281–290 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I can tell, a big difference is that Google's concept video looks very little like actually using it, whereas Microsoft's is clearly just a better version of their live demo. The live demo was amazing.
Project natal videos were also amazing.
I tuned out when I read this: "Sensors flood the device with terabytes of data every second, all managed with an onboard CPU, GPU and first-of-its-kind HPU (holographic processing unit)." I'm sorry, but there is no wearable device which can handle terabytes of data per second. Heck, my brand new Haswell has a peak memory bandwidth of 17GB/s; even to the L1 cache, its theoretical max is 700GB/s. This sounds like a puf…
The terabytes of data every second was also mentioned in the live stream of the announcement, when talking about the custom HPU chip.
1:48:45 in the official video: http://news.microsoft.com/windows10story/
Of course, the naysayer in me is just thinking this is a PR move to tell investors and stakeholders everything is alright and that MS got their backs covered by stepping into the future. Which is not that unusual, Google and Amazon are doing it too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is actually a relatively silly use case for this. A lot of the actual difficult things that a mechanic can do for you usually involve more strength than you have. Or just experience in actually working with things that they can't see. Now, a mechanic using this to "see" things that are actually in control of a remote robot? Pretty cool. Showing you the thing that is right in front of you? Cute, but ultimately si…
Yeah, I'm just not sure that I buy the idea that there's a big market for an expert coaching you through doing repairs via AR goggles. How exactly does this work? You still need to pay for an expert's time -- in fact, you probably need to pay more for it, because the expert is probably faster to do a thing than to explain the thing to you and then you do it. Also, the expert now needs to be someone with these additio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to understand how AR / holographic technology could help people in their day-to-day life. There are a zillion potential uses, but all of them seem extremely complicated and hard to pull off. Take the example of fixing your car. For example, performing your own oil change, or replacing your alternator. That seems like a perfect use case for holo, right? The goggles would tell you what needs to be done and wh…
Imagine a car mechanic remotely helping you to do what's needed to be done. This use case is showcased in one of the videos and it is probably not as complicated as building an AI engine to help a user repair his car. This thing is really crazy!!
I tuned out when I read this: "Sensors flood the device with terabytes of data every second, all managed with an onboard CPU, GPU and first-of-its-kind HPU (holographic processing unit)." I'm sorry, but there is no wearable device which can handle terabytes of data per second. Heck, my brand new Haswell has a peak memory bandwidth of 17GB/s; even to the L1 cache, its theoretical max is 700GB/s. This sounds like a puf…
For that matter, what sensor can produce terabytes of data per second?
(not head-mounted!)
Now it makes sense that Google just announced that they're stopping Glass from being sold retail. They did not want to have their device compared to the new product from MS. Actually I see this new device as more prone to success than the Glass. These devices are competing for the same markets: healthcare, education and entertainment. And here Glass is somewhat underpowered.
Do you mean that there are spies informing Google about Microsoft's new product?
It was demoed just right now here: http://news.microsoft.com/windows10story/ It looks really really really impressive! It's a see through pair of glasses so not like Occulus and they said they invented a new technology: HPU. The glasses will have their own GPU, CPU and HPU and will be wireless.
Any information on whether it truly is holographic? For me this is only satisfied if it has: 1) binocular disparity, 2) accomodation, i.e. it reproduces a light field like a real hologram does.
> To create Project HoloLens’ images, light particles bounce around millions of times in the so-called light engine of the device. Then the photons enter the goggles’ two lenses, where they ricochet between layers of blue, green and red glass before they reach the back of your eye. “When you get the light to be at the exact angle,” Kipman tells me, “that’s where all the magic comes in.”
They could be doing real holographic images with that description, but who knows.
How is this different than the Meta AR glasses? I have a pair, and I think they did a great job with the display and interaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the 'depending on the resolution' is key. Its not really a matter of software to me, its whether or not the hardware can deliver the necessary resolution to replace a monitor that's typically 1.5ft from your face. If you can break the dam by executing on the hardware the software will flow. (I wonder how Hololens compares to Magic Leap's technology.) I think it would be very cool to just have 3 tripods on you…
Thinking about how our eyes really work - you don't need the same resolution. You only need proper eye tracking and the right amount of resolution in the center of your vision (or wherever). You only need it to render what you are looking at - I'm sitting about 2 feet away from a 27 inch screen.... I'm never looking at the entire thing in such a way that I need all that detail at every point. Sure, I need it to be th…