251–260 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could make an occlusion shutter but I haven’t seen a small lcd with the requisite speed and resolution.
You actually can't do that: People have tried, but the plane of focus makes the LCD too blurry. It's an unsolved technology problem.
The Information has been unlocking the occasional article for HN users for a while now. I asked if they'd do that for this one and they agreed. Thanks! (The submitted URL was https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/06/report-magic-leaps-early-d... , which made sense while the original source was behind a hard paywall. Changed now.)
I'm not sure what "unlocking" the article, but assume that we should be able to see the full article. Currently, I can only see the two first paragraphs and the article ends with "with direct knowledge of the discussions" and then a "No subscription? You're missing out." ad. Seems to still be behind a paywall.
The thing that got me about the Magic Leap is I couldn't find a reliable video of what it looked like through the lenses. Everything was clearly a CGI overlay or recreation. Reviewers claimed they were prohibited from showing video through the lenses.[0] I can understand not wanting their product misrepresented, but all the secrecy and censorship about it makes me believe it is bad, and I'm not going to spend money o…
Another dimension to consider: if it's good, how long is it good for? I just got done writing a long thread on the history of 3D as a novelty: https://twitter.com/williampietri/status/1203074623232851970 But the basic summary is that since the 1850s, people keep coming up with exciting 3D innovations that sell lots of units for a while, but that never make much of a difference. Stereoscopic 3D is interesting and fun;…
http://www.houseofrave.com/goofy-slinky-eyeball-glasses.html
I think all of these things are true: AR is really hard and anything that does it at all is impressive and could, believably, be the precursor to a revolutionary product. All current AR tech is more expensive than seems sustainable for a consumer product. It's also difficult to develop for and has few (if any) compelling experiences. These things are endemic to early stage products, but it is also possible that they…
On the other hand the more modest AR in Pokemon Go has been a huge hit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I could get something like that as a desktop monitor replacement, I would be ecstatic . (Assuming appropriately high resolution and refresh rates - but if it's doing eye tracking that'd have to be the case)
I know that "light going into your eyeball" is how your eyes work, and that conventional monitors are not suspected to be great for your eyes, but "shoot light directly at your retinas" always makes me nervous.
Lasers are dangerous to the eye because there's no real ramp up for the beam - you can produce an almost arbitrarily powerful pin-prick of light which gives you no warning before it's all hitting the same spot on your retina and destroying it. The beam doesn't diffract of diffuse because it's all one wavelength and colliminated so it puts all that energy suddenly on one part of the eye.
But that property is also what makes the idea of using them for VR/AR amazing: because you could more or less directly target individual parts of the retina with no diffraction, then there's no eyestrain - everything can be made always in focus because the nature of the beam means it essentially bypasses your eye's lens. Your eyes relax because you think everything's in focus already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well then you can come meet me and about 150 other friends. I pretty much play VR only at this point. Any time I try a typical flat screen 3D game something is missing. The frustration of having a camera stick. The boringness of having to "press the action button" instead of just reaching out and touch the thing I'm supposed to interact it. And of course most of all the feeling of "presence". The Citadel on the horiz…
> The boringness of having to "press the action button" instead of just reaching out and touch the thing I'm supposed to interact it. but "reaching out" in VR equates to waving around a VR wand in space and pressing buttons on it, I'm not sure what's the difference?
The biggest problem with VR is headset bulk, and space. Lighter headsets will make a huge difference. Finding a way to give people more raw space to play in will make a huge difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another dimension to consider: if it's good, how long is it good for? I just got done writing a long thread on the history of 3D as a novelty: https://twitter.com/williampietri/status/1203074623232851970 But the basic summary is that since the 1850s, people keep coming up with exciting 3D innovations that sell lots of units for a while, but that never make much of a difference. Stereoscopic 3D is interesting and fun;…
Well then you can come meet me and about 150 other friends. I pretty much play VR only at this point. Any time I try a typical flat screen 3D game something is missing. The frustration of having a camera stick. The boringness of having to "press the action button" instead of just reaching out and touch the thing I'm supposed to interact it. And of course most of all the feeling of "presence". The Citadel on the horiz…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not how funding works. If you believe the product is worth exactly what you pay that’s not funding, that’s buying. Funding is the belief that at some point the ownership will be worth the wait given the investment.
That’s not how funding works, but it is how profit works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what "unlocking" the article, but assume that we should be able to see the full article. Currently, I can only see the two first paragraphs and the article ends with "with direct knowledge of the discussions" and then a "No subscription? You're missing out." ad. Seems to still be behind a paywall.
Odd, I can definitely see the full thing. You're definitely clicking through from here on HN, right?
