skip to main content
10.1145/3290605.3300242acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

LightBee: A Self-Levitating Light Field Display for Hologrammatic Telepresence

Published:02 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

LightBee is a novel "hologrammatic" telepresence system featuring a self-levitating light field display. It consists of a drone that flies a projection of a remote user's head through 3D space. The movements of the drone are controlled by the remote user's head movements, offering unique support for non-verbal cues, especially physical proxemics. The light field display is created by a retro-reflective sheet that is mounted on the cylindrical quadcopter. 45 smart projectors, one per 1.3 degrees, are mounted in a ring, each projecting a video stream rendered from a unique perspective onto the retroreflector. This creates a light field that naturally provides motion parallax and stereoscopy without requiring any headset nor stereo glasses. LightBee allows multiple local users to experience their own unique and correct perspective of the remote user's head. The system is currently one-directional: 2 small cameras mounted on the drone allow the remote user to observe the local scene.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

paper012.mov

mov

57.6 MB

paper012.mp4

mp4

380.9 MB

References

  1. Sigurdur O. Adalgeirsson and Cynthia Breazeal. 2010. MeBot: a robotic platform for socially embodied presence. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (HRI '10). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 15--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Michael Argyle and Janet Dean. 1965. Eye-Contact, Distance and Affiliation. Sociometry 28, 3: 289.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Marius Braun, Ulrich Leiner, and Detlef Ruschin. 2011. Evaluating motion and binocular parallax as depth cues for autostereoscopic displays. of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. William A. S. Buxton, Abigail J. Sellen, and Michael C. Sheasby. 1997. Interfaces for multiparty videoconferences. Video-mediated.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Mina Choi, Rachel Kornfield, Leila Takayama, and Bilge Mutlu. 2017. Movement Matters: Effects of Motion and Mimicry on Perception of Similarity and Closeness in Robot-Mediated Communication. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 325--335. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Docomo Drone Project. Retrieved September 14, 2017 from https://phys.org/news/2017-04-world-sphericaldrone.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Neil A. Dodgson. 2004. Variation and extrema of human interpupillary distance. Electronic imaging 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Double 2. Retrieved September 14, 2017 from https://www.doublerobotics.com/double2.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Antonio Gomes, Calvin Rubens, Sean Braley, and Roel Vertegaal. 2016. BitDrones: Towards Using 3D Nanocopter Displays As Interactive Self-Levitating Programmable Matter. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 770--780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Rita Gorawara-Bhat, Mary Ann Cook, and Greg A. Sachs. 2007. Nonverbal communication in doctorelderly patient transactions (NDEPT): Development of a tool. Patient Education and Counseling 66, 2: 223-- 234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Dan Gotsch, Xujing Zhang, Tim Merritt, and Roel Vertegaal. 2018. TeleHuman2: A Cylindrical Light Field Teleconferencing System for Life-size 3D Human Telepresence. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Maureen Graham and Brian Rogers. 1982. Simultaneous and Successive Contrast Effects in the Perception of Depth from Motion-Parallax and Stereoscopic Information. Perception 11, 3: 247--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Edward Hall. 1969. The Hidden Dimension?: man's use of space in public and in private.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Keita Higuchi and Jun Rekimoto. 2013. Flying head: a head motion synchronization mechanism for unmanned aerial vehicle control. In CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2029--2038. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. iRobot. Retrieved September 14, 2017 from http://www.irobot.com/filelibrary/pdfs/hrd/ava/AvaBrochure-May2--2011.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Frederic E. Ives. 1903. Parallax stereogram and process of making same.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Andrew Jones, Koki Nagano, Jing Liu, Jay Busch, Xueming Yu, Mark Bolas, Paul Debevec. 2014. Interpolating vertical parallax for an autostereoscopic three-dimensional projector array. Journal of Electronic Imaging.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Andrew Jones, Magnus Lang, Graham Fyffe, Xueming Yu, Jay Busch, Ian McDowall, Mark Bolas, and Paul Debevec. 2009. Achieving eye contact in a one-tomany 3D video teleconferencing system. ACM Transactions on Graphics 28, 212: 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Handry Khoswanto, Petrus Santoso, and Resmana Lim. 2016. Odometry Algorithm with Obstacle Avoidance on Mobile Robot Navigation. In Proceedings of Second International Conference on Electrical Systems, Technology and Information 2015 (ICESTI 2015), pp. 155--161. Springer, Singapore.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Kibum Kim, John Bolton, Audrey Girouard, Jeremy Cooperstock, and Roel Vertegaal. 2012. TeleHuman. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '12, 2531.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Min Kyung Lee and Leila Takayama. 2011. "Now, i have a body": uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 33--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Peter Lincoln, Greg Welch, Andrew Nashel, Adrian Ilie, Andrei State, and Henry Fuchs. 2009. Animatronic Shader Lamps Avatars. In Proceedings of the 2009 8th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR '09). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 27--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Gabriel Lippmann. 1908. Epreuves reversibles. Photographies integrals. Comptes-Rendus Academie des Sciences 146: 446--451Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Akira Matsuda, Takashi Miyaki, and Jun Rekimoto. 2017. ScalableBody: a telepresence robot that supports face position matching using a vertical actuator. In Proceedings of the 8th Augmented Human International Conference (AH '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA,, Article 13, 9 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Rachel McDonnell, Sophie Jörg, Joanna McHugh, Fiona N. Newell, and Carol O'Sullivan. 2009. Investigating the role of body shape on the perception of emotion. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 6, 3: 1--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Masahiro Mori. 1970. The uncanny valley. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine. 19 (2): 98--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Koki Nagano, Andrew Jones, Jing Liu, et al. 2013. An autostereoscopic projector array optimized for 3D facial display. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2013 Emerging Technologies on - SIGGRAPH '13, 1--1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Carman Neustaedter, Gina Venolia, Jason Procyk, and Daniel Hawkins. 2016. To Beam or Not to Beam: A Study of Remote Telepresence Attendance at an Academic Conference. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 418--431. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. David Nguyen and John Canny. 2005. MultiView: spatially faithful group video conferencing. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 799--808. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Ken-Ichi Okada, Fumihiko Maeda, Yusuke Ichikawaa, and Yutaka Matsushita. 1994. Multiparty videoconferencing at virtual social distance: MAJIC design. CSCW '94: Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work: 385--393. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Sergio Orts-Escolano, Christoph Rhemann, Sean Fanello, Wayne Chang, Adarsh Kowdle, Yury Degtyarev, David Kim, Philip L. Davidson, Sameh Khamis, Mingsong Dou, Vladimir Tankovich, Charles Loop, Qin Cai, Philip A. Chou, Sarah Mennicken, Julien Valentin, Vivek Pradeep, Shenlong Wang, Sing Bing Kang, Pushmeet Kohli, Yuliya Lutchyn, Cem Keskin, and Shahram Izadi. 2016. Holoportation: Virtual 3D Teleportation in Real-time. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology: 741--754. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Ye Pan and Anthony Steed. 2014. A gaze-preserving situated multiview telepresence system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2173--2176. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Eric Paulos and John Canny. 1998. PRoP: Personal Roving Presence. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Los Angeles, CA, 296--303 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Ekaterina Peshkova, Martin Hitz, and Bonifaz Kaufmann. 2017. Natural Interaction Techniques for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System. IEEE Pervasive Computing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Fábio Policarpo, Manuel M. Oliveira, and João L. D. Comba. 2005. Real-time Relief Mapping on Arbitrary Polygonal Surfaces. In Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games, 155--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Irene Rae, Bilge Mutlu, and Leila Takayama. 2014. Bodies in motion: mobility, presence, and task awareness in telepresence. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 21532162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Irene Rae, Leila Takayama, and Bilge Mutlu. The influence of height in robot-mediated communication. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, pp. 1--8. IEEE Press, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Abigail Sellen, Bill Buxton, and John Arnott. 1992. Using spatial cues to improve videoconferencing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '92), Penny Bauersfeld, John Bennett, and Gene Lynch (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 651--652. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. John Short, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie. 1976. The social psychology of telecommunications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Mohammed Tahri Sqalli, Kyoichi Tatsuno, Koichi Kurabe, Hiroto Ando, Hideharu Obitsu, Ryoma Itakura, Takatoshi Aoto, and Katsumi Yoshino. 2016. Improvement of a tele-presence robot autonomous navigation Using SLAM algorithm. In MicroNanoMechatronics and Human Science (MHS), 2016 International Symposium on, pp. 1--7. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Susumu Tachi, Kouichi Watanabe, Keisuke Takeshita, Kouta Minamizawa, Takumi Yoshida, and Katsunari Sato. 2011. Mutual telexistence surrogate system: Telesar4-telexistence in real environments using autostereoscopic immersive display. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pp. 157--162. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Leila Takayama,Eitan Marder-Eppstein, Helen Harris, and Jenay M. Beer. 2011. Assisted driving of a mobile remote presence system: System desiagn and controlled user evaluation. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 1883--1889. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. John C. Tang and Scott Minneman. 1991. VideoWhiteboard: Video Shadows to Support Remote Collaboration. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems Reaching through technology - CHI '91: 315--322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. H Tobita, S Maruyama, and T Kuzi. 2011. Floating avatar: telepresence system using blimps for communication and entertainment. CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Roel Vertegaal and Yaping Ding. 2002. Explaining effects of eye gaze on mediated group conversations: In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW '02, 41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Roel Vertegaal, Ivo Weevers, Changuk Sohn, and Chris Cheung. 2003. GAZE-2: conveying eye contact in group video conferencing using eye-controlled camera direction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 521--528. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    May 2019
    9077 pages
    ISBN:9781450359702
    DOI:10.1145/3290605

    Copyright © 2019 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 2 May 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    CHI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate703of2,958submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format