71–80 of 539 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't there also have to be some kind of head tracking involved? Otherwise you're still limited to just showing a fixed perspective in 3d.
No, that's what the lightfield does. You see different physical images depending on your angle to the screen
Sounds like a monster data rate.
Really cool execution. I wonder what the lag is like. I can imagine that's one thing that would break the illusion. I know with something like Zoom I've gotten used to managing the lag over time by taking turns with the other person. However, with the "live" feel of this, there could be an uncanny valley effect if the lag is subtle, but perceptible. Another thought: this is being presented as ongoing research. I wond…
A good friend of mine at Google is the technical lead of this project (he has a Phd Princeton, and was a professor before joining Google). I've tried it in person and it was truly amazing. They used some very fancy tech when I saw the demo, so I'm thrilled it is finally being announced and possibly shared with a larger audience. Explanation of why it is amazing: It totally fools your perception. No glasses or goggles…
Do you think it's possible 90% of this is due to the studio quality lighting, large high quality screen, good mic/speakers, and low latency network? It seems like those factors alone would get most of the way there and the 3D aspect is just a bonus. Obviously I haven't used it in person but this was just a thought since most people are used to video calls on their small phone/laptop with poor lighting, mics, etc
Partially there are just affordance issues of things like eye contact which are physically out of alignment unless you start using two way mirrors [1].
https://hackaday.com/2020/05/29/two-way-mirror-improves-vide...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is an example of important technology that did not start as something only available to the affluent/connected?
Minecraft. Linux. (Really want to write GNU, but that's not true.)
While cool for the top 5% wealthiest people, I'd be more interested in tech for the other 95% that will actually be affordable.
Think of it as "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." Quite a bit of the technology used there seems destined to get more affordable as it's getting more widely adopted.
And yeah, insane prices at the start funds development for everyone else, I remember when the first 4K screens came out and they where exotic, now they are just normal.
Same thing happened with phones and hell computers, I was the first kid I knew with a computer back in the 80s and we where not wealthy, that think cost more than my dad made in a week, an actual IBM PC was unattainable til I was I was 10.
Now I have hilariously more powerful single board computers shoved in a drawer because I can’t find the time to do anything with them.
While cool for the top 5% wealthiest people, I'd be more interested in tech for the other 95% that will actually be affordable.
A good friend of mine at Google is the technical lead of this project (he has a Phd Princeton, and was a professor before joining Google). I've tried it in person and it was truly amazing. They used some very fancy tech when I saw the demo, so I'm thrilled it is finally being announced and possibly shared with a larger audience. Explanation of why it is amazing: It totally fools your perception. No glasses or goggles…
Do you think it's possible 90% of this is due to the studio quality lighting, large high quality screen, good mic/speakers, and low latency network? It seems like those factors alone would get most of the way there and the 3D aspect is just a bonus. Obviously I haven't used it in person but this was just a thought since most people are used to video calls on their small phone/laptop with poor lighting, mics, etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think it's possible 90% of this is due to the studio quality lighting, large high quality screen, good mic/speakers, and low latency network? It seems like those factors alone would get most of the way there and the 3D aspect is just a bonus. Obviously I haven't used it in person but this was just a thought since most people are used to video calls on their small phone/laptop with poor lighting, mics, etc
NO WAY. It is impossible for me to explain how/why it works so well.
I think this is cool tech, and valuable. I'm just not sure that it offers a communication benefit over well-lit, well-miced, wired, low latency, 8K videoconferencing.
Maybe there's some 3D emotional perception face processing stuff that we have deep in our brains that can immensely benefit from this, but I'm skeptical. I think simply doing 4k or 8k low latency high quality videoconferencing might be a 90 or 95% solution without needing special cameras/displays.
A good friend of mine at Google is the technical lead of this project (he has a Phd Princeton, and was a professor before joining Google). I've tried it in person and it was truly amazing. They used some very fancy tech when I saw the demo, so I'm thrilled it is finally being announced and possibly shared with a larger audience. Explanation of why it is amazing: It totally fools your perception. No glasses or goggles…
Really cool execution. I wonder what the lag is like. I can imagine that's one thing that would break the illusion. I know with something like Zoom I've gotten used to managing the lag over time by taking turns with the other person. However, with the "live" feel of this, there could be an uncanny valley effect if the lag is subtle, but perceptible. Another thought: this is being presented as ongoing research. I wond…