using a ring laser, the loop pattern of light can cause a twisting of both space and time. Think of a cup of coffee. The coffee is space and your spoon is the circulating light beam. As you stir, the coffee (space) swirls around; space is being 'twisted'. According to Einstein's theory, everything you do to space also happens to time (spacetime) and therefor the light should manipulate time. If the twisting of space becomes strong enough, time will eventually get twisted into a loop.

In Looper, 'Closing the loop' describes an assassination of a Looper's past self, sealing their fate in 30 years (could almost be called delayed suicide) but this terminology also has its roots in physics terminology meaning the creation of a 'closed loop in time' in order to go back into the past.

Most of us could imagine the amazing potential of time travel and the opportunities it would provide but like anything of scientific importance, the danger of it being misused are so great, it is unlikely time travel machines would be made available to the general public. In Looper, time travel is outlawed and the film highlights how manipulation of time could have murderous consequences but Dr Mallett believes once the cat is out of the bag, it would be unstoppable...

"The question of ethics with time travel is a very important one. In Looper, they make a good point that if time travel to the past is created, it might be outlawed in the future. If it is outlawed then the only people who can use it are outlaws. The problem is you can't outlaw physics and some governments would feel there would be an advantage to manipulate time. Real politics will always trump ethics. Even though we personally feel it shouldn't happen, it will happen."

Any time travel movie has to either deal with or ignore those paradoxical consequences thrown up and Looper does both. If we went back into the past and did something to our future self, how would that affect our future self? This cause and effect is explored in one sequence when a Looper is tortured off screen, and then his future self begins to experience severe body disfiguration in real-time. Is such a temporal cause and effect possible? Dr Mallett thinks it could be.

"If you were to travel back you really could alter the past in a way that would make reality change. It's hard for us to get your heads around that you actually could alter everyone's reality by altering the past".

But what about the fact that, as Stephen Hawking once said, the absence of time travel tourists suggests time travel will never be invented? Dr Mallett has an answer for this too.

"One of the things that was nice in Looper was that assassinators were not able to go back to any time beyond a thirty year interval. The reason we don't get visitors from the past is that it is the time machine itself that is creating the affect. When you turn on the device, the device starts twisting space and time right then, so if you leave it on continuously for ten years, then you could send information all the way back ten years but not before it was switched on. Time travel into the past is definitely possible but only after the time machine is created."

So far we have solutions to a few of the fourth dimensional puzzles but what about the grandfather paradox? If Bruce Willis did successfully kill his past self he would not have existed to be sent back in the first place right?

The parallel universe theory, based in reality of quantum mechanics, suggests need to think outside of our own universe...

"The principle of parallel universes was originally invented to apply quantum physics to the entire universe. It was later applied to the problem of time travel paradoxes. Suppose every decision you made (for example, whether you decide to have a hamburger or tuna sandwich for lunch) splits the universe into two. It turns out if you go back you arrive in a past universe. In that parallel universe, Joe's future self could manipulate what happens, it is just he would be in a weird universe in which he had never been born. It is how the Grandfather Paradox could be solved. Time travel to the past is possible but the universe you arrive in is not the universe you came from. This is not pure theory; quantum mechanics shows that an electron can exist in infinite states at the same time. It is not unreasonable to imagine this on a universal level".

Finally, Looper asks, what would you do if you were sitting in front of yourself? Would you give yourself a stock market advantage or suggest inventing a bagless vacuum cleaner? That advantage may all be in your head according to Dr Mallett.

"You would have a sort of schizophrenia. Everything you do would change the future; even if you just bumped into something, you would have altered the future of everyone in that universe. It would be lonely too. Things that were in your head would not be remembered by anyone else. Even if you thought you could give yourself information about the stock market it would not be useful for you because, since you have arrived you have altered things in uncontrollable ways."

Looper can be watched in cinemas nationwide. For a simple guide to time travel, Dr Mallett's book Time Traveller: A Scientist's Personal Mission to Make Time Travel a Reality, is available online.

Why Glasses-Free 3D TV is Closer Than You Think

2012-08-21T10:39:35-04:00

For those in their mid-thirties, cast your mind back to how you imagined the future. Economic turmoil and global warming probably do not spring to mind but what about 3D TV? Did you see your future-self wearing 3D glasses reclining on a smart-chair, awaiting an evening printed meal served by your domestic droid as your 3D TV pumped out ads for trips into space? Maybe, but I am guessing the glasses were not part of that fantasy vision.

Robotic vacuum cleaners maybe scuttling across living room floors; simple foods can be produced by 3D printers and Virgin Galactic are taking bookings for sub-orbital flights but today's 3D TVs are not quite how they were illustrated in the Usborne 'World of the Future' series.

Many modern 3D TVs work on principles established in the 1950's. Each lens of a polarised pair of glasses block light in opposing wavelengths so each eye sees a slightly different left and right image which our brains fuse together to form a 3D scene. Although 3D TVs are now no more expensive than 2D TVs, the 3D revolution is not happening. Why? Some argue there is nothing to watch. Wrong - there is plenty to watch. BSkyB, BT Vision and Virgin Media all offer 3D shows and there is a growing collection of 3D Blu-rays and games available.

The fact is, people hate wearing 3D glasses. Thankfully, the lack of 3D TV sales and poor viewing figures for 3D programmes have caused R&D labs and manufacturers to speed up progress towards the ultimate goal - glasses free 3D TV.

Glasses free 3D tablets and phones are already available but, to the surprise of many, have not been very popular. Nintendo recently announced they will not be marketing 3D in future consoles after research indicated most Nintendo 3DS owners preferred to collect their Mario coins in 2D mode. Limited sales and usage of the LG Optimus 3D smartphone did little to inspire other phone manufacturers to launch 3D handsets. Even the Wikipad - an upcoming Android tablet capable of showing 3D images without glasses, will no longer be promoted as a 3D tablet, perhaps due to the fear of the 3D backlash damaging sales.

Toshiba launched a consumer 55 inch glasses free 3D TV earlier in the year but many complained of a lack of 3D depth and general fuzziness to the image. Sony and Samsung have also presented proof-of-concept models at various trade shows.

The problem with all of the above is the lenticular and parallax barrier technology used to create the glasses free 3D effect (also known as autostereoscopic) demands the viewer to keep his or her head very still. Move outside the tiny viewing zones and the 3D effect is lost and the imaginary egg you were balancing has dropped.

In my opinion, tablets and phones are not the ideal platforms for 3D viewing. Despite living in a world of connected TV, video-on-demand and computers, the ever larger but thinner box in the corner of people's living rooms still dominates. For 3D to have any chance of succeeding in the home, the glasses will need to be consigned to the 1950's where they belong, so people can watch 3D TV as normally as 2D TV. The good news is this reality is coming sooner than you think.

Stream TV Networks are promising to revolutionise the television world with Ultra-D; a system that requires no glasses, can be viewed from any angle and is able to convert 2D programmes. I saw a model in the Walkabout Pub in London's Covent Garden and it was undeniably impressive.

Stream hope to launch a domestic 42 inch glasses free 3D TV in China by the end of the year followed by other markets. Unlike the £7000 TV from Toshiba, Stream aims to make their sets affordable.

Speaking to a glasses free 3D news site, Stream TV Networks CEO Mathu Rajan said "Everybody else in 3D is doing some variation of left and right, trying to trick your brain into seeing 3D when it is not there. That is not the approach we have taken. We have created an algorithm that mimics the way our natural eyes work. We use motion to produce the 3D and that is a radical concept."

MIT's Media Lab have been impressing the media with a system that uses several layers of liquid crystal displays illuminated by a back light to provide a 3D image without the glasses. For a convincing effect, the panels need to refresh at a speed of 360 times per second (hertz). The current highest rate is 240 hertz but once 360 hertz refresh rates are achieved, it will mean glasses free 3D video can be watched using regular LCD technology.

Holographic television is also going to leap out of science fiction books into your living room. Proof of concepts already exist. Holografika's HoloVizio C80 cinema allows viewers to 'look around' objects by using lightfield technology. Unlike two image stereoscopic displays, there is no contradiction between eye focussing and convergence (often causing headaches) and the 3D view can be seen in the entire field of view given.

Japanese broadcaster NHK are concentrating on bringing forward the target date of launching Super Hi-Vision to 2016. However the format, which is sixteen times greater in resolution than HD, will be used to enable 'Integral 3D' - a 3D television format that the broadcaster expects to be in people's homes in about twenty years' time (video).

Keiichi Kubota, NHK's Exective Director-General for Engineering recently said "The current 3D with glasses is not real 3D. If we move our position, we cannot see behind the objects. Integral 3D is real 3D but it will take time. Super Hi-Vision is the final 2D format and after that will come 3D TV but that must be real authentic 3D not pseudo 3D."

The following video is of a Integral 3D prototype.

The BBC are also looking at the potential of holographic television and are involved with a number of projects with various partners including 3D Vivant, a project designing a 3D 'Holoscopic' single aperture camera which will provide real-time capture of 3D scenes. The images will ultimately be displayed on a dedicated 3D display using the principles of holographic geometry for high quality viewing without spectacles.

The potential for stunning and immersive entertainment is obvious but it is more likely that other industries will use glasses free 3D displays before broadcasters. Airlines and casinos are looking into how the technology can possibility make time travel faster and advertisers will take note from a recent study conducted by the University of Tilburg and Dimenco Displays that found glasses free 3D ads achieved 45% greater viewer attention and an 8.5% increase in sales of Red Bull drinks.

Beyond holographic TV then who knows? Virtual reality was part of my future vision of daily life by now but the last time I wore a VR HMD was at a GamesMaster Live show in the 1990's.

High resolution video directed straight into the back of viewer's retinas and augmented reality contact lenses could eventually mean there will be no such thing as television. Why buy a TV when one could be superimposed into your vision? This is seriously futuristic stuff but not fantasy. The Institute of Physics Publishing's Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering reported the development of a contact lens that, when worn, can display a single pixel to the wearer. This is far short of the 576 megapixels required to replicate the resolution of human vision but at the current pace of technology, the real future could be beyond what we ever imagined.

For the latest 3D news please visit 3D Focus

London Olympics - Too Important for 3D?

2012-08-09T11:02:14-04:00

Last Tuesday, official Worldwide Olympic Partner Panasonic announced this summer's Olympics 3D coverage marked 'the end of the beginning' of the effort to drive 3D entertainment into the home.

But judging from the lack of interest, I'm asking, is this 'the beginning of the end' for 3D sports?

The ambition and scale of the London Olympics 3D coverage certainly cannot be criticised. After three years of testing, 33 3D rigs are capturing gymnastics, diving, basketball and athletics to name just a few events, which will culminate in over 300 hours of 3D coverage after Sunday's Closing Ceremony.

The stakes are high. If the biggest sporting event in the world does not sell the immersive virtues of 3D television, what will? The most popular explanation for the slow take-up of 3D television services is the lack of content and live 3D sports has often been touted as the killer 3D app leading BSkyB to install over 1500 LG 3D screens in British pubs. Even 3D champion James Cameron recently admitted he misjudged the progress of 3D TV and that only when glasses free 3D TV becomes mainstream will there be an "avalanche of 3D production".

Like most things in 3D, certain sports look better than others. The danger of the gymnastics is enhanced; judging the distance between runners is easier and the synchronised swimming is more theatrical. The Opening Ceremony in 3D was simply awe-inspiring.

But is this 3D golden opportunity picking up golden medals from viewers?

American bloggers have slated NBC's 3D coverage, complaining about the 24 hour delay, lack of promotion and pop-up commercials for the 3D Blu-ray release of 'The Lorax'.

Although there are no such issues in the UK, viewers of the BBC's 3D highlights coverage have dwindled. Information supplied by overnight ratings provider Attentional reveals that, from July 30th to August 7th, the average audience for the BBC 3D one hour highlights programme, broadcast every night at 23.00, was 10,460. Even more depressing is that the overnight average for the August 5th, 6th and 7th was 4,000 viewers.

The BBC will be studying these figures closely when deciding whether to invest in future 3D sport broadcasts.

Paul Gray, Director TV Electronics & Europe TV Research at Display Search said there are around 1.5 million 3D TVs in the UK today including sets sold without glasses.

So why are the figures so low? After all, Twitter is packed with positive adjectives such as 'wow', 'awesome' and even 'Olympics is what 3D TVs were made for!'

In short; after the initial wow factor, people do not watch the Olympics to be in awe of the visuals; they are rooting for their country's team players to achieve patriotic victory.

After a few minutes, the short-comings of existing 3D technology become tiring due to the dark 'one size fits all' glasses, flare aberrations from stadium lights and fuzzy graphics. The bright crisp HD images of 2D suddenly become very appealing.

There is no doubt that the OBS and partners are doing an excellent job. In fact, it is the best example of live 3D sports I have ever seen and believe me, I have watched lots for 3D Focus. But they are fighting an uphill battle that even Bradley Wiggins would struggle with. This is because 3D TVs have been introduced to the home prematurely.

Rather than think of the London Olympics as being an ideal showcase for 3D, I would argue it is too important an event to be showcased in 3D. It is incompatible with the way people want to consume most sports, especially as major of the Olympics. After week one of the coverage, the BBC reported 1.5m people had downloaded the BBC Olympics smartphone app and the BBC Sport website had seen 29m requests for its Olympics interactive video streams. People are more interested in the medal tally and watching the events to see who is going to win - not how deep the water looks in the Aquatics Centre.

People do like 3D, especially for event programming, but existing 3D TV technology means these moments are short lived, as proven by my own 100% un-scientific experiment/party during the Opening Ceremony.

My guests where initially in awe of the bicycle riding doves but soon ordered me to switch back to flat-vision, complaining that the 3D was distracting. I could not blame them. Whilst the 3D did add a greater sense of scale to the stadium (I indulged myself and watched the entire event in 3D the next morning, albeit with a slightly fuzzy head), the risk of watching the only time London will host an opening ceremony with 50% picture detail and restrictive TV viewing angles was too great (a growing mountain of empty wine bottles and Pringles packets obscured the prime 3D viewing zone).

While TV manufacturers say we need more content, perhaps we need to re-focus on the technology. Some argue that current 3D is not 'true 3D' rather 'pseudo 3D'. That is, the viewer can't look around objects. Fortunately, there are companies working on the next generation of 3D displays that do away with the glasses.

The BBC and NHK are currently treating audiences to Super Hi-Vision screenings of London Olympics highlights in the format described as 'the future of television'. With a resolution 16 times that of current HD, SHV is often credited for being 'more impressive than 3D' although NHK will use the technology to offer 'Integral 3D' - a full glasses free 3D format, in approximately 20 years.

So will the London Olympics 3D coverage mark the end of this wave of 3D? High profile 3D films such as 'The Hobbit' and 'The Great Gatsby' are likely to prevent 3D entertainment disappearing for a fourth time (much to the disappointment of some) and glasses based 3D TVs are improving all the time, with full HD passive 3D TVs expected soon.

During this year's Wimbledon Tennis Championships 3D live broadcast, BBC Sport Executive Producer Paul Davies said "We know 3D per'se has its attraction. I think many viewers would have been to a 3D film in the cinema and fully appreciated the impact and immersive experience that 3D offers. From a sporting perspective, I think the jury is still out."

There can be no doubt that 3D sports coverage has improved immensely over the past couple of years. It has been wonderful to see new televised sports in 3D for the first time such as basketball, javelin and badminton. Credit should be given to all the people working behind-the-scenes on such a ground-breaking project.

But no matter how good the coverage is, the London Olympics won't be 3D TV's Avatar moment. Whilst Twitter users sing the praises of the coverage, ask them to pay extra for it and you will find a less than enthusiast response. For many people, this will be the first time they have watched 3D in the home and in that sense, it does echo the Avatar effect. James Cameron's mega-hit was the first time many people had seen a 3D film and its third dimension was a key part of the marketing strategy. After the initial interest, habits are hard to break and 3D films are now suffering all time low box office receipts from the 3D premium. The same will happen post Olympics and interest for 3D sports will remain low until 3D TV technology fits into people's lifestyles and can offer a better experience than HD 2D.

Panasonic put up all of the money and gear for the 3D Olympics feed, and the OBS offered it to cable and satellite operators in the US for free. This level of subsidy can not go on forever.

While the BBC and BSkyB can afford to experiment with 3D sports without an immediate return (whether that is value for license fee payers or increased subscriptions) other commercial platforms won't invest in the expensive equipment if 3D does not attract advertisers. The ratings performance of the London Olympics won't be encouraging broadcasters to take a gamble any time soon.

After reading this you might be surprised to hear that I believe 3D TV has a bright future. Although this generation of 3D TV has its limitations, more visual based, extreme and dare I say gimmicky content can keep it alive until the technology can match expectations. 3D sports will need to come later.