The Bitfall aquadisplay

Sure, even though it's been around a while and is still only in "simulation" / design mockup status as yet, would you just look at the Bitfall? Come on, how amazing could this thing be in your foyer? Granted, it only does stills or vertical panoramas because of the downward motion direction of the "screen," but don't act like you don't want it in all its 128 nozzle glory, because we know ya do.

[AJ @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

How much does everybody think something like this would cost? This is sweet, I want one!

[Achille @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Actually there is a working model and video is here:
http://sphericalrobots.universalsuperjet.de/bitfall/bitfall_webdings.MOV
http://sphericalrobots.universalsuperjet.de/bitfall/bitfall_klein2.mov

[ebmorse @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Yeah, this thing is pretty nice. But I hate that picture, it is so misleading. In order for it to do that image, the drops would have to change configuration in midair. Notice in the video that this is really a binary video display; you either have drops or you don't. None of that nice halftoning in the still image.

[Barry @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

I'd seriously sell my mom for one of these.

Sorry, mom.

[Lesbian Ham @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Lol @ Barry :)

ebmorse - Yeah, I gues that's why it's called Bitfall. Bit's are just ones and zeros right? I think im right...

Anyway, why get Bitfall, when you can get BitTorrent! I mean, what would you rather have, a few falling bits, or a whole Torrent of them? :D

[Michael @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Is the video the same thing? It looks rather...boring...compared to the picture above. If I could real photos I'd totally want one. I think it'd have to use light to form the images on the water instead of just the water by itself.

[Google Nazi @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

I could see stores using it but is it hollographic or is it a screen? wtf is it!?

[DarkFader @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

drats! my display is out of sync again!

[Justin Nolan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Question is... why is J Allard on it? ;)

[Eric @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

It uses water droplets.. (128 nozzles)

[Connor @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

ebmorse:

That effect is done the same way that a screen printer does a gradient, or how a jpeg with a gradient looks when converted to a bitmap. It's just a matter of bigger spaces.

[falling whale number 42 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

ebmorse,

Actually, using a drawing technique known as Stippling, binary colors can be used to create the appearance of gradation, it all depends on the resolution of the output device. If the DPI (Drops Per Inch) is high enough, the image above is possible. Of course, the if the drops are too fine, they will just form larger droplets. The definition of stippling can be found at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stippling. A great example of the art form can be found at Noli Novak's site: http://www.nolinovak.com, recently brought to my attention by thedesginblog (yes, another one of those Weblogs Network blogs).

[matt t @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

psh

im gonna wait for the high def version

[Nada @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Why not just have uniform dots and project onto them... Lots more options, and it would be a lot easier..

[jacob lawson @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

As everyone's said, the halftoning is just a matter of droplet size (resolution?) so the picture above IS possible BUT it would have to be falling... none of the static image crap. I guess it is named correctly (Bitfall) but if they had magic and could make a static version (Bit Sit?) I'd sell my uncle for one.

[ebmorse @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

yes, stippling, sure. however. (not that i really want to get into this) if you look at the photo, and trace the drops upwards in any part of the image, you will see that the spaces get larger/smaller or the drops get larger/smaller as they fall. All's i'm saying is I don't think that that's really possible. see, how would the drops in the forehead be all together-like, then when they get to where the eye's supposed to be, magically space themselves out? See my point?

[asher @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

a way to add to this would be by using a strobe or laser in conjuction. Highlighting at specific moments in the fall. That would be cool. Also, one could use a front mounted laser to trace into the droplets and add depth that way as well.

[kyndal @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

ebmorse:
they dont space them selve or change afterwards, they are just "dropped" with different time intervals.
or considure the diference sequence og zeros ???
maby diferent sizes etc.

dont se any problem in generating this "image".
it wil however hit the floor and a new one will need to be made. as has been said before.
this will only work with a continius movie.

[kyndal @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

dont think strobe will work.
the strobe need to flash once everytime the
picture is "same place"
but the faling of the water is relatively slow
compared to the speed needed to make something appere still with strobes??

[falling whale number 42 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

ebmorse,

You are right, it is not worth getting into because I think you are correct in thinking the image above is more then a bit optimistic in showing the capability of this device. I will believe it when I see it.

But...

This is not a static image, it is a falling image, so controlling spacing between drops in not only possible, it is in fact the way the this device draws the image.

As for the drops being smaller/larger, that would technically be possible, but would add a lot of complexity.

The image is not clear enough to really see what is going on. To me, that is another indication that this thing will not fly, at least not as well as the image makes it out.

But you can still look at the pretty art: http://www.nolinovak.com . The coma got added to the link in my last post, so it does not, this one does though.

[falling whale number 42 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

The strobe will probably not work if you are trying to make it look like a movie, but it could still be a cool effect.

But how long will it take for some 'artist' to think it a good idea to put blood in it instead of water and use it to 'draw' a crucifix in a bottle of urine?

[ebmorse @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

errgh, hmm. ok. you are all right, i am all wrong. this is why i never post ;). I was really reading the image as a persistant image, not a falling image. As a falling image: completely doable. I was just thinking too much in the video mode. Silly me. Never will i post again...

[Adam @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Here is the problem, you notice it in the video. The artist seems to forget that gravity is not a constant speed. The water moves faster and faster as it falls, and stretches the picture.

A more interesting thing would be a big sheet of water with a projector projecting onto it... now that would impress me.

[Sheniferous @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

dude. stack about 10 of these and get a 3D water display.

awesome.

[Russ @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

I want one of these as a shower, that displays my SMS messages & emails as they arrive..

[Tuomo Manninen @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Is this supposed to be news ? The fogscreen's been there for, like, ten years ( http://www.fogscreen.com/ )

[Benn @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Tuomo Manninen, this is nothing like fogscreen at all apart from the fact they both use water.

[Shilla @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Just checked out the video. I was distinctly underwhelmed. If a store wants to do a display, surely a bank of full-colour plasma screens will be better?

Also underwhelmed by the fact I was forced to install iTunes just to get Quicktime.

[Jealousy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

This thing was real and working at DaimlerChrysler stend in Geneva (or Detroit, don`t remember) autoshow earlier this year. It "printed" different patterns along with "Jeep" and other names.

[MrMiles @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

At the end of the day, it's just a nice little techno-art installation. All it does is let water droplets fall in a pattern. The illustrated image may be possible, but it would be falling downwards, not statically hovering in the air. There's no projection or anything, it's just drops of water falling through the air.

Still, I think it looks nice. And I agree with #24, make a 2-D grid of these and you'd be able to drop 3-D water droplet shapes. Get some sin-wave oscillations in there and you've got some nice twirly water snakes things.

[Sean @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

"Hey! Spring of Trivia" does something similar on their show. It's a giant tank of water with airjets at the bottom. The bubbles spell out words etc.

I was actually looking at building one.

[Anonymous Coward @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Jeep had one of these (though not quite as high-res) on their booth at the Frankfurt motorshow a couple of years ago. Very cool, showing jeep logos and (vertical) scrolltext whilst making quite a bit of noise - they had a vertical fall of something like 20 feet.

[jcblack @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Yep, I saw something like this at the Jeep booth in Detroit the year the unveiled the Jeep Liberty... looks like it was 2002.

[Chip Thomas @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

I had one of these. The technicians could never get the V-hold adjusted quite right.

[Paul @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

#28 - Also underwhelmed by the fact I was forced to install iTunes just to get Quicktime.

WinQuickTime 6.5 with iTunes for Win 2000/XP
Or
WinQuickTime 6.5 for Win 98/ME

Apple.com
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html

[justin @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

well, if it only does downward changing, then i'll tint the water green and make it do the matrix, that'll own

[Lohgan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

Yes, strobe light. Overcome gravity acceleration and slow frame rate by firing the water at high pressure. I love the idea of stacking these things a few deep and doing 3D. Increase contrast by adding a second set of nossles that inject varrying amounts of dye into each droplet.

Way sweet.

[Brad Kent @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

MrMiles:
There's some office building in Europe (sorry can't get more specific) that has a huge multi-story atrium. They have a 3d version of this. (Ie 128x128 falling droplets).
I think I saw it on the discrovery channel about Skyscrapers or somesuch

[jholdaway @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

The awesome trivia show "Hey! Spring of Trivia" has the exact opposite technology. They have rising pixels of air in a medium of water, rather than falling pixels of water in a medium of air. Bubble pictures :)

[IK @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

1. make it 600 nozzles.

2. pressurize the water so that it takes 1/30th of a second for a drop to get from the top to the bottom.

this makes the display run at 30fps, enough for TV.

[Alan Parekh @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

This is very cool. I would love to have one!

[Todd S @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

A falling drop of water has a terminal velocity that is dependent on its size. Larger drops fall faster than smaller ones. But drops of uniform size will all fall at the same rate. If the nozzles eject the drops already AT that rate, there will be no gravitational stretching of the image.

This is just an oversized inkjet printhead. But it's very cool. Alas, I haven't seen the videos yet. Only the stills. The vids are offline due to heavy demand.

[Tony @ Dec 19th 2005 1:05AM]

The water displays seen at various auto and trade shows are produced by this company:

www.pevnickdesign.com

The effect is similar, but they do produce a three dimensional display.

If anyone has more info on the large atrium project from Discovery Channel mentioned in Brad Kent's post above, I'd love to hear it.