61–70 of 176 posts
Wow. So if Magic Leap is vaporware, does that leave Microsoft as the only ones publicly making progress in AR? Plenty of companies are shipping VR, but AR ends up being the future, HoloLens is building up quite a lead.
Wow. So if Magic Leap is vaporware, does that leave Microsoft as the only ones publicly making progress in AR? Plenty of companies are shipping VR, but AR ends up being the future, HoloLens is building up quite a lead.
"Magic Leap is vaporware" Where are you getting that? The article seems to imply that feature to feature they are matching the Hololens and that is the worst case scenario. Edit: On second thought you maybe meeting the exact definition of Vaporware in that they are not manufacturing it yet[1]. No indication that they won't be able to though. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
But the article specifically says "as it stands now, is noticeably inferior to Microsoft’s HoloLens headset"
So I don't get how matching Hololens is the "worst case scenario"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So VR is hard enough - to avoid jitter that makes users feel sick you have to respond to a user's head movement, render a new frame with the new information the user should see, respond to any button presses, then draw the frame, in under 14-20ms. A bit of a tangent, but: for some people, it's impossible for VR to avoid making them feel sick. It's fundamental to them wearing a VR headset rather than a technical chall…
Technically this would be possible to overcome with a light field display. Light field displays are currently very far off from becoming commercially viable.
That might be harder than getting a functional light field display, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the big unsolved problem with augmented reality. Those are all problems VR systems can already solve with enough money and transistors behind them. The AR big problem is displaying dark. You can put bright things on the display, but not dark ones. Microsoft demos their VR systems only in environments with carefully controlled dim lighting. The same is true of Meta. Laster just puts a dimming filter in fron…
The AR big problem is displaying dark. You can put bright things on the display, but not dark ones. There is actually a solution (EDIT: nope, see replies), but it's tricky: If you stack two sheets of polarizing filters on top of each other, then rotate them, you can get them to pass all light at 0 degrees rotation and block all light at 90 degrees rotation. It's like special paper that adjusts brightness depending on…
(Also, if the pixels are dense enough I imagine you'll get diffraction.)
Here's is Michael Abrash's better explanation:
>“But wait,” you say (as I did when I realized the problem), “you can just put an LCD screen with the same resolution on the outside of the glasses, and use it to block real-world pixels however you like.” That’s a clever idea, but it doesn’t work. You can’t focus on an LCD screen an inch away (and you wouldn’t want to, anyway, since everything interesting in the real world is more than an inch away), so a pixel at that distance would show up as a translucent blob several degrees across, just as a speck of dirt on your glasses shows up as a blurry circle, not a sharp point. It’s true that you can black out an area of the real world by occluding many pixels, but that black area will have a wide, fuzzy border trailing off around its edges. That could well be useful for improving contrast in specific regions of the screen (behind HUD elements, for example), but it’s of no use when trying to stencil a virtual object into the real world so it appears to fit seamlessly.
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see-hard-...
Wow. So if Magic Leap is vaporware, does that leave Microsoft as the only ones publicly making progress in AR? Plenty of companies are shipping VR, but AR ends up being the future, HoloLens is building up quite a lead.
Seems like SnapChat isn't doing too bad. Sure, maybe their tech isn't as advanced... but they've begun solving the equally hard problem of getting it into people's hands naturally and getting them to use it and even pay for it.
Let that sink in. Is it a record for startup funding with no product or service released? I don't recall how far along Uber was when they passed that mark.
And what exit number do they need to be considered a success for the VCs?
This is essentially a reblog of the (paywalled) The Information article: https://www.theinformation.com/the-reality-behind-magic-leap
I went to https://membership.theinformation.com/subscribe because it looks like something I'd pay for. I hate the trend of not putting pricing upfront. I'm just going to assume I can't afford it. Edit: possibly $400USD/year from https://hunterwalk.com/2013/12/17/400-for-the-information-is...
That said, $40/month is a bit much. I'm paying less for the IDE that I'm using every single day. I doubt I'd be getting the same value out of that website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I went to https://membership.theinformation.com/subscribe because it looks like something I'd pay for. I hate the trend of not putting pricing upfront. I'm just going to assume I can't afford it. Edit: possibly $400USD/year from https://hunterwalk.com/2013/12/17/400-for-the-information-is...
The pricing is hidden somewhere in their FAQ ( https://theinformation.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/2188655... ) That said, $40/month is a bit much. I'm paying less for the IDE that I'm using every single day. I doubt I'd be getting the same value out of that website.