The problem is that this may not be true holographic capture, which means that it may not be true holographic playback.
While it may be holographic in playback, the issue is that the camera is still capturing a two dimensional image without depth, and the inclusion of multiple views would not accurately portray the depth of the original source as a hologram accurately does.
I spent a couple of years researching holography before photography when I was younger, and the switch now to A/V and understanding of how data is transferred and the excitement of holography as a storage medium is astounding.
But, the actual description of a three-dimensional subject is nearly impossible. The problem is that we don't just exist in the left/right world, but up/down as well. So, if you have 100 cameras over a 45 degree range left to right, you would still need another hundred cameras in the up/down range to capture the height of the images. Then that would be 10,000 images which would need to be recreated in the holographic domain at some level of real-time rendering.
What's amazing about hologrpahy, is that a true hologram captures millions of different viewpoints within a single image. Left, right, up, down, with proper and accurate depth. You recreate the original light interference pattern that the human eye would see naturally if it were looking at the object directly.
This? This is really cool, but I think they are being about as optimistic as those who have worked with OLED and have been promising us 'large' consumer displays for the past half dozen years.
We can't even figure out 2D displays in a dozen years - why in the world would anyone buy into the notion that holographic displays are less than a couple decades away in any sort of viable format? Ignoring the complete lack of content.
I am excited... or, I would be if I worked in some lab somewhere. As a consumer, I'm more than skeptical.
