What resolution have the screens?

The most used versions are 8.9" and the 15.6" ones.
But what resolution have it?
I mean with height, width and depth.
As I have red, the depth is in all version 45 layers.

The input resolution is for 8.9" 2560px x 1600px.
And for 15.6" 3840px × 2160px.

As I red at Looking Glass Factory · The World's Leading Holographic Display the input screen will be devided in the 45 pieces. 9 in the width and 5 in the height.
That would mean, that 8.9" have a resolution of 284.44px x 320px x 45px.
And the 15.6" have a resolution of 426.66px x 432px x 45px.
But 284.44 and 426.66 are not integer numbers.

So, if anybody have loaded a 3D-model in the Looking Glass could you please make a 3840px × 2160px screenshot of what gives the computer out?

Many thanks in advance!

Greetings
theuserbl

You are mistaking “views” for “z resolution”. There are far more than 45 “layers”.

It’s difficult to put 3D resolution numbers on the Looking Glass. It’s not like an RGB LED cube with distinct light sources. You can start with the resolution of the 2D panel that drives it. As you noted, the 8.9" is 2560x1600 and the 15.6" is 3840x2160. The 32" is an 8K panel. So they all have similar pixels-per-inch, which is great. Instead of like a 2D panels where all pixels get sent out as light in all directions, the Looking Glass lightfield display sprays out light from RGB sub-pixels of the panel as various horizontal angles. Therefore you can only see a sub-set of the 2D panel source pixels from a given viewpoint. The “45 views” is not based on a physical count of anything in the panel. The panel actually has more views than that, but 50-60 is the practical limit as they start fuzzing together around there. The 9x5 “quilt” source images are a great compromise between spatial resolution and view count (but others work too, like 32 or 64). If you take a screenshot of the content being sent to the 2D panel, it’s all your views merged together spatially, much like if you peel the back off a lenticular photograph. It’s actually all quite clever (the team deserves much respect) and it took me a while to understand it; please forgive me if my description is not sufficient enough to be understood.