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

Inside Magic Leap

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 220 posts

Re: Inside Magic Leap

#211

Post by pfranz »

xorxornop wrote: post #170
pfranz wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foveated rendering only became relevant when Nvidia recently started supporting Multi-Resolution Shading. As new techniques and tools like this get better support we can be a lot more efficient with lower powered hardware. It was interesting to hear Carmack last year talk about re-introducing interlacing as a way to reduce latency. Although, I'm just reinforcing what you're saying =)

Huh, interlacing is a neat idea to reduce latency, but I'm guessing you'd want a form of intra-frame temporal anti-aliasing, otherwise it might look pretty fugly. Whether or not this would neutralise any latency advantage due to the computational overhead of doing this, I'm not sure...

Found where Carmack talked about it[1].

For VR, the consensus I've seen seem to push for multi-sample AA > full-screen AA > temporal AA (I feel like I've even seen no AA is better than temporal AA). I'm not quite sure if it's performance, architecture (they really prefer forward renderers instead of deferred renderers for low latency), or aesthetics. In the little bit I've done, when just playing with knobs temporal AA looks better to me. Without AA specular highlights are way too distracting and pop too much.

This reference[2] talks about the extra velocity buffer needed for temporal AA and the fact it tends to over-blur which can fuzz out fine details (low resolution is a touchy subject in VR).

There's a lot of moving pieces when making decisions. In talking about interlacing, he was ideally talking about not having to create a whole image buffer before sending data to the hardware--just rendering parts (well, scanline) of the image that moved.

[1] https://youtu.be/gn8m5d74fk8?t=10m54s [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk3WUk5T2TQ&feature=youtu.be...

Re: Inside Magic Leap

#212

Post by jerf »

flukus wrote: post #135
jerf wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bandwidth is not the problem, latency is. Bandwidth can be fixed by throwing more bandwidth at the problem. Cloud gaming has not done all that well; it's right at the edge of feasibility due to latency. VR moves it back off the edge to "unquestionably infeasible". If VR gaming were to take off and become a dominant paradigm it would make cloud gaming even harder to justify.

> Bandwidth is not the problem, latency is. Bandwidth can be fixed by throwing more bandwidth at the problem. There is a limited useful spectrum that's shared between everyone in the area. You can't just throw more bandwidth at the problem.

You sound like you think wireless is the only option...? All my consoles are wired. Anything that was doing cloud gaming would take an ethernet port unless the manufacturer is just an idiot. It might work with wireless but it would recommend wired.

Re: Inside Magic Leap

#213

Post by Neeek »

suprfnk wrote: post #197
Neeek wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the hardware projects an image directly onto your retina through an optics system built into a piece of semitransparent glass Isn't this exactly how every display works? Possibly sans glass even...

I think what they mean by that is the difference between light going "projector -> eyes" or "projector -> glass piece in front of your eyes -> eyes".

I'm mostly poking fun at the way it was written :)

From the write up that was posted here weeks ago, it looks like the technology is really really interesting, but not for the reasons this author thinks. projection through optics isn't really anything new; projecting individual light points through a fiber cable with an oscillator at the end like one of those spinning LED clocks[1] but on your face is pretty cool though...

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md78sOI1-r8

Re: Inside Magic Leap

#214

Post by smaddox »

bobsil1 wrote: post #106
SparkyMcUnicorn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hololense = 1268 * 720 pixels per eye Magicleap = supposedly infinite (or they don't exist at all?) Hololens says they have 2.3 million “light points”. I don't know much about light points other than a few paragraphs, but I wonder how Magicleap actually measures light density and how/if it compares or correlates.

MLeap is scanned, but they'll have a limit on the switching speed of the laser + color components.

Diode lasers can easily amplitude modulate at 10s of MHz, which can provide more effective pixels than 4k displays. If they're still using the piezoelectric beam steering they demo'd a while back, then that will likely be their scanning speed limiter, and thus the pixel density limiter. Their most recent patents suggest they've moved on to something more advanced, though, so it's tough to say for sure.

Regardless, GPUs will likely limit the render resolution for the first one or two products. Upscaling might be possible, though.

Re: Inside Magic Leap

#215

Post by occamjmv »

tigershark wrote: post #207
occamjmv wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd say yes and no. Many people who have complained about the small FOV of Hololens expect applications where you want virtual stuff everywhere. Certainly nice for all around usage, but not necessary for many others. Again, after hours of continuous use, I've come to "forget" the FOV problem. The key is to switch from eye movement to head movement. When you know you have to look straight at the virtual content to see it, it's actually quite manageable. Don't get me wrong: I'll take 120° anytime, but I know it's around the corner, with Hololens or ML. In the meantime, I'll take what exists. I've seen so much vaporware in 25 years in the AR field...

Re: Inside Magic Leap

#216

Post by MrQuincle »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #158
duderific wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I voted him up because I want to see that movie, but I agree with you, in that I don't want to live that life.

I agree with that myself. It's not an endorsement of the future.

What I think however is that we have to consider what it means to interact with the "real world".

If we filter out advertisements through augmented reality, will it get us closer to the real world?

If we can remove visual clutter, noise pollution, will the people without glasses be bombarded with spam they can't filter out?

Moreover, will the world become more real by knowing things about the meat on your plate that you currently can ignore? Will we be able to effort not knowing things?

Re: Inside Magic Leap

#220

Post by yunolisten »

mojomark wrote: post #195
yunolisten wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're thinking about simply releasing as a FOSH project. More details would be fantastic

Well, our light field display concept is fairly different from ML's in the manner in which we scan the light into the eye. We propose using very narrow collimated wavefronts instead of broad/potentially curved wavefronts. The system can still be used to support accomodation, potentially to a greater degree than is possible using layered DOE's (I don't know for sure) which we do not propose to use. The resultant displ…

Fantastic, thanks. Looking forward to the hello world write up
Post reply on HN