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

Magic Leap One

magicleap.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 653 posts

Re: Magic Leap One

#271

Post by freehunter »

nradov wrote: post #257
freehunter wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Projectors can't block out the background entirely either, and they're in very wide use. We get around that by projecting onto flat, solid-color areas. As long as you understand that to use your "monitor", you need to be staring at a semi-smooth solid color area, it should work. If I moved my monitor out of the way, I'd be staring at a white wall. That doesn't need to be completely blacked out before displaying somet…

Most office workers don't have a large, flat, solid, dark colored wall to look at. The reality of most office environments is that we're looking at co-workers, furniture, plants, windows, artwork, small cubicle walls, etc. If you have to rearrange offices to make AR usable then what's the point? Just give everyone a physical monitor. They're cheap. I doubt that white walls will work well for AR backgrounds because it…

I'll admit that it wouldn't work for offices with the open floorplan nonsense where across the table is another human face staring back at you, but in my experience as a consultant visiting dozens of different IT offices around the US every year, most office workers I meet are in cubicles where it's trivial to hang a black piece of paper up with some thumbtacks.

Might not work for everyone, but it'd work for some people, which is quite often the case with basically every product that exists anywhere.

Re: Magic Leap One

#272

Post by pmontra »

clement75009 wrote: post #163
Freak_NL wrote: post #76

I wonder if these (in contrast with the glasses you get for a 3D film) are usable in combination with normal glasses?

Looks like they're not. From the Rolling Stone article: "the company will also take prescription details to build into the lenses for those who typically wear glasses." That's not great at all if it means you can't share your headset.

It's probably because of the need to go to market quickly (a simple design helps) but I wonder if there is at least one founder of those companies that needs prescription glasses. Apparently all of them have perfect eyesight or wear contact lenses.

Re: Magic Leap One

#273

Post by moron4hire »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #177
moron4hire wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the imagery on the front page of https://www.oculus.com/rift is CG

But Oculus actually has those products on the market, and unlike Magic Leap, it's not universally recognized as vapourware.

You may forget what 2015 was like. The Oculus Kickstarter was in 2012. By 2015 there were a lot of people questioning whether or not the CV1 was actually going to happen. Yes, we had the DK1 and DK2 at that point, but we're not actually talking about a very long period of time here. Magic Leap first formed in 2010. It's said that the iPhone took 7 years to develop, basically in secret, for an established company with consumer electronics experience, with other products to live off of.

I've been pretty critical of Magic Leap and their teasing in the past, and while we haven't seen any real evidence that the product is real, we also haven't seen any real evidence that it isn't.

Re: Magic Leap One

#274

Post by russdill »

spalt wrote: post #139

i don't want something beaming light into my eye at close range. just doesn't seem appealing to me. also, how is this different than castAR?

You are aware that the power or intensity of photons does not diminish over range, correct? Things that are closer are appear brighter because they cover a greater field of view. You could keep something at the same luminosity but make it larger and it's the same effect as bringing it closer. Also, you see precisely because photons are beamed into your eyes.

Re: Magic Leap One

#276

Post by tylerlindell »

y4mi wrote: post #248
tylerlindell wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of companies working on AR/VR for productivity. Microsoft Hololens, All of the Windows Mixed Reality headsets, Meta, DAQRI (not so much for your description of productivity. eg word processing), and ODG. If you want a headset that has the best resolution, you should check out the Pimax ( https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pimax8kvr/pimax-the-wor... ). There are mixed reviews on the headset itself, bu…

4k per eye isn't even close to enough for grandparents wishes... You'd need at least 10k per eye, and would still have a lower resolution than a 24 inch full HD screen at 50 cm

:-P

Re: Magic Leap One

#278

Post by adventured »

IMTDb wrote: post #252
chisleu wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big problem there is resolution and the "Screen door" effect. Text has to be fairly large in order to be readable. We will need an enormous resolution and incredibly low dot pitch to solve those issues and make productivity tools possible. This is the tech space where I dream of working. I have been designing features for developer teams in AR but without the hardware being available, it's all theory.

That and the whole "how do you make stuff opaque". All the demo show semi-transparent object being added to the real world. Making text legible when you can't fully control the background on which it is display is very hard. My best guess is that if they don't advertise that use-case it is because they don't really feel ready to be judged on it.

Don't you control that by doing text recognition and always placing a frame behind? Let the user customize the color schemes in question (bright white + black text, or off white + off black etc).

If the background is a blue wall in your living room, you place a white framing layer behind the text you're looking at. If the real wall is black, you do the same thing. Makes no difference what color the wall is then.

Wall -> Frame Layer -> Text

Text recognition should be among their easiest chores (which is to say it's still not easy, it's on the lower level of difficulty in what they're trying to do).

Re: Magic Leap One

#279

Post by phyller »

zer00eyz wrote: post #260
phyller wrote: post #226

I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. The single most interesting thing to me was the "displays on demand". There are two things that would absolutely revolutionize how I work that I would pay big money for: 1) Any sort of glasses that would allow me to view virtual displays in high definition. I don't care if I have to turn my head to see more than one display, I…

> I don't understand why this entire field seems so focused on gaming, and not productivity. Lets look at a similar product that lives on as "productivity", one that did NOT launch with gaming features: google glass. For most of us, and most companies they aren't going to invest 100's or 1000's of dollars on something unproven. We might do that for "entertainment" purposes but not productivity ones until the tech is…

That was google glasses problem though, they didn't focus enough on productivity. It was a gimmick. Instead of handing it out to techies to play with, they should have made one single useful application, like for doctors or architects, and then only rolled it out to them. Instead of "glassholes" you'd have respected professionals who would come to rely on it for work. More and more applications would be added, and eventually people would use it for gaming and entertainment and daily life. Like, for example, cell phones. And the internet. They both started for productivity purposes and became much more.

And anything that increases productivity will always have plenty of money thrown at it. Think about standing desks, for example. My employer is happy to drop $3,000 on a high end laptop so I can be that much more productive.

Re: Magic Leap One

#280

Post by freehunter »

ch4s3 wrote: post #256
freehunter wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Projectors can't block out the background entirely either, and they're in very wide use. We get around that by projecting onto flat, solid-color areas. As long as you understand that to use your "monitor", you need to be staring at a semi-smooth solid color area, it should work. If I moved my monitor out of the way, I'd be staring at a white wall. That doesn't need to be completely blacked out before displaying somet…

Well sure, you could stare at a blank wall with a bulky headset on, but why not just have a monitor? Also the parent comment didn't seem to be talking about staring at a blank wall. I just don't see how this could be better than an nice wide monitor.

Well sure, you could stare at a tiny monitor, but why not just have a headset that turns all of your available wall space into one massive screen?

Let's take one use case I've seen quite often: someone has three cubicle walls around them, and only uses one 21" wide section of it. Maybe two 21" wide sections, or one 27" wide section if they're lucky. The person has a chair that swivels 360 degrees.

Nothing says "a nice wide monitor" more than a display area that's 20 feet wide by three feet tall.

Post reply on HN