Microsoft HoloLens [Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Holograms]
Easy there. Product hasn't been released yet, most of you have never tried it enough to even judge it.
Take the context of games out of the equation and the device can still be effective if it reaches all its other goals.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I can't see how the videos are possible. They're showing the live video feed in three dimensions, with the players sticking out from the pitch in the table. For that to be possible they'd need to map the entire pitch with hundreds (thousands?) of cameras capturing every single angle and to be able to match, or sow, each of those feeds together. I can't see how it could be done.
The expanding of the image beyond the TV seems possible, as does the player interaction.
The tabletop view seems completely improbable unless it was a flat image.
The expanding of the image beyond the TV seems possible, as does the player interaction.
The tabletop view seems completely improbable unless it was a flat image.
What I understand is that those are not video but 3d rendered.
But it took the data from the real sports even live. So it would need collaboration with the sports agencies.
BTW why Microsoft loves to show what they could do in the future rather than what we can really do with the product?
They did that with kinect too.
But it took the data from the real sports even live. So it would need collaboration with the sports agencies.
BTW why Microsoft loves to show what they could do in the future rather than what we can really do with the product?
They did that with kinect too.
I've read enough hands on impressions to know what it would look like compared to the video. I'm not saying it won't be effective, just that it's (still) being oversold...like Kinect was.
technology is wonderful hence why I'm confused at the focus on just the viewing angle when there are so many other challenges. Anyway, by getting player data (ie inserting real time emitting devices into the helmets of the player) you can get an idea of both orientation and position. The rest of it can be filled in by NFL game data you would normally find on any video game. Animations would likely not be like that though unless each footballer was wearing a mocap suit. But they did say it was the future, not something coming out. Given its price point I don't see how this future is coming to consumer anytime soon.
Try it yea? You aren't buying one regardless. Kinect was a $100-$150 peripheral. This is 1500+. They are in no way in the same category of device.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I agree iroboto, but it think it would make sense to better manage expectations. If people buy the device thinking they're going to see this level of interaction, they're doing to be bitterly disappointed.
I happen to think the device has an awful lot of potential. Only not what's shown here
I happen to think the device has an awful lot of potential. Only not what's shown here
I agree iroboto, but it think it would make sense to better manage expectations. If people buy the device thinking they're going to see this level of interaction, they're doing to be bitterly disappointed.
I happen to think the device has an awful lot of potential. Only not what's shown here
That's all I'm saying
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
The more I watch the video the less I'm convinced about. Even expanding the view from the TV; while it's technically very feasible they'd need to first have a single camera setup that's giving both views. So the standard TV's view would have to be a subset of the total camera's view and therefore the resolution of the camera would have to be something like 8k (assuming the TV is 4k) and the broadcast would have to be the total resolution. Then you'd have to consider that the broad market will only be using a TV, so why limit their FOV, because a small population with be using a AR headset?
Either that or lower the TV's resolution from the original broadcast and expand it using the AR screen. But then, why bother using the AR if the TV has the full view anyway?
Either that or lower the TV's resolution from the original broadcast and expand it using the AR screen. But then, why bother using the AR if the TV has the full view anyway?
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I'd much rather see what the device can actually do. I was initially excited about it, but this has completely thrown me off.
Clearly I'm going to have to reiterate this again: this device is not for you to own, but to experience.
This ad is a concept, marketed towards companies, developers, and marketing groups. It's meant to show you what could be possible.
Today the companies with the Hololens kits are high up on the MS certified partners list. They are the type of solution based companies who find their products in airports and malls and museums, where they use highly specialized technologies to assists people get what they need at that site.
They need software, failure to launch for this device hangs more around the lack of useful software and application more than it does say field of view. They want exhibit designers of say an aquarium to think, hey what if I bought 50 of these and rented them out at my aquarium for this augmented experience where the see the exhibits and get all these additional features like recording, or interaction and these cool heads up displays for an additional fee on entry.
What if on the next bus tour or vacation tour of the Europe they had this augmented reality tour for an additional fee where you walk around with the normal your group but now you get so much more.
Those are cool and great ideas, something everyone can experience but not necessarily need to afford for their home use.
It's a floating computer on your skull that you can interact with using your hands and 3D space and our voice. This is a far cry from a home consumer experience.
This ad is a concept, marketed towards companies, developers, and marketing groups. It's meant to show you what could be possible.
Today the companies with the Hololens kits are high up on the MS certified partners list. They are the type of solution based companies who find their products in airports and malls and museums, where they use highly specialized technologies to assists people get what they need at that site.
They need software, failure to launch for this device hangs more around the lack of useful software and application more than it does say field of view. They want exhibit designers of say an aquarium to think, hey what if I bought 50 of these and rented them out at my aquarium for this augmented experience where the see the exhibits and get all these additional features like recording, or interaction and these cool heads up displays for an additional fee on entry.
What if on the next bus tour or vacation tour of the Europe they had this augmented reality tour for an additional fee where you walk around with the normal your group but now you get so much more.
Those are cool and great ideas, something everyone can experience but not necessarily need to afford for their home use.
It's a floating computer on your skull that you can interact with using your hands and 3D space and our voice. This is a far cry from a home consumer experience.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
Only the video suggests it's exactly that.
I doubt Microsoft want to sell these to museums at 50/museum. They wouldn't make back their money on research and development.
It reminds me of the original Killzone 2 (PS3) and Project Milo trailers.
I'm talking about the museum increasing the fee at $50 dollars for entry. The device is worth much more.
The ad is meant to get people thinking about AR. There are a lot of things you cannot touch in a museum, aquarium, and art gallery. A lot of information about the exhibits are seldom populated enough and most require you to look away from the exhibit itself. Just imagine those museums exhibits where they showed what it looked like to live in a Victorian home (behind a glass) you can have Hololens create virtual people walking around and interacting in that space.
All those pieces of old jewellery locked behind glass cases can be scanned and manipulated in AR while you are looking at it. You can get voice overs at the right and perfect time.
Don't get caught up being bitter over advertising. This is an entirely new product segment, they need more help than just launching an evolved device.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
With respect, none of what you're saying makes sense. If this was not a consumer device, as you're suggesting, and it was being used at museums to get a closer look at something that's actually in front of you, then there would need to be a big group of people that go to every museum to map all their artifacts into 3D objects. And would museums want that? What's the point if people can already see those things? Especially if it was going to cost them X from each entry price (by the way major museums have free entry in the UK).
I'm pretty sure the intention is that this will be a consumer device. If it is, we need to see the REALISTIC functionality.
I'm pretty sure the intention is that this will be a consumer device. If it is, we need to see the REALISTIC functionality.
You have to map it anyway for AR to work. The museum would have to pay for a solution to do a mapping for their building, and create a whole solution: audio, AR, video for each room and exhibit, walking through halls etc. And once that was complete the Hololens would run an application that would link to the museum's servers. The application would stream the content to Hololens as the presentation layer. In theory if consumers were expected to purchase the device themselves the exhibit would only need to provide the hosting service to serve the app for the location.
We don't have free entry in North America.
Last time I had the opportunity to be around the device, developers build rooms in Unity3D to create the AR spaces to operate in. Hololens can't just walk outside and start generating applications out of thin air. If it does i would imagine it's extremely limited in functionality compared to a fully developed solution.
With respect the device was in a very alpha state when I used it at build last year. These solutions may only be in development today to be deployed in a year or two from now. It's not a simple business model, the retail kits haven't been released yet. It's a long way from seeing the light of day, but they are making progress. Lots of challenges they face.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
We'll you've got the great progressive Justin Trudeau as a PM in Canada, so there's hope yet for free museum entry
lol. I'll change perspectives and take your POV that it's a consumer device (which is correct, but when that happens is at debate for me, I think it's gen 2/3 for hololens. Going with that thought process and to humour ourselves, lets say MS lives in an ideal world.We'll you've got the great progressive Justin Trudeau as a PM in Canada, so there's hope yet for free museum entry
The new Win10 phones with continuum replaces the standard office work laptop, and at 600 dollars you can buy a hololens. And when people commute to work instead of putting laptops in their backpacks they are sliding hololens in there. And people bring them out when they need AR solutions at specific venues or something like that.
For it to be really effective, you still need those servers serving content somewhere
It would be an interesting future, but I don't believe in the whole everyone is going to be walking around like Jordi LaForge. It's certainly going to be a case by case basis I'm unsure if there is enough consumer software that could be that compelling such that you'd want to own a hololens (to wear at all times - unlike our phones that we carry with us everywhere). And this is for me where Hololens would fail, much like Kinect - the technology wasn't bad. The software just wasn't compelling enough for people to use outside of dancing and exercise cases.They are doing a shoddy job of selling this (as a product or experience)...or rather the accuracy of (to quote you) "what could be possible".
If this is for the purposes you say why do we see someone playing Minecraft? Why do we see a family at home watching American football?
If you ask me the other adverts where they had (IIRC) CAD techs looking at engines and students looking at a plastic body with projected organs (or something of that order) - that's how they should be pushing it...not as a home product because it simply won't deliver.
Not everyone goes to //Build/. I was there, when they actively told me this is for industry, not looking at consumer as a market yet.
The device has no release date, gaming and living room entertainment applications are the easiest for most people to understand. I'm sure if a company had a Hololens solution in place, they would likely air that on TV. There's really no such solution in place at all.
I don't blame you for feeling this way, but we've got to be realistic, the device has absolutely no legs to stand on, much like kinect. It needs people to think out of the box and create those solutions. At the end of the day, Hololens is just another method of consuming content. In some situations I think it can provide a better experience than others, and in other situations I think there are more preferable formats.
I bring up museums and exhibits, and tours because I think those are natural experiences that can enhance your standard tour. Like say I take a tour in a city I do not understand the language in. I can pay an additional $50 and rent this hololens unit, switch the language to something I understand and get this amazing AR, audio tour as I walk around the Forbidden City or something. See how people lived there and used the area, get more detailed info about a piece of jewellery that I would never get from a small card on the side etc. I love this concept, because I really would pay for such an experience.
