Retrospective field entries / 100 entries
Display mechanisms, volumetric and light-field systems, stage effects, headsets, patents and the older records behind holograms and spatial display, each stating what you see, how it works and what it is not.
Historical event dates and source dates are separate from the preparation date of this local edition. Every entry is a retrospective draft prepared 16 September 2026; none was published on its historical date.
100 entries
Henry Dircks proposed the illusion and John Henry Pepper staged it at London's Royal Polytechnic in 1862 using angled glass, not optical interference.
The 1908 physics Nobel credits Gabriel Lippmann for interference color photography; a separate paper that year proposed lens-array integral photography.
Nature's 1948 letter set out the electron-microscope idea behind holography, without the laser needed to make it practical.
Theodore Maiman's ruby laser supplied the coherent light later holography needed; his own paper describes a laser, not an imaging technique.
Their JOSA paper solved Gabor's twin-image problem with an off-axis reference beam, but reconstruction still required laser illumination.
Leith and Upatnieks' June 1965 article explained laser holography to a general readership, after their own 1962-63 technical papers.
Working independently in the USSR, Yuri Denisyuk proposed a white-light-viewable hologram years before a laser existed to fully demonstrate it.
Stephen Benton's Polaroid-assigned patent removed vertical parallax, letting a hologram reconstruct under an ordinary incoherent light source.
The Nobel committee credited Gabor's holographic method in 1971, twenty-three years after his 1948 paper and after later laser-era demonstrations.
The Museum of Holography exhibited holography from the mid-1970s until 1992, when its archive and collection passed to the MIT Museum.
The company's own specifications describe a 58-degree, 45-to-100-view light-field panel, not an interference hologram.
Light Field Lab's own 2021 announcement describes an emissive, modular panel platform, still pre-shipment at launch.
Voxon's own technical post describes a persistence-of-vision volumetric display, distinct from Pepper's ghost and headset 3D.
The ELF-SR1's own product page describes eye-tracked, lenticular stereoscopy for one viewer, never using the word hologram.
Debevec's 2000 paper describes a lighting-and-camera rig for later rendering, not a viewer-facing hologram or display.
Google's own 2018 post describes a 16-camera rig sweeping a 70cm sphere to feed a headset-only VR viewer, not a hologram.
Microsoft's own studio FAQ describes a 106-camera volumetric video pipeline that requires a headset or screen to view.
Intel's own pages describe a 30-plus camera array feeding a volumetric pipeline whose output is ordinary 2D broadcast video.
The studio's own specs page describes point-cloud-to-mesh volumetric capture that still needs a headset or screen to view.
8i's own 2016 materials describe multi-camera volumetric video for headset and phone playback, marketed under a hologram-derived name.
HYPERVSN's own pages describe a rotating LED array using persistence of vision, not an interference-recorded hologram.
Archived company pages and a 2004 award release describe Perspecta's spinning-screen mechanism behind its own hologram-like label.
The company's own technology page separates light field slicing from volumetric displays and states no regulatory clearance.
Archived pages describe a rear-projected stack of 10 to 20 liquid-crystal layers, glasses-free but limited to fixed depth planes.
Google's own posts describe a light-field booth using depth cameras and compression, explicitly avoiding the word hologram.
Nature Communications describes a plasmonic nanorod metasurface reconstructing a 3D image, with no efficiency figure in the abstract.
Doc 9303 requires a hologram or equivalent optically variable feature on travel documents, defined by function, not by brand.
Archived technical PDFs and a patent record describe InPhase's Tapestry photopolymer storage, before the company stopped operating.
An archived DARPA program page names a holographic data-storage effort aimed at defense image search, not consumer holograms.
Lohmann and Paris showed a plotted, photographically reduced pattern could reconstruct an image like an ordinary hologram.
The granted 1970 patent for their wavefront-reconstruction method was assigned to Battelle Development Corporation, per its own cover text.
The 2012 SIGGRAPH paper frames layered, backlit LCDs as a tensor problem, tested on a lab prototype, not a shipped screen.
Maimone, Georgiou and Kollin's paper reports eyeglasses-like optics tested across several prototypes, not one finished device.
Stanford's camera-in-the-loop training reports specific image-quality gains on one prototype near-eye display.
The Society for Information Display's own pages describe a broad annual trade event and magazine, not a single technology.
A patent-office search under Samsung's name returns dozens of separate filings on holographic-display components, not a single product claim.
The Nature Nanotechnology paper's own abstract ties that figure to one fabricated sample at 825 nanometres, across a stated bandwidth.
A granted patent names the waveguide energy-relay concept behind SolidLight, but the company's marketing page is a separate document.
The group's own site dates its activity to 1989-2020 and lists decades of distinct holographic-video mechanisms, not one ongoing project.
Microsoft's own launch materials show HoloLens images live inside a waveguide visor, seen only by the wearer.
Microsoft's 2019 materials describe a wider, brighter waveguide display that only the wearer can see.
Magic Leap One's own 2018 marketing describes synthetic lightfields visible only through its tethered goggles.
Magic Leap's own 2022 materials position Magic Leap 2 for health, manufacturing and defense customers, not consumers.
Google's 2013 help pages describe Glass Explorer Edition's display as a small prism-like cube, never a hologram.
Meta's own 2024 materials describe Orion as an unreleased research prototype with a 70-degree field of view.
Apple's own materials describe Vision Pro as camera passthrough on micro-OLED panels, avoiding the word hologram.
Snap's 2024 materials describe developer-only Spectacles with named waveguide displays and a 30-minute battery.
Envisics and Panasonic's own materials describe a laser holographic head-up display, now under UK administration.
Xreal's own materials name a branded X Prism combiner and Micro-OLED display, private to one wearer.
Vuzix's own pages describe waveguide see-through optics for Blade and a separate OLED microdisplay for M400.
RealWear's own materials describe a monocular boom-mounted LCD read by choice, not a binocular AR overlay.
Varjo's own materials describe video pass-through mixed reality with a dual-panel Bionic Display, aimed at professional users.
Google's December 2024 post announced a software platform alongside Project Moohan, a headset due only 'next year.'
CREAL's own materials describe a light-field microdisplay meant to fix AR focus conflicts, not a shipping consumer headset.
Dispelix's own explainer distinguishes diffraction-grating waveguides from mirror-facet designs used elsewhere in AR optics.
Patents connected to Musion describe an angled, tensioned foil screen reflecting a projected image, not an interference hologram.
Samsung's own newsroom describes a see-through, self-emissive MicroLED panel unveiled ahead of CES 2024, never calling it a hologram.
OVD Kinegram's own technical pages describe a diffraction-based ID document feature the company distinguishes from security holograms.
EOTech's own materials describe a laser-illuminated, recorded holographic reticle, distinct by mechanism from LED red-dot sights.
A patent record and a foil maker's own pages show mass security holograms are embossed from one master, not recorded per unit.
MIT Museum's own glossary and a Polaroid-era patent explain why these holograms shift colour, not view, as you move up and down.
Magic Leap's own patents describe the mechanism: LEDs timed to a rotating blade's angle, not a recorded interference pattern.
The company's own patent names the Pepper's Ghost Illusion behind its display cases, a mechanism its marketing rarely named.
Christie and Barco's own pages describe warping and blending software that fits video to a building or object's true shape.
viZoo's own Cheoptics360 specification sheets describe a projected pyramid display, not a free-space or volumetric image.
A Nature paper from University of Sussex describes a levitated particle painting a visible, audible, and touchable image.
Luminit's own technical pages describe a recorded microstructure that controls screen brightness and viewing angle.
Dimenco's own archived pages describe the lenticular lens behind Philips' WOWvx sets, a mechanism unrelated to holography.
Musion and AV Concepts' own materials describe a rear-projected illusion built by Digital Domain, not an interference hologram.
MTV's own report and Musion's related case study describe a rear-projected animation, not a captured performer or optical hologram.
The show's FAQ and ILM's project page describe motion-captured digital avatars on fixed screens in a purpose-built arena.
The producing studio's own timeline and press page describe animation and visual effects, not an optical hologram, for the Billboard show.
The producer's own site shows the touring plan shifted from UK theatre dates to a Las Vegas residency after the initial announcement.
The company's 2018 production page describes digital and laser projection backing a remastered set, touring North America that year.
Trade press coverage quotes touring musicians describing Eyellusion's Ronnie James Dio hologram as a built technical effect.
The festival's own pages describe projection-mapped light art on the Opera House sails and city landmarks, not free-space imagery.
USC Shoah Foundation's own materials describe filmed survivor answers on a screen, avoiding the hologram label some coverage uses.
Trade press reporting describes a transparent-screen projection technique later replaced by LED screens for the same touring show.
The Hollywood venue stages Pepper's-ghost-family video projections under an exclusive license, as the company's own site and press materials describe.
Ars Electronica's own description names dual 50-million-pixel projections and laser tracking, not a hologram or headset display.
teamLab's own site names projectors, sensors and networked lighting behind Borderless, and gives the museum's relocation and attendance record.
Sphere Entertainment's own releases describe a 1.2-million-puck LED exterior and a 16K-resolution interior screen, both direct-view LED.
The producers' own site names cubic feet of projection and frame counts, describing synchronized video projectors, not a holographic display.
Press coverage documents the estate's prior objection to a hologram and shows the aired segment used a projected screen image instead.
RED's own marketing called the display holographic, but the display's maker describes a diffractive light-field backlight with nanostructures.
The museum's own retrospective describes a glass pyramid and nineteenth-century Pepper's Ghost stagecraft, not free-space holography, behind the 2006 finale.
CNN's own report says conventional cameras and chroma key produced the effect, and states plainly that a hologram uses coherent light instead.
Court records and the company's own statements show multiple 2014 suits over Pepper's-Ghost-style projection patents, later resolved by settlement.
HYPERVSN's own product pages describe a rotating LED display using persistence of vision, not free-space interference holography.
Maldacena's 1997 paper and its predecessors name an information idea in gravity unrelated to the optical interference behind display holograms.
ILM's own project page and VFX supervisor John Knoll describe Tarkin's return in Rogue One as photoreal computer graphics, not a hologram.
Microsoft's own documentation describes HoloLens holograms as a see-through, waveguide-delivered image only the wearer can see.
Two CES Innovation Award listings show the Consumer Technology Association passing along vendor hologram claims without describing the mechanism.
Neon's own CES 2020 launch materials call its 'artificial humans' computationally created virtual beings, with no mention of holographic display.
Proto Inc.'s own FAQ and product pages call their displays real holograms while withholding any description of the optical mechanism.
Texas's probate statute shows 'holographic' in law means entirely handwritten, an unrelated use of the word from optical holography.
Archived product pages show a Pepper's-ghost-style case that mixes video with a real object, not a free-space volumetric image.
RealView Imaging's own pages and its 2021 FDA clearance describe a touchable hologram built from a patient's own scan data.
Samsung's own 3D TV explainer describes active-shutter glasses and stereoscopic image pairs, a mechanism unrelated to any holographic display.
Intel's product and press pages describe True View as camera-based volumetric video replays on ordinary screens, never as a hologram.
Try another category or clear your search.
