ITE Trans. on MTA Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.

43-48 (2023) Copyright © 2023 by ITE Transactions on Media Technology and Applications (MTA)

Paper
Light-field Display Using Kaleidoscope-like Optics and
Single Projector

Hiroaki Yano † , Tomohiro Yendo (member)†

Abstract The multi-projection-based light-field display is a family of glasses-free three-dimensional(3-D) displays that is
easy to scale up. We propose a method for creating a light-field display using a projector and kaleidoscope-like optics in this
paper. Using optical simulations, we investigate how the kaleidoscope can adjust the display parameters. In addition, for a
prototype system, we developed a semi-automatic calibration method. It has been established that a glasses-free 3-D display
is possible with a small number of readily available parts and quite a simple structure.

Key words: light-field display, multi-projection, kaleidoscope

Virtual
1. Introduction projectors Viewers
Screen
A light-field display is a glasses-free three-dimensional(3- Projector
D) display. A common example of the light-field display
Kaleidoscope
is integral photography1) , which utilizes a lens array to
show images depending on the viewpoint. This method (a)
Mirror
is compact and suitable for mass production, although array Viewers
the initial cost of a lens array is high, making prototype Screen
Virtual
or small lot production difficult. The multi-projector- projectors
based light-field display, on the other hand, is appropri-
Projector (b)
ate for the large-scale display of small lot production.
This type of display employs a projector array and a Fig. 1 (a) shows structure of our multi-projection light-
field display that uses multi-reflection type mir-
screen2) 5) . Each projector projects from a different an- ror array. (b) shows structure of method using
gle, and the screen sends projected images to the corre- single-reflection type mirror array14) .

sponding viewpoints. This method is ideal for creating

large displays. However, the system requires many pro-
jectors to provide a smooth parallax. As a result, the
straightforward multi-projection system is not a prac-
tical solution for prototyping or experimental purposes
because the display system will be bulky and expensive
to arrange many projectors.
We propose a multi-projection-based light-field dis-
play in this article that uses only a single projector,
four mirrors, and a screen(Fig.1(a)). Our system struc-
ture is simple and low-cost; the kaleidoscope-like optics
reflect the projector ray and create the virtual multi-
projection system, making it appropriate for small lot
production. Because most display properties can be ad-
justed with the shape of the kaleidoscope, the system is
Received ; Revised
Received September 21, 2022; Revised December 3, 2022; January 9, 2023
† Nagaoka University of Technology
(Nigata, Japan)
also suitable for experimentation.
2. Previous works
Multi-projection light-field displays have primarily
been investigated for various fixed large-scale displays.
To achieve smooth parallax, a large number of projec-
tors are required. For example, Kawakita et.al. pro-
posed 200-inch light-field display using 201 projectors2) .
Watanabe et.al. used lens arrays and 14 projectors to
create a virtual 350 projector array3) . The projection
type method also has the advantage of making it easy to
construct cylindrical displays5) or table-top displays4) .
Similarly, for high angular resolutions in light field
capture, a large number of camera arrays are required6) .
; Accepted The lens array is frequently used to create a large num-
ber of cameras in a small structure7) .
In the case of reflectance field measurement, both
43
ITE Trans. on MTA Vol. 11, No. 2 (2023)
the projector array and camera array are simultane-
ously used. The mirror-array-based method is some-
times used to create a large number of projectors and
cameras. This method is categorized into two types;
single-reflection-type and multi-reflection-type. The
single-reflection-type reflects rays from the projector
on the mirror only once. Because the number of mir-
rors is the same as that of virtual projectors or vir-
tual cameras, the system necessitates a complicated
mirror array8) and it making difficult to implement9) .
The multi-reflection type, on the other hand, employs
kaleidoscope-like optics to reflect rays multiple times.
With a small number of mirrors, this method can gen-
erate a large number of virtual projectors and virtual
cameras10) 11) 12) 13) .
Chen et.al. proposed a projection-type light-field dis-
play based on a mirror array that can generate high-
density rays with a compact apparatus14) . Because this
is a single-reflection method, it employs a complicated-
shaped flat mirror array (Fig.1(b)).
Yasui et al.15) 16) have proposed a projection-type
integral-photography system using the kaleidoscope and
a lens array. Our research, on the other hand, is about
multi-projection light-field displays without the lens ar-
ray (Fig.1(a)). We aimed to directly use the light field
generated by the kaleidoscope for display.
3. Proposal
Our study comprises a projector, a kaleidoscope, and
a screen(Fig.1). This section explains how the compo-
nents affect display characteristics, like resolutions and
display size.
3. 1 Screen
Because the proposal is a multi-projection-based
light-field display, our system displays images on a
rear-projection screen. We describe three screen op-
tions for achieving various display types: weak diffu-
sive screen, condenser lens screen, and vertical diffusive
screen(Fig.2). The weak diffusive screen and condenser
lens screen are for full-parallax display. The vertical
diffusive screen is for horizontal parallax only (HPO)
display.
The weak diffusive screen(Fig.2(a)) is the barest cost.
The majority of rear-projection screens have a high dif-
fusiveness. When using this strong-diffusive screen, all
projected images are seen equally from a viewpoint.
With a transparent screen with slight diffusiveness, re-
flected apertures of the projector array are observed in-
side the kaleidoscope, and images projected from each
44
(a) Weak Diffuser (b) Condenser Lens
Projectors Projectors
Diffusive Screen Condenser Lens
Viewer Viewer
(c) Vertical Diffuser Top view
Vertical Diffuser
V
Front view Viewer
Vi
i
Pa
Pass
Diffuse direction
Kaleidoscope
(inclined) Side view
Projectors
Diffuse
Fig. 2 Three types of screens for proposal.
projector are only seen around the apertures. These
images are combined on the screen and displayed as an
image on the screen with appropriate diffusiveness. The
seen area of the image from each projector is changed
by moving the viewpoint, allowing the system possible
to provide parallax.
The condenser lens(Fig.2(b)) is often used as a screen
of light-field displays2) . It concentrates rays from each
projector to the corresponding viewpoint, located at
a specific distance from the kaleidoscope outlet. Im-
age brightness becomes consistent for the entire screen
when compared to the weak diffusive screen because
the displayed image is projected from a corresponding
virtual projector. Furthermore, because all rays con-
centrate in a designed viewing area, the use efficiency
of pixels in the projector is better than that of the weak-
diffusive screen method.
The use of a vertical diffuser results in much smoother
horizontal parallax at the expense of vertical parallax.
This technique has been widely used in projection-based
light-field displays2) 14) . The diffusiveness of the verti-
cal diffusive screen is large in the vertical direction but
small in the horizontal direction. Since rays are dif-
fused in a vertical direction, the ray direction is only
defined by the horizontal position of the projector. A
rectangular array of virtual projectors is generated by
the kaleidoscope. By tilting the kaleidoscope, the ar-
ray is tilted as well, shifting the projectors’ horizontal
position. To arrange viewpoints at equal intervals, the
diffusive direction and kaleidoscope edge should be at
an appropriate angle. For example, if a kaleidoscope
generates a 3×3 virtual projector array, 9×1 viewpoints
are generated by the vertical diffuser.
3. 2 Kaleidoscope and projector
Table 1 depicts the relationship between the param-
eters of the projection system, which consists of a pro-
 Paper » Light-field Display Using Kaleidoscope-like Optics and Single Projector
jector and a kaleidoscope, and displayed image param-
eters. The spatial resolution is the apparent resolution
that is the pitch of the ray on the screen. The angu-
lar resolution denotes the number of virtual projectors
or a number of a viewpoint. The higher angular reso-
lution gives smoother parallax. As Table 1 illustrates
the kaleidoscope design can adjust most display param-
eters.
Projection system parameter Display parameter
Kaleidoscope Outlet size↑ Display size↑
Angular resolution↑,
Kaleidoscope Length↑
Spatial resolution↓
Kaleidoscope Taper↑ View Angle↑
Projector resolution↑ Spatial resolution ↑
View angle↑,
Projector field of view↑ Angular resolution↑,
Spatial resolution↓
Table 1 Projection system parameter and associated
display parameters.
Because the screen is at the outlet, the display size is
equal to the size of the kaleidoscope outlet. The num-
ber of reflections in the kaleidoscope increases as the
length of the kaleidoscope increases, resulting in higher
angular resolution. The apparent resolution will de-
crease as the distance between the projector and the
screen increases. The interval of the virtual projector
can be changed and the viewing angle can be adjusted
by adding a taper angle to the kaleidoscope.
Because the number of viewpoints is equal to the
number of pixels in the projector, there is a trade-off
between the number of viewpoints and apparent res-
olution. To increase apparent resolution without de-
creasing the number of viewpoints, a high-resolution
projector is required. When the projector’s field of view
increases, the input ray will have a larger angle of inci-
dence. As a result, since the angle of the outgoing ray
will also be larger, the viewing angle increases. Simulta-
neously, as the number of reflections in the kaleidoscope
increases, more viewpoints are generated.
4. Simulations
We employed optical simulations based on raytrac-
ing to characterize outgoing rays from the system and
generate projection images.
4. 1 Difference of output ray characteristics
by the kaleidoscope
We first calculated the rays on the outlet of the pro-
jection system. Fig.3 and Fig.4 display examples of ray
difference by changing the kaleidoscope design that is
45
View-
Points
High spatial resolution High angular resolution
Short(Length x0.5) Default(Length x1) Long(Length x1.6)
Fig. 3 Ray difference by the length of the kaleidoscope.
In the default, the kaleidoscope outlet size is
20×20 mm, the length is 100 mm, the projector
field angle is 53.1×53.1 ◦ , without taper, and the
㼻
screen is with the condenser lens. 㼻
Smooth parallax Wide viewing angle
Tapered -5㼻 Default(Straight) Tapered +5㼻
Fig. 4 Ray difference by the taper angle of the kalei-
doscope. In the default, the kaleidoscope outlet
size is 20×20 mm, the length is 100 mm, the pro-
jector field angle is 32.8×32.8 ◦ , without taper,
and the screen is with the condenser lens.
discussed in Section 3. 2. The condenser lens screen is
utilized for simulation to visualize the viewpoints. By
using a longer kaleidoscope, the number of viewpoints
is increased as suggested by Fig.3. Fig.4 indicates that
the taper angle of the kaleidoscope adjusts the view-
point interval.
4. 2 Projection image generation and dis-
played image simulation
The raytracing-based method is used to render pro-
jection images. The pixel values of the projection image
should match the color of the corresponding outgoing
rays. First, as in the previous section, the outgoing ray
position and direction are derived from the optical sim-
ulation. The ray color is then extracted from the light
field to be displayed. Finally, the ray color is memorized
onto the corresponding pixel of the projection image.
The projection image for the system using a weak-
diffusive screen is calculated directly from the outgoing
ray from the kaleidoscope. The ray direction is changed
at the screen with the ideal lens model in the case of the
condenser lens screen, and then the projection image is
rendered. Because the ray is vertically diffused, the di-
rection of the ray obtained from the displaying light
field has vertical freedom in the case of a vertically dif-
fusive screen. The ray angle in that direction is decided
so that the ray focuses on the series of viewpoints.
Fig.5 shows an example of a projection image.
We arranged pixels on the screen and calculated
brightness pixel-by-pixel to simulate the displayed im-
age. The brightness is calculated by adding the ray
color weighted by the angle between the ray and the
viewing vector. The vertical angle is ignored in the
case of the vertical diffuser.
ITE Trans. on MTA Vol. 11, No. 2 (2023)

(a) Weak Diffuser

Projector Output ray

Kaleidoscope

(simulation)
Displayed
P1 P2 P3
(b) Condenser Lens

Fig. 5 An example of a projection image. The kalei- Condenser lens

doscope outlet size is 20×20 mm, the length is
100 mm, the projector field angle is 53.1×53.1
◦
, without taper, and the screen is the weak- 3x3 viewpoints
diffusive screen.

(simulation)
Displayed
Fig.6 depicts examples of the ray tracing simulation P1 P2 P3
(c) Vertical Diffuser
of the three screen types. A weak diffuser produces lo-
Vertical diffuser
cally bright areas in the displayed image (a). The dis-
played image (b) shows that the condenser lens solved
9x1 viewpoints
the problem of local brightness. The displayed image

(simulation)
(c) shows that a vertical parallax was eliminated with a

Displayed
vertical diffuser, and ghost problems are mitigated since
P1 P2 P3
the viewpoint interval shrunk.
Ideal images and angles of each viewpoints
5. Experiments
Ideal

We developed a prototype(Fig.7) and conducted ex-

P1 P2 P3
periments to verify the proposal’s feasibility. The con- 5.3㼻left and 12.3㼻left and
16.7㼻right
15.9㼻up 11.6㼻down
figurations of the prototype components and achieved
Fig. 6 Optical simulation outcomes using three types of
display parameters are illustrated in Table 2. The kalei-
screens. The upper figures of each screen type
doscope is made up of four pieces of surface reflection depict the attitude of the outgoing ray. The
lower figure shows the simulated displayed image
mirrors. Screens are placed on the replaceable holders.
in different viewpoints of P1, P2, and P3. The
kaleidoscope outlet size is 20×20 mm, the length
is 100 mm, the projector field angle is 32.8×32.8
Type MEMS laser scanning ◦
, without taper.
Projector Resolution 1280×720 pixels
Field angle 45.6×28.5 ◦
Outlet size 20×20 mm
Kaleidoscope Length 200 mm Non-tapered kaleidoscope
Taper angle 0 ◦ (straight) W20 x H20 x D200 mm
Weak diffuser Polypropylene sheet
Screens Condenser lens Biconvex lens (f=100mm)
Vertical diffuser Lenticular lens sheet
Size 20×20 mm
Laser scanning projector
Apparent resolution 150×150 pixels
Display (1280㽢720px)
7×3 (condenser lens)
Number of viewpoint
21×1 (vertical diffuser)
Viewing distance 200 mm (condenser lens)
Viewpoint interval 20 mm (condenser lens) Screen holder
Table 2 Configurations of the prototype components
Fig. 7 Picture of the prototype display system.
and achieved display parameters. Screens
are replaceable. Some display parameters are
changed according to the screen type.
as a strong-diffusive screen and a camera to investigate
the correspondence between projector pixels and the
5. 1 Calibration projected position on the screen to measure the param-
The mirrors and screens are held in place by 3-D eters. We projected 25×14 calibration points one by
printed bases. We measured optics parameters to can- one and measured the ray positions from the camera
cel the mechanical errors. We used a piece of thin paper image(Fig.8). The calibration points are seen as bright
46

Diffusive
Kaleidoscope screen
Projector
Calibration points in
Captured image (difference) screen coordinates
Homography
transformation
Fig. 8 Measurement method of correspondence between
ray position and projector pixels for the calibra-
tion.
Before calibration After calibration
Fig. 9 Marker projected on the strong-diffusive screen
before and after the calibration.
spots in the difference image of captured images. The
coordinates of calibration points are transformed into
screen coordinates using homography transformation.
Because there was a gap between the screen and the
kaleidoscope outlet, calibration points projected near
the edges were not used to calibrate the system.
To estimate the optical parameters, the ray position
of calibration points is first simulated using designed
parameters. Parameters are then updated repeatedly
to minimize the difference between the simulated and
measured positions. The number of parameters to es-
timate is 21; two-dimensional projector position, three-
dimensional projector angle, two-dimensional projec-
tion field of view, two-dimensional projection center,
and three-dimensional mirror position and angle for
four mirrors. The average distance between the sim-
ulated and measured ray positions in the experiment
was 0.3 mm. By generating projection images using
estimated parameters, mechanical errors are canceled
without the use of any adjustment mechanisms. We
projected the same pattern onto the screen from each
projector to confirm the effect of calibration. Fig.9
shows that the positions of the pattern are matched
on the screen by the calibration.
5. 2 Experimental results
Fig.10 depicts the displayed image using different
screens. The 3-D image was viewed without any special
glasses.
Paper » Light-field Display Using Kaleidoscope-like Optics and Single Projector
Camera
Overall view (condenser lens screen)
6㼻left 6㼻right 11㼻down
(a) Weak diffusive screen
6㼻left 6㼻right 11㼻down
(b)Condenser lens screen
6㼻left Center 6㼻right
(c) Vertical diffuser screen
Fig. 10 Experimental result of the prototype system.
(a) to (c) shows the difference between each
screen types.
Bright points in the result of a weak diffusive screen
(Fig.10(a)) are images of projector aperture. We could
adjust the diffusiveness of the screen by stacking mul-
tiple weak diffuser sheets. With higher diffusiveness,
the local brightness problem is reduced. However, im-
ages for other viewpoints get brighter and are seen over-
lapped with desired images. As seen in the result, the
local brightness problem isn’t solved and ghosts are seen
even if we adjusted the diffusiveness.
The condenser lens removed locally bright problems
seen in the diffusive screen(Fig.10(b)). We used weak
diffusers with a condenser lens as well to make the
brightness between viewpoints consistent. Without dif-
fusers, displayed images are only seen from the designed
viewpoints. Displayed images are smoothly translated
after diffusiveness adjustment.
An HPO display with smooth parallax was achieved,
by using a vertical diffuser(Fig.10(c)).
6. Limitations and future works
The total ray count, which is the product of the ap-
parent resolution multiplied by the number of view-
points, cannot exceed the number of pixels in the
47
ITE Trans. on MTA Vol. 11, No. 2 (2023)
projector. Display quality can be improved by using
higher-resolution projectors. Alternatively, we can use
multiple projectors to increase resolution. By scanning
the aperture position with a high-speed projector, a
virtual projector array can be generated. This time-
multiplexed projector array will also be useful for in-
creasing ray density.
The proposed display system’s structure is quite sim-
ple and easy to construct. However, the current cali-
bration method necessitates a strong-diffusive screen,
takes time to capture, and uses the design value of op-
tics for the initial value of estimation. A more simple
calibration method should be developed to make it truly
simple to build light-field displays.
7. Conclusions
We proposed the method to develop a multi-
projection light-field display using kaleidoscope-like op-
tics. A single projector, four mirrors, and a rear projec-
tion screen comprise the system. The system is quite
simple and easy to construct because no adjustment
mechanisms of mirrors are required by using the pro-
posed calibration for the projection image. With a
kaleidoscope design, we confirmed that the character-
istics of the displayed images, such as size, resolution,
and viewing angle, could be adjusted. In addition, our
prototype successfully displayed 3-D images that could
be seen without glasses. In the future, methods for
increasing resolutions by using multiple projectors or
more rapid and simple calibration methods will be de-
veloped.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant
Number 20H04226 and 22K19789.
References
1) G. Lippmann : “E´preuves re´versibles donnant la sensation du
relief”. Journal of Physics 7, 4, pp.821-825 (1908)
2) M. Kawakita, S. Iwasawa, R. Lopez-Gulliver, and N. Inoue:
“Glasses-free large-screen three-dimensional display and super
multiview camera for highly realistic communication”, Opt. Eng.,
vol. 57, no. 06, p.1 (2018)
3) H. Watanabe, N. Okaichi, T. Omura, M. Kano, and H. Sasaki :
“Aktina Vision: Full-parallax three-dimensional display with 100
million light rays”, Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number:
17688 (2019)
4) S. Yoshida: “fVisiOn: 360-degree viewable glasses-free tabletop
3D display composed of conical screen and modular projector
arrays”, Opt. Express 24, pp.13194-13203 (2016)
5) L. Ni, Z. Li, H. Li, and X. Liu: “360-degree large-scale multipro-
jection light-field 3D display system”, Appl. Opt., vol. 57, no. 8,
p.1817 (Mar. 2018)
6) J. C. Yang, M. Everett, C. Buehler, and L. McMillan: “A real-
time distributed light field camera”, 13th Eurographics workshop
on Rendering (EGRW ’02), pp.77-86 (2002)
48
7) R. Ng, M. Levoy, M. Bredif, G. Duval, M. Horowitz, and P. Han-
rahan: “Light Field Photography with a Hand-held Plenoptic
Camera”, Stanford Tech Report (2005)
8) Y. Mukaigawa, S. Tagawa, J. Kim, R. Raskar, Y. Matsushita, and
Y. Yagi: “Hemispherical confocal imaging using turtleback reflec-
tor”, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subsea. Lect. Notes
Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), vol. 6492 LNCS, no.
PART 1, pp.336-349 (2011)
9) M. Fuchs, M. Kächele, and S. Rusinkiewicz: “Design and fabri-
cation of faceted mirror arrays for light field capture”, Computer
Graphics Forum, pp.246-257 (2013)
10) J. Y. Han and K. Perlin : “Measuring bidirectional texture re-
flectance with a kaleidoscope”, ACM SIGGRAPH 2003 Papers,
SIGGRAPH ’03, pp.741-748 (2003)
11) S. Bangay and J. D. Radloff: “Kaleidoscope configurations for
reflectance measurement”, ACM International Conference on
Computer Graphics, Virtual Reality and Visualisation in Africa,
pp.161-170 (2004)
12) I. Ihrke, I. Reshetouski, A. Manakov, A. Tevis, M. Wand, and H.
P. Seidel: “A kaleidoscopic approach to surround geometry and
reflectance acquisition”, IEEE Computer Society Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pp.29-36
(2012)
13) B. Ahn, I. Gkioulekas, and A. C. Sankaranarayanan: “Kalei-
doscopic structured light”, ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 40, no. 6,
pp.1-15 (2021)
14) B. Chen, L. Ruan, and M.-L. Lam: “Light field display with el-
lipsoidal mirror array and single projector”, Opt. Express, vol.
27, no. 15, p.21999 (2019)
15) M. Yasui, Y. Watanabe, and M. Ishikawa: “Projection-type inte-
gral 3D display using mirrors facing each other for a wide viewing
angle with a downsized system”, Advances in Display Technolo-
gies X, vol. 11304, p. 1130406 (2020)
16) M. Yasui, Y. Watanabe, and M. Ishikawa: “Wide viewing angle
with a downsized system in projection-type integral photography
by using curved mirrors”, Opt. Express, vol. 29, no. 8, p.12066
(2021)
Hiroaki Yano Hiroaki Yano received the
B.Eng and M.Eng. degrees from the Nagaoka Uni-
versity of Technology in Niigata, Japan in 2017 and
2019. He is now in a doctoral course at the same
university.
Tomohiro Yendo Tomohiro Yendo received
the B.Eng., M.Eng., and Ph.D. degrees from the
Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan, in 1996,
1998, and 2001, respectively. He was a researcher
at the Telecommunications Advancement Organi-
zation (TAO) of Japan from 1998 to 2002, and a
research fellow at Japan Science and Technology
Agency (JST) from 2002 to 2004. From 2004 to
2011, he was an Assistant Professor at Nagoya Uni-
versity. Since 2011, He has been an Associate Pro-
fessor at Nagaoka University of Technology. His
current research interests include visible light com-
munication, 3-D image display, and capturing.