Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hands-on with HoloLens: On the cusp of a revolution

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: Hands-on with HoloLens: On the cusp of a revolution

#71

Post by Natanael_L »

daveguy wrote: post #64
jameshart wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't remove reality just by replacing the visual and auditory inputs. Your body still has to exist in the space it's in. AR acknowledges that that reality is still there; VR denies it.

I think YZF's edit is a very good point. VR does not have to deny the reality that is still there. You could include an image of reality within the VR environment. If you stick two video cameras and have a realtime feed to an oculus rift then you would essentially have AR in a VR headset (assuming the video feed is not perceptibly delayed 60-120 Hz refresh or less than 10ms frame-to-frame delay). Then again with AR a…

Bright enough? Just add a plastic cover.

Re: Hands-on with HoloLens: On the cusp of a revolution

#72

Post by Natanael_L »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #34
bijection wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AR is VR with transparency, wouldn't that mean that AR is a superset of VR, in the same way that RGBA images are a superset of RGB images? Or looking at it another way, isn't VR just AR with the lights off?

Isn't AR just VR with a re-projection of real-time video stream from front mounted cameras?

Isn't VR just AR with a cover over the glass?

See, that definition is much much technically simpler.

Re: Hands-on with HoloLens: On the cusp of a revolution

#73

Post by Natanael_L »

julianpye wrote: post #43

This is the type of technology that is crying out for a killerapp, but may end up struggling to find one. I had a Vodafone R&D team working with the Sony 3D AR glasses (aka 'Tom Hanks CES glasses'). We loved the tech and had a great playground, but couldn't get to the creation of one app that solved a clear painpoint. We ended up with glorious tech demos, but they were all suited for a short-lived themepark attractio…

It needs the equivalent of the PC desktop environment. An abstraction that makes sense for how to interact with it, and a way for it to interact with your surroundings.

Maybe IoT plus some connectivity / control standard similar to DLNA would make for a good base, where for example you could look at devices and bring up their menus to control them.

Re: Hands-on with HoloLens: On the cusp of a revolution

#74

Post by badsock »

iamleppert wrote: post #55

Once again, nothing at all to do with holography. Its amazing the shameless way tech companies who know better allow their marketers to misappropriate words to promote their parlor tricks. Microsoft is simply using their version of the Oculus with some overcomplicated video rig for AR to do something far from new. Yet another Rube Goldberg machine destined to be a punch line. Real holography doesn't require glasses t…

Well, Google Chrome isn't made from actual chrome either ;)

And while certainly VR goggles may eventually share the same fate as 3D TV, I don't think the comparison is valid (other than they both involve stereoscopy).

It's a very different thing when sub-millimetre head tracking is involved, and when the virtual interocular distance is fixed to what a person's actual distance is. When everything appears to be the correct size and fixed in space, it crosses a significant perceptual threshold. I don't know if you've ever put on modern VR goggles, but there's no way I'd put it in the same category as 3D TV; in fact I don't think I'd put it in the same category as anything else I've experienced either.

And so I don't think you can take the lessons learned from people's willingness to wear glasses for a low-incremental-value 3D TV experience when the VR goggles have a markedly different offering - it's certainly plausable to me (though far from certain) that VR's value is high enough that people will be willing to put up with glasses.

Re: Hands-on with HoloLens: On the cusp of a revolution

#75

Post by iofj »

moron4hire wrote: post #33
amelius wrote: post #10

What is the apparent resolution of the browser window shown in the AR world? Is it comparable to conventional screens? Just wondering whether I can replace my monitor by this thing :)

You almost certainly can't, for 2 reasons: A) almost no software right now is designed properly for VR/AR. The best we can do right now is splat a WIMP interface inside a cylinder centered on you. We haven't figured out or translated much of anything to a VR native interface yet. B) the resolution-cross-FOV is just too low for current, standard WIMP applications on all current headsets. I think a VR native interface…

From the video it appears that a WIMP interface tethered to open surfaces, like a wall, is up & running.

Re: Hands-on with HoloLens: On the cusp of a revolution

#76

Post by Razengan »

daveguy wrote: post #65
Razengan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So fundamentally VR has more potential than AR. Fundamentally, VR just has a different potential than AR. > Not to mention the need to carry AR with you wherever you go if you want to use it in the "real world", power it, compute, etc. You need to carry the VR headsets and their host-devices with you too. I believe we should clearly delineate the definitions of VR vs AR first. Virtual Reality should be things like…

I like this distinction. By this definition something like Amazon Echo would be augmented reality, but the hololens would be virtual reality -- unless everyone is wearing a hololens? Since you mentioned television as an example I guess I understand what you are trying to say. Although I do think that definition adjustment would be a tough sell (TV as AR). That definition certainly works for the most extreme cases of…

I think the differentiator between AR and VR should be this question: Can other humans and non-human lifeforms perceive a change or difference in reality as a result of that device?

TV can be considered a primitive form of reality augmentation. As I said even your cat can see and hear what's on. Even aliens who see in an entirely different spectrum (or don't have any vision at all) will be able to pick up the colors and sounds generated by that TV, through their monitoring instruments (just as we can "see" infrared and detect magnetism etc. through our tech.) A television set modifies reality in the space occupied by that set, for everyone, however minor that modification may be. By that definition I suppose even paintings can be considered AR.

Again this is just my opinion. I don't know how the Star Trek holodeck exactly works (in-universe) but it would be AR, as I'm assuming that anyone outside the holodeck will be able to see the generated visuals if they were to peek in through a hole, as it were.

Re: Hands-on with HoloLens: On the cusp of a revolution

#77

Post by DanBC »

VonGuard wrote: post #56
spacecity1971 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've demoed Magic Leap? What differences did you see that would make it a waste of Google's money?

Magic Leap is based on super complex tech that draws images right onto your retina. It's the kind of tech that will take them another couple of years to make small enough to package, and possibly another few years to build the tools to develop for it and to ensure it's not actually blinding people by shining bright lights right into their eye. A friend of mine used it and said Magic Leap, initially, is like trying to…

Focusing lasers onto your retina is not new. There's been Virtual Retina Display for a while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display

http://www.hitl.washington.edu/research/vrd/

http://ascent.atos.net/ascent-look/

And here's a (terrifying) DIY version: http://eclecti.cc/hardware/blinded-by-the-light-diy-retinal-...

Re: Hands-on with HoloLens: On the cusp of a revolution

#78

Post by RangerScience »

kefka wrote: post #26
RangerScience wrote: post #19

...Dayum. And I say that working in AR. That is /solid/ tracking - although the "I'm a competitor" in me feels compelled to point out that this was done in a room specifically set up for it. Your mileage /will/ vary in your own spaces, but still... damn, that's good tracking.

Unfortunately it's not solid tracking. It's the standard structured IR light over the scene. Which means that sunlight, reflected sunlight, florescent lights, or any other IR emitter will wreck havoc over the SLAM algo they have running. What they need is a visual SLAM and not just the IR solution. It works well in their dark candle lit studio where they did the demos. But outside, near windows, near reflections from…

Damn/awesome. Someone I know got to see their demo at a conference a few months ago, and that someone figured they had IR targets under visible-light-opaque elements.

Do you know if the structured light is made by the unit, or is it an unmentioned peripheral?

Re: Hands-on with HoloLens: On the cusp of a revolution

#79

Post by DrPizza »

hacker_9 wrote: post #5
daveguy wrote: post #4

What I got from the video: The gaphics integration into the real world is phenomenal. If you put a virtual object in a room you can walk around it. If you put something on a wall it stays there no matter where you walk. Unfortunately, the interface -- how you interact with virtual objects -- is completely janky. Awkward pinching gestures to select keys from a floating virtual keyboard. Cursors that are supposed to re…

Also the fox runs through objects that are even slightly complex, as it can't comprehend their depth (the camera woman). Another interesting depth issue is when it ran to the back of the table and straight on to the floor as if they were continuous, because the view angle made it so the table and floor were right next to each other only separated by a line, so the fox didn't do a jump animation. I suspect a depth map…

Conker can handle complex objects, but they have to have been present when scanning the scene; my cameraperson was moving around so she didn't get scanned.

The depth maps can get dynamically updated, so it's not insurmountable, but currently the process seems to take a few seconds. I'm not sure if this is a design decision, a processing limitation, a hardware data capture limitation, or something else entirely.

Re: Hands-on with HoloLens: On the cusp of a revolution

#80

Post by DrPizza »

RangerScience wrote: post #78
kefka wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately it's not solid tracking. It's the standard structured IR light over the scene. Which means that sunlight, reflected sunlight, florescent lights, or any other IR emitter will wreck havoc over the SLAM algo they have running. What they need is a visual SLAM and not just the IR solution. It works well in their dark candle lit studio where they did the demos. But outside, near windows, near reflections from…

Damn/awesome. Someone I know got to see their demo at a conference a few months ago, and that someone figured they had IR targets under visible-light-opaque elements. Do you know if the structured light is made by the unit, or is it an unmentioned peripheral?

HoloLens is a derivative of Kinect. Kinect 1 (with the Xbox 360) was structured light. Kinect 2 (with the Xbox One) is time-of-flight. I'm not sure which tech the HoloLens uses (I don't think Microsoft has specified one way or another, and I didn't have an IR camera to look to see if it was emitting a pattern), but I'm assuming it's based on the newer tech, because my understanding is that time-of-flight systems can much better handle having multiple devices scanning the same space. HoloLens handled this situation very well; I've seen at least 8 devices all scanning the same area without getting confused.

It's all driven by the unit, btw; no need for markers or external illumination.

Post reply on HN