The fact that Beeple was impressed with this is enough to get me excited about it. Granted, his reaction may have something to do with the ML team sitting right beside him as he demoed the product... so, cautiously optimistic then. It will be something cool. https://twitter.com/magicleap/status/752540648323026944
Inside Magic Leap
201–210 of 220 posts
Re: Inside Magic Leap
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uploadvr demystified this stuff a couple years ago: http://uploadvr.com/magic-leap-how-it-works/ Magic leap is a pair of glasses you wear on your face that displays AR imagery through a clear glass lens. There's a cable leading from these glasses to your pocket where you have a tablet-size device doing all the heavy lifting, most likely using mobile SoC's. Pretty sure you can't run a desktop CPU and GPU on a pocketab…
One important differentiating factor between this and other (consumer) HMD's is the scanning display. The Oculus et al need to render a rectangular matrix of evenly spaced pixels. If you want a larger field of view or higher resolution this comes with an exponential increase in number of pixels. With a high frequency scanning display and eye tracking you are not locked to a static spatial resolution (see https://en.m…
From what I read here, I think they are aiming for a system that has 'enough' resolution on the entire field of view.
'Enough' is retina resolution, but only on the fovea, and way less the further away you go from the fovea. That can significantly decrease the amount of work needed to render a scene.
Moreover, color-wise, you don't need color except for the center of your field of view (you need cones to see color, and cones can only be found in the fovea).
Building such a screen probably isn't that hard; you would need to build new production lines because everything out there is built for rectangular grids of equal-sized pixels, but that probably is 'just' a matter of investing money and time.
Writing the software to efficiently draw scenes on such a screen probably is a bit harder; there will be lots of optimizations that need to be discovered (what's the equivalent of Bresenham line drawing, for example?)
The biggest challenge will be to keep the high-resolution part of your screen centered on where the retina looks. That requires eye tracking and some way to move your screen. Saccades move at hundreds of degrees per second; you would have to match that.
If that's what they are building, and they succeed, I think it will take over the world, even if they initially sell it at $5000 an eye.
Re: Inside Magic Leap
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah completely implausible... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaWeWtG0tJQ
Very cool, and better than I knew existed. Thanks. And yet... Check out the bodies displayed at 2:08. A good range, but nowhere near the range in effect for real people - and at least half of them look noticeably wrong to me. The cloth displays aggressive horizontal wrinkling, in a way that makes no sense. Check out the center-most figure, whose shirt curves in below the stomach with extensive wrinkles that gravity s…
Recommend you look at this history of emerging technologies announced at SIGGRAPH.
Tends not to be a linear progression at all; if the attention of more than a couple researchers is applied to any of these things then they grow very quickly - couple this with improvements in parallel processing power and it becomes quite viable. (see: physically based lighting, rigid body -> full crumple simulation, fluid dynamics, Photoshop's "smart fill", or really any game tech)
Apropos of nothing: Same applies in terms of hardware - what we can do with light field cameras now was science fiction just over a decade ago, but within a couple years of crossing a research tipping point we went from 10x10' camera arrays to source: graphics tech and SIGGRAPH nerd for the last 23 years
actually there was an extremely slow build up of this tech, with a sudden and rapid escalation - but between 1908 and 2010 was a very shallow incline :)
Re: Inside Magic Leap
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me that a company a while back tried to pitch such a system on the cheap. It was basically a bulky visor that you put your smartphone into. inside the visor was a angled piece of glass that would make your phone screen appear to be hovering in the air in front of you.
An AR Cardboard would be awesome. I searched some weeks ago if someone worked on this without luck. Do you remember the name of this company?
Re: Inside Magic Leap
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't seen a hover board since the spring.
There where safety/manufacturing issues and now patent issues. http://mashable.com/2016/03/16/segway-hoverboard-patent/#ZFs... Anyway, I think we are just seeing the hype / adoption cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle Basically, when nobody has X a lot of people get it all at once, but soon enough people have it and so they wait till the old one breaks before getting a replacement. Still if long terms sal…
So where does "everybody has one but nobody uses them" fit into your adoption cycle?
Re: Inside Magic Leap
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
If past history is the only thing to go on you are correct. However there are quite a few level A players investing huge sums of money in this. I have to think they are paying attention.
I have Theranos as counterexample for the A player argument :). But my main question is: is there a an example where such an approach worked and revolutionized the industry? I can't think of any.
I'm not exactly sure how to classify it. Would you consider early institutional investors in Microsoft, Amazon, or Facebook?
Anecdotally I've heard that lots of VC firms passed on all three during their very early days, but I'm not convinced that those are good examples of completely new markets.
Re: Inside Magic Leap
#207Seems like most people here are skeptical/dubious of ML. I don't blame them there is a lot of hype. But it is quite fascinating technology. If you look seriously at the detailed technical coverage on how the technology works [1] and watch the recent Stanford lecture by Brian Schowengerdt [2], Co-Founder of Magic Leap, then I think you will see why ML is actually quite special. Personally I am fascinated and optimisti…
Hi there, About usability: I have used the hololens for entire battery charges (about 3hours). I work on various experiments in AR, including path finding, assembly, etc. Had no noticeable eye fatigue. Hololens works great already, and although light field may bring a technology imporvement, ML seems to come a tad too late (I mean, all the ML videos I have seen can be produced with an hololens)... but I'd love to be…
I don't think that hololens with its tiny FOV can do anything vaguely comparable to what ML can do with a much larger one from what I've read around.
Re: Inside Magic Leap
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
There where safety/manufacturing issues and now patent issues. http://mashable.com/2016/03/16/segway-hoverboard-patent/#ZFs... Anyway, I think we are just seeing the hype / adoption cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle Basically, when nobody has X a lot of people get it all at once, but soon enough people have it and so they wait till the old one breaks before getting a replacement. Still if long terms sal…
So where does "everybody has one but nobody uses them" fit into your adoption cycle?
I regularly see people using them. They seem as common as Tesla cars, but it really depends on where you are.
Re: Inside Magic Leap
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no, you want to have a ton of time tinkering in a lab and the room to experiment and fail... but who would know Edison if he didn't eventually ship the lightbulb? Also considering how litigious/secretive things are — it must suck to work on something for so long and be contractually obligated to avoid talking about it in public.
How long was the iphone in development?
About 5 years, but in working for Apple you worked for a company that still shipped other products.
Re: Inside Magic Leap
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was also disappointed by that statement. I would expect much more from the first applications. Let me try to be constructive and think of some: + To have a cat even if you can't feed it or clean up (elderly). + To find out how it is to have a baby, how to feed it, how to care for it. + Dating first with an avatar before going for the real deal. + Searching for things without having to open cabinets or boxes. + Colo…
I don't want to live in a world with many of those features. I don't want my pets to talk to me, have my plants tell me they're thirsty, or go on a date with an avatar. And, as a parent of a two-year-old, trust me, no sort of application can let you find out how it is to have a baby. Maybe I'm just weird or old-fashioned.
You don't have to feel weird/old-fashioned. It's just a matter of taste. The solution is to not use the software features the poster above you mentioned.