Recent content by xz321zx

they want the lens to respond to incoming polarized light >4-ways. Anyway. I doubt you need retinal projection if 99.99% content is monoscopic, why would you move a monoscopic virtual display up close. And see though might not worth the luminance loss accompanying it (practically that's a lot...

Yeah... Except scanning is not inherently letting you do that and if they can steer this 4mm pupil from a non-scan display it's also valid.

...not only they patented it as maxwellian to begin with, the videos show it as "focus-free" (maybe they went a bit overboard with abutted display panel when it's not just panel but lens and you get miniscule fov out of that. Recently they don't show that but obvious "concave mirror" -inside and...

Nvidia's "pinhole array" has 8mm eye-box. eg. it's the one on the right, vs. Maxwellian has nothing to do with integral imaging, or >4mm eye-box. (And everything to do with tight ray bundles you hardly get out of OLED -in necessary quantities anyhow).

There's no inherent need for active scanned display (again that's 2-4mm thin) if you are willing to accept eye-box shortcoming so scanned mirror is subset of Maxwellian and originally it's this...

A-a, Maxwellian is 2-4mm per pin. LetinAR is ~4mm per pin according to patent. It's like the North Focal except the beams are fixed in space, so your experience of "hopping" between beams- no inbetween (instead of a single beam of Focals beam steering with small eye-box). That's the issue.

and you "pay" with eye-box, hence Intel gave up and those North glasses had to be prefitted per person during shopping. Solving that is bleeding edge, just like commercializing varifocal is (esp. electro-optic variant).

It's an ordinary waveguide that's also a "spatial filter". By acting a SF it acts as if the source was a scan mirror with "narrow pencil beam" / thin waist because initially you only need the scanner to that effect: "By using a narrow pencil beam, Maxwellian displays reduce the effective pupil...

NED = near eye display:D They try to solve that, it's the bleeding edge in displays and supposedly there aren't much good engineering going into ordinary displays, luckily.

They have content on yt, afaict it's not a resolution loss but "eye-box" inbetweens. There's stuff on Karl's blog too. This is the closest VRD-s were to market as of yet.

LetinAR patent (bold by me):

Maxwellian display has no extra parts, also used to be called Virtual retinal display https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display VRD is a form of maxwellian in the sense it bypasses extra parts and everything is in focus, eg from 20cm to whatever. Otherwise you make a tradeoff, and...

That was my point, without varifocal you have to choose between "room scale" and far focus. And choosing room scale STILL doesn't get you close up. And even if you want close up so bad you move the virtual source close ( 2m is standard now), it's not that much better than 20m source that's...

Misremembered, it's similar eye strain at 1meter from a 20 meter distant source, than >20meter from a 2meter apart source. It shows how desperate they are in AR/VR for close up because >20meter should be rather frequent anyhow.

Well, IMO it's more like AI is the new dotcom and there's no good performance target for wearable, so it's some whatever. You can even say this abysmal AI stuff is booming because bad AV quality on AV devices so it's easy to get away with cartoony stuff. I'd prefer if cinema goers dolby glasses...