101–110 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't have categorized this as AR, but perhaps you're right. Would this instead be called a "heads up display"? I guess not, since it's not something that's shown on the windows you're looking through.
I'd say it's more of a HUD. If there was a 3D render of where walls might be or bumps might be, then I'd consider that AR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't a disagreement, but I was thinking the other day that the most widespread practical (non entertainment) AR app has got to be backup cameras and displays in cars. Modern ones show both the actual live view + a composited on graphic of where your current backup line will take you based on the tire angle, etc.
This wouldn't fall into the category of AR because the primary defining technologies across AR use cases aren't involved. For example you don't need any kind of SLAM, Visual Odometry or otherwise for backup cameras to work seamlessly. It's not 6DOF. There is no 3D rendering. Camera localization isn't required etc... So calling this AR means you're casting too wide of a net from a complexity perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Like many other I would like to be able to keep an eye on my kids and kiss my wife while I watch tv.
I know, how disgustingly human of me, right?
Is AR this generations VR? Full of promises and fantasy, but all of which is far from being usable or practical at any mainstream level.
Less practical than VR. VR has a niche.
John Carmack, in a recent talk, doesn't seem to consider VR as a way to visit a virtual environment any more. It's just a way to get a wider field of view of screen space in a mobile-sized package. Watching Netflix with VR goggles emulating a wide screen, for people who don't have enough space for a wide screen, is seen as a primary use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This wouldn't fall into the category of AR because the primary defining technologies across AR use cases aren't involved. For example you don't need any kind of SLAM, Visual Odometry or otherwise for backup cameras to work seamlessly. It's not 6DOF. There is no 3D rendering. Camera localization isn't required etc... So calling this AR means you're casting too wide of a net from a complexity perspective.
According to Steve Mann, the father of AR, any wearable compute is AR.
Also, just because Steve Mann said it doesn't make it canon, and he didn't invent AR - arguably Louis Rosenberg built the first functional AR system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and why 3D continually fails I must be mis-understanding what you mean by 3D continually fails. 3D titles are the majoriy of the 140billion game business. Titles like Fortnite, Minecraft, League of Legends, Call of Duty, to name a few billion dollar titles are all 3D. I don't know if there is a single billion dollar 2D title. Maybe the top 3 mobile games?
I think you're mixing up 3D like you get with stereoscopic glasses and the freedom to move in 3D (versus, say, 2D Donkey Kong or Pac Man). Fortnite, Minecraft, Call of Duty etc. are (largely) presented on two dimensional screens
Even if it was about 3D on 2D screens vs 3D in VR, VR wins in almost every case (except market share, haha). Put a non-gamer in a well designed 6DOF VR game with hand controllers and they'll pick it up immediately because instead of having to learn how to control the camera they just look, and instead of having to learn which of the 8 buttons to press on their Xbox/PS4 controller to do anything they just reach out and touch stuff.
Anacdata: My mother (77) and my step father (82) have both never played a video game in their lives. I'm not sure my mom has even played Pong or PacMac or Tetris but I brought a Oculus Rift home 2 years ago to show them and they were both enamored and wanted to know how much and where they could buy one. I advised them not to do it since it would likely be used for 2-3 days and then not touched (not enough content) but still, it was neat to see them pick it up easily.
Of course there are poorly designed VR experiences. The ones that use less controller buttons and more in world UIs arguably work best.
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…
That's what Varjo is betting on: https://varjo.com/xr-1/
But, still... I'm nitpicking an awesome piece of kit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PS - I can't actually offer an AMA - there's things I can't or shouldn't talk about - but I am absolutely up for questions :)
Are there any videos of the Two Trees tech, or does that not do it justice? How far out do you think consumer AR is realistically?
What we are used to: https://youtu.be/p-lH4mufXHw?t=44
What they have: https://youtu.be/p-lH4mufXHw?t=63
Solution looking for a problem to solve? I have seen VR demos at SIGGRAPGH and film festivals the past 20 years without seeing the 'killer app' yet.