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

Another heavily-funded AR headset startup is shutting down

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 118 posts

Re: Another heavily-funded AR headset startup is shutting down

#61

Post by taurath »

Robotbeat wrote: post #57

Can someone explain to me why sufficiently good VR can't function as AR? Just to lay out my point: AR has to have extremely good detail, framerate, and even depth of field to work well. It has to track everything perfectly and blend the two lightfields seemlessly or the immersion is broken and you risk nausea or at least annoyance. But if you have high framerate, ability to simulate depth of field, high knowledge of…

My uneducated take - AR in stationary is almost useless except in a few industrial applications. You want AR to be super mobile ideally. VR with reality piped in is a decent way to get what you can get out of stationary AR, but it’s not quite as useful.

Re: Another heavily-funded AR headset startup is shutting down

#62

Post by gfodor »

Robotbeat wrote: post #57

Can someone explain to me why sufficiently good VR can't function as AR? Just to lay out my point: AR has to have extremely good detail, framerate, and even depth of field to work well. It has to track everything perfectly and blend the two lightfields seemlessly or the immersion is broken and you risk nausea or at least annoyance. But if you have high framerate, ability to simulate depth of field, high knowledge of…

I work in VR and my personal theory is the version you outline above is the long term model for immersive computing. Most people I talk to disagree, but as you mention my argument is that in the limit a system which allows full photonic control will be the final mechanic. Incidentally it’ll maybe happen sooner anyway, since viable VR pass through tech is arguably software gated today on a platform like the Quest. The chicken and egg problem is who is a) going to get it working well and b) have the guts to start wearing a eye covering headset for more and more % of their day. It may be a long iteration cycle and transparent AR may rule the day for a few generations until the world is used to the idea first.

Re: Another heavily-funded AR headset startup is shutting down

#63

Post by Robotbeat »

blululu wrote: post #60
Robotbeat wrote: post #57

Can someone explain to me why sufficiently good VR can't function as AR? Just to lay out my point: AR has to have extremely good detail, framerate, and even depth of field to work well. It has to track everything perfectly and blend the two lightfields seemlessly or the immersion is broken and you risk nausea or at least annoyance. But if you have high framerate, ability to simulate depth of field, high knowledge of…

A number of challenges exist for pass through AR. I’m short the camera system that you need does not exist. Cameras add latency. This causes nausea. Camera resolution is low. When the screen is less than 10 cm from your eyes the grain is very noticeable. Cameras only have limited focal range. Camera dynamic range is low. I’m many settings it is hard to capture images that your eye could handle.

Thank you. That makes sense. I know some crazy high resolution lightfield cameras exist, but the hardware is so heavy there's no chance of getting it on your head. (In principle you could address this with a huge array of tiny cameras on a headset, I suppose? Like this: https://www.deccanchronicle.com/150421/technology-mobiles-an... or this: https://newsbeezer.com/austriaeng/lg-patent-shows-smartphone... )

Apparently display technology is also a limitation.

Here's one attempt to pass-through AR (thank you for that vocabulary, BTW): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNbTCpURpQs

Are you aware of any who do it better?

Re: Another heavily-funded AR headset startup is shutting down

#64

Post by meheleventyone »

Robotbeat wrote: post #57

Can someone explain to me why sufficiently good VR can't function as AR? Just to lay out my point: AR has to have extremely good detail, framerate, and even depth of field to work well. It has to track everything perfectly and blend the two lightfields seemlessly or the immersion is broken and you risk nausea or at least annoyance. But if you have high framerate, ability to simulate depth of field, high knowledge of…

With sufficiently good cameras you can already pass through video. Setting up boundaries in the Oculus Quest has you do so doing exactly that.

The current issues are:

* A limited field of view. AR headsets are more limited but don’t interfere as much with normal vision.

* Latency of video display causing a noticeable mismatch to head movement.

* Shutting the rest of the world out. No one can see your face properly so it’s much more invasive than AR might be.

Re: Another heavily-funded AR headset startup is shutting down

#65

Post by abakker »

Robotbeat wrote: post #57

Can someone explain to me why sufficiently good VR can't function as AR? Just to lay out my point: AR has to have extremely good detail, framerate, and even depth of field to work well. It has to track everything perfectly and blend the two lightfields seemlessly or the immersion is broken and you risk nausea or at least annoyance. But if you have high framerate, ability to simulate depth of field, high knowledge of…

Potential legal minefield, too. Take drone flying, for example. It requires that you maintain visual line of sight (most of the time, without special exceptions). But, as a drone flyer in a commercial setting, you frequently want to see through the camera also. Given that, AR suits nicely, since you can overall both. VR doesn't because it is blocking your true visual line of sight.

In a perfect world, I agree with you. VR would be nicer, especially once the Cameras include thermal/night vision/other.

Re: Another heavily-funded AR headset startup is shutting down

#67

Post by Robotbeat »

meheleventyone wrote: post #64
Robotbeat wrote: post #57

Can someone explain to me why sufficiently good VR can't function as AR? Just to lay out my point: AR has to have extremely good detail, framerate, and even depth of field to work well. It has to track everything perfectly and blend the two lightfields seemlessly or the immersion is broken and you risk nausea or at least annoyance. But if you have high framerate, ability to simulate depth of field, high knowledge of…

With sufficiently good cameras you can already pass through video. Setting up boundaries in the Oculus Quest has you do so doing exactly that. The current issues are: * A limited field of view. AR headsets are more limited but don’t interfere as much with normal vision. * Latency of video display causing a noticeable mismatch to head movement. * Shutting the rest of the world out. No one can see your face properly so…

Good point about others (not wearing headsets) not being able to see your face properly. I hadn't considered that.

Re: Another heavily-funded AR headset startup is shutting down

#68

Post by Robotbeat »

abakker wrote: post #65
Robotbeat wrote: post #57

Can someone explain to me why sufficiently good VR can't function as AR? Just to lay out my point: AR has to have extremely good detail, framerate, and even depth of field to work well. It has to track everything perfectly and blend the two lightfields seemlessly or the immersion is broken and you risk nausea or at least annoyance. But if you have high framerate, ability to simulate depth of field, high knowledge of…

Potential legal minefield, too. Take drone flying, for example. It requires that you maintain visual line of sight (most of the time, without special exceptions). But, as a drone flyer in a commercial setting, you frequently want to see through the camera also. Given that, AR suits nicely, since you can overall both. VR doesn't because it is blocking your true visual line of sight. In a perfect world, I agree with yo…

Good point about the thermal/night vision thing. We effectively do this already with nightvision goggles. It'd be super amazing to use pass-through stereographic ultrasound images for diving in murky waters (or smoke?). A potential game changer in some instances.

Imagine directly overlaying a "4D" ultrasound in realtime with careful sensor position registration... it'd make all manner of medical procedures a lot clearer. You could immediately see what way a baby was turned (without training, even), for instance. I guess in those cases, you wouldn't even need conceptually seemless immersion, just precise enough for eye-hand coordination.

Re: Another heavily-funded AR headset startup is shutting down

#69

Post by Darkphibre »

chrisjc wrote: post #52
mdszy wrote: post #12

The company I work for is trialing AR solutions for remote support purposes. We've tried the glasses and customers hate it because it literally makes them motion sick. Our current thing is phone/tablet based where you can basically stream real time video to our support staff and each party can draw on the screen, and whatever they draw stays where it is in physical space. Customers love it, it works great. Nobody wan…

> and whatever they draw stays where it is in physical space. Wow... that's a great way to utilize AR.

I've seen demos of this with Hololens. It really opens up new interactions. Neat stuff.

Disclaimer: I work at Microsoft, but not on Hololens. All opinions my own, etc.

Re: Another heavily-funded AR headset startup is shutting down

#70

Post by Darkphibre »

Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #53
rococode wrote: post #32

I spent 3 months working on an AR project on the Magic Leap (the best funded AR startup, I think?). My conclusion was that the hardware just isn't there yet. VR tech feels impressive because the hardware works well. AR tech, on the other hand, still feels very much like a prototype, and far from real production use. Some of the main deal-breaker issues are heat, discomfort, dizziness, and software instability (I wrot…

I managed to try out Microsoft's HoloLens 2 at MS Build this year in Seattle. My impressions were that it's a very cool, very impressive prototype. FOV is still quite low, although I hear it's significantly improved from v1. Framerate felt too low for real-world stuff; as you were alluding to, our brains are used to screens operating at 60fps, but there's something about putting the screen right up next to your eyeba…

I tried out the original. My impression was that the small FoV helped with motion sickness & immersion. I could see the objects in the room (table, wall, etc.) with infinite frame rate, and when I looked directly at them the augmentation (poster/tv on wall, something on the table) was where I expected it.

I always felt the small FoV was a complaint by those that couldn't see the bigger picture (haha)... at least, for the current-gen tech that has built-in latency, and how the smaller FoV might actually be a benefit.

Anyways, my own thoughts and ramblings (I work at MS, but not on Hololens).

Post reply on HN