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

Google May Lead $500M Round in Magic Leap Virtual Reality Tech

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: Google May Lead $500M Round in Magic Leap Virtual Reality Tech

#31

Post by habosa »

This story has the best and worst of the current SV environment in one.

On one hand, it's amazing to see that the boundaries of technology are moving so fast that someone could come along a year after Oculus makes big news with something that might blow them out of the water (according to marketing hype).

On the other hand, $500M for an unlaunched startup with no users is crazy. That money could be stretched so far in so many ways and it's being dumped into a company without a dime in revenue. There is clearly no attempt to be 'lean'. It's hard to believe that they really 'need' $500M to develop this new tech, they're not flying to space and they're not pushing a medical device through FDA trials.

I guess the best thing to do is sit back and watch.

Re: Google May Lead $500M Round in Magic Leap Virtual Reality Tech

#32

Post by nyolfen »

arxpoetica wrote: post #27
nl wrote: post #22

At $500M it isn't an investment expecting a return, it's money to block other companies buying it.

If the technology is as significant as it appears to be, doesn't it reach into enough billion (and trillion?) dollar industries? The investment in this kind of technology isn't just about gaming or Hollywood.

no single industry is in the trillion dollar range, not even oil

Re: Google May Lead $500M Round in Magic Leap Virtual Reality Tech

#33

Post by nyolfen »

Stratoscope wrote: post #17
Alain-lf wrote: post #7

A whole lot of money for a whole lot of buzzword but no information in sight... Magic Leap's own website has even less information. "On Oculus Rift and pretty much every other virtual and augmented reality experience, what the viewer sees is flat and floating in space at a set distance." I was under the impression that the Oculus Rift had full stereoscopic 3d? Either I'm wrong or this article is wrong.

In a way, stereoscopic 3D is seeing something "flat and floating in space at a set distance". The focus distance is the same for both your eyes, and the same for anything you look at. In the real world, your eyes refocus for objects at different distances. It's not just a "stereoscopic effect". The actual focus distance - what's blurry and what's not blurry - changes. This doesn't happen with devices like the Rift or…

"Your eyes may have to swivel in and out to align the images, but they don't have to refocus."

how is this different from refocusing?

Re: Google May Lead $500M Round in Magic Leap Virtual Reality Tech

#34

Post by bentcorner »

Cool, but I'm very skeptical (at least if they purport to deliver the picture in the article).

Here's an article discussing the pros/cons of hard ar/see-through ar:

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see-hard-...

It seems like it's still a very, very hard problem to solve.

Re: Google May Lead $500M Round in Magic Leap Virtual Reality Tech

#36

Post by themgt »

MilkyWayMasta wrote: post #12

Best article I've seen so far talking about the technology: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/science/taking-real-life-s...

Yeah definitely, combined with reading/watching the Nvidia info it starts to make sense - the technology is incredible on many levels but the problem is it means you've only got 1/5th -> 1/6th the resolution. if they're truly solved (and patented) that with some stroke of genius, they could completely win the VR wars. Also interesting to wonder whether the solution could be applicable to a light field camera.

Re: Google May Lead $500M Round in Magic Leap Virtual Reality Tech

#37

Post by KaoruAoiShiho »

nyolfen wrote: post #32
arxpoetica wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the technology is as significant as it appears to be, doesn't it reach into enough billion (and trillion?) dollar industries? The investment in this kind of technology isn't just about gaming or Hollywood.

no single industry is in the trillion dollar range, not even oil

Completely wrong. Oil is several tens of trillion

Re: Google May Lead $500M Round in Magic Leap Virtual Reality Tech

#38

Post by muhfuhkuh »

nyolfen wrote: post #32
arxpoetica wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the technology is as significant as it appears to be, doesn't it reach into enough billion (and trillion?) dollar industries? The investment in this kind of technology isn't just about gaming or Hollywood.

no single industry is in the trillion dollar range, not even oil

There are some _single_ financial firms with a trillion under management. Blackrock comes to mind. So it's not a stretch that there are industries in that range.

Re: Google May Lead $500M Round in Magic Leap Virtual Reality Tech

#39

Post by cheepin »

nyolfen wrote: post #33
Stratoscope wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way, stereoscopic 3D is seeing something "flat and floating in space at a set distance". The focus distance is the same for both your eyes, and the same for anything you look at. In the real world, your eyes refocus for objects at different distances. It's not just a "stereoscopic effect". The actual focus distance - what's blurry and what's not blurry - changes. This doesn't happen with devices like the Rift or…

"Your eyes may have to swivel in and out to align the images, but they don't have to refocus." how is this different from refocusing?

When I look at something far away, close things are out of focus. When I look at close things, distance is out of focus. When I watch a 3D movie, I just align the glasses and things are focused according to the camera that shot it.

Re: Google May Lead $500M Round in Magic Leap Virtual Reality Tech

#40

Post by afro88 »

nyolfen wrote: post #33
Stratoscope wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way, stereoscopic 3D is seeing something "flat and floating in space at a set distance". The focus distance is the same for both your eyes, and the same for anything you look at. In the real world, your eyes refocus for objects at different distances. It's not just a "stereoscopic effect". The actual focus distance - what's blurry and what's not blurry - changes. This doesn't happen with devices like the Rift or…

"Your eyes may have to swivel in and out to align the images, but they don't have to refocus." how is this different from refocusing?

When your eyes look at an object in 3D space, they not only swivel so both are looking at it at the same time (convergence), but your eye muscles manipulate the lenses so the object is clear and not blurry (focus). Think of how a camera focusses it's lens to bring an object into clear sharp view.

So in the case of the Oculus, the lenses in your eyes remain focussed on the images on the screens right in front of you, rather than changing depending on how far away the object is in the virtual scene. So there's a disparity there that causes your brain to go wtf and stops it from fully accepting what it's seeing as real.

Post reply on HN