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

581–590 of 653 posts

Re: Magic Leap One

#581

Post by mkeblx »

bhouston wrote: post #199
chasing wrote: post #166

The old demo videos from a year or two ago showed that the Magic Leap could not do opaque black. Black = transparent on their clear screens. If that's still the case, then every single example image on their site is a misrepresentation. They all show black and indicate the Magic Leap can do opacity. I call bullshit until I see that they've solved that problem.

Just put a backing LCD in the line of sight so it can darken. And project on top of that. I think it is possible to solve.

Michael Abrash has a good overview of some AR challenges here, also discusses why that doesn't work: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see-hard-...

Re: Magic Leap One

#582

Post by ksk »

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…

That sounds doable. How much are you willing to pay?

Re: Magic Leap One

#583

Post by rpenm »

oceanswave wrote: post #513
excalibur wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, even if the technology DID somehow manage to trick your brain into not acknowledging the glare, the bright light would still be entering your eyes and causing damage to your retinas. It would be similar to the case of somebody who has nerve damage and doesn't feel pain, so they don't know that their hand is resting on a hot stove until they smell burning flesh.

If only we had technology that, when subjected to an electrical field, turned glass from opaque to translucent and were produced in sufficient quantities for applications such as airplane and building windows as to make this technology relatively inexpensive.

The occluder wouldn't be in the same focal plane as the real world objects you are looking at. It'll darken a vague area around the object you want to mask.

Re: Magic Leap One

#584

Post by philipwhiuk »

maemilius wrote: post #511
MetallicCloud wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can assure you, the majority of people who regularly use the Bloomberg terminal are not eager for any change whatsoever to how they consume the data. Any change, no matter how much it improves the workflow or UI is met with bitter resistance, because the users do everything from muscle memory, and small changes break that and slow them down.

I think this might be one place where that rule is broken. I started seriously using VR a while ago and I was blown away by some of the little things that make it 1000% better than a standard screen for some applications. The most poignant example I have comes from gaming, but I think it illustrates the point. In Elite: Dangerous, some of your menus are to the left and right of your avatar. Normally, you'd have to pr…

AR finance stuff looks great at trade shows but never gets picked up in deals.

Re: Magic Leap One

#585

Post by ecnahc515 »

madeofpalk wrote: post #565
koolba wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard to build high-enough fidelity into the hardware at a reasonable price point. And even if you did make VR goggles that were great for giant spreadsheets at $1000, it would be a weird enough idea that it would have to be massively better than $1000 worth of monitors to get people interested. I doubt that. If you make a VR/AR/?R version of a Bloomberg terminal or Factset then finance firms will literally rol…

“Can’t be worse”. Yes it can. The resolution of AR/VR glasses is less than my iPhone or my laptop monitor. Now you’re telling me that plugging in a big bulky headset is somehow going to deliver a not worse experience than thee other devices that don’t require an unparalleled level of immersion (both a pro and a con) yet able to show less detail?

I think he was stating that "can't be worse" was a requirement, not a fact. As in, it _must not_ be worse than existing options ($1000 in monitors), ie: resolution, as easy to do everything you already do, etc.

Re: Magic Leap One

#586

Post by phyller »

xdanger wrote: post #572
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.

There is a Finnish startup around using highres displays in vr https://varjo.com/

Nice. I think the idea is that by tracking and moving with the eye, you don't need a high resolution display. You just focus the resolution you have at the center of the users field of vision where most of our visual acuity is located.

Re: Magic Leap One

#587

Post by gradys »

shusson wrote: post #522
iamleppert wrote: post #455

The naysayers here are funny. There's a fundamental basis for the technology thats rooted in physics and a mathematical model describing how to attain perfect bragg compliance in lightfield displays that has been well documented. But I didn't come here to argue about whether such a thing could exist in the world or not. Let's turn instead to more practical matters. The reason they needed a lot of money is because no…

Can you give any examples of companies in the past that have taken this much funding and were in a similar position?

Bell Labs? They viewed the development of fundamental technologies as a multi-decade process.

Re: Magic Leap One

#588

Post by enobrev »

gruturo wrote: post #414
shimon wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be able to collect a few wads of cash from finance firms who want a cooler-looking Bloomberg terminal, but I doubt this strategy could actually displace Bloomberg unless there's a technological edge that (1) delivers real, ongoing value and (2) can't be matched by Bloomberg within 1-2 years. Problem #1 is what you mentioned with VR/AR $APP Killers - they mostly suck. They create value via novelty, which wea…

You're not going to displace Bloomberg - the amount, quality and timeliness of the information they provide is on a completely different level (and a completely different business). You're going to get wads of cash from people eager to consume their Bloomberg data in a better way.

This reminds me of somewhere around 1998. I was on-site technician for a market-data software company that had was complimentary (live charting) to Bloomberg terminals. That year, we were updating our software from DOS to Windows NT. I spent a LOT more time than I ever imagined I would teaching men two to three times my age how to use a mouse. Many did not enjoy the change and most were quite adamant about saying so colorfully.

Those guys could run circles around me in the DOS version with just a keyboard. Seeing them use it now reminds me of watching someone with a decade+ experience with vim or emacs.

Re: Magic Leap One

#589

Post by jjeaff »

prepend wrote: post #561
botverse wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excel have been dethroned in every bank by bespoke software, unless you are talking about a tiny scale.

Oh wow, that’s interesting. I thought it was still super common. Do you have a link that I can read to learn more about every bank using custom software?

They aren't all using custom software. But all are using banking software provided by one of the big 4 providers in the industry: FIS, Fiserv, Jack Henry, and D+H

I believe they control 95%+ of the banking market.

Re: Magic Leap One

#590

Post by jjeaff »

grogenaut wrote: post #531
kayoone wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a virtual 1080 display that looks like the real thing would be a big gamechanger. Most companies don't buy 4k displays for their employees because 1080p is generally a lot cheaper and also good enough, even for reading. I still have 2 Dell Ultrasharp 1200p IPS displays at home that are 12 years old but reading/writing text on them is totally fine at the normal viewing distance. I'd want 4K mostly for more real estate…

You can get a 4k tv for like $500 which is several huge res montiors and huge. You could easily sue for that

I just picked up a samsung 40 inch 4k tv to use as a monitor for $275
Post reply on HN