That's the price tag for the large prototype, built with off-the-shelf components. When 8K panels get to be cheap, something like this is going to be awesome!
They need to put the screens exactly edge-to-edge, with the leftmost column of pixels on one being as close to rightmost column of pixels on another, as the columns and lines of pixels within one screen would be. Get rid of that black grid. If this is unfeasible with lcd or plasma or laser screens (do they physically need a border that isn't screen area? I'm not up on how the tech in all these screens works exactly, so I defer to others here) then it could be done by simply having the wall be a large back-projection screen, with a matrix of high def projectors a few feet behind it precisely aligned so that their projections line up with sub-pixel level accuracy.
That'll take time, but it'll happen. Somebody's about to come out with a panel that's got a bezel which is only a few mm thick, if you can put that on something like a 70" panel, it'll be almost impossible to notice them. Additionally, MIT, or one of the big tech universities, is developing a spray-on LCD panel, so you'll be able to cover an entire wall with no seams or bezels. As I said in the title, this is the 1.0 version, done with off-the-shelf hardware. It enables people to figure out how it can be done, which is the hard part. Now that they've got that out of the way, they can look at improving it, as well as lowering the cost.
I don't get it. It's a room full of televisions. It's not virtual reality, it's just a room full of televisions hooked up to make one big, blocky, divided screen.
Someone posted this one a few days ago on another forum I frequent, I think it's more impressive and will hopefully check it out next time I'm in Brisbane.
Having experienced VR, I can tell you that this is better, since you're not stuck with stupid goggles strapped to your head. It'll also be much more impressive in person, than what you can see in the photo. After a while, your eyes will ignore the bezels and you'll hardly see them. Plus, when 8K displays show up, the images will appear as real as if the objects in them were in the room with you. Saying "It's a room full of televisions" is sort of like saying "IMAX is just a bigger movie screen." It's true, but the experience of seeing a movie on IMAX is different than just a bigger screen.
But it is. Very few movies look more impressive on IMAX and hardly any of them feel more immersive. I'd have to see this room for myself, but to me it sounds like a waste of $2 million.
Most movies aren't shot for IMAX, they're merely stretched for IMAX, and there's a big difference. Not only does this mean that the image quality isn't going to be as good, but there's lots of things that directors can do when they're shooting with IMAX cameras that they can't do with standard movie cameras. It'll be interesting to see the Hobbit on IMAX, since not only are they shooting certain scenes with IMAX cameras, but they're also shooting the film at 48 frames per second, which should give a more immersive effect than anything we've seen to date.
Having the interactivity makes this more than just one big TV screen. That's honestly a more impressive feature. Also, that first image really looks like it's at an aquarium.
