Apple Vision Pro
- Thread starter wco81
- Start date
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 size and thereby significantly increase the DOF—the image appears in focus at all depths. The ability of creating this all-in-focus image thus provides a simple solution to eliminate the VAC because the eye lens does not need to accommodate the virtual object."
Nature
https://www.nature.com › ... › articles
Computational holographic Maxwellian near-eye display with an expanded eyebox
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 size and thereby significantly increase the DOF—the image appears in focus at all depths. The ability of creating this all-in-focus image thus provides a simple solution to eliminate the VAC because the eye lens does not need to accommodate the virtual object."
Nature
https://www.nature.com › ... › articles
Computational holographic Maxwellian near-eye display with an expanded eyebox
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).
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.
Last edited:
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:
Lately it become this :
And they are trying to make second variant work by steering the output (the coupler) according to eye rotation. (Whereas with scan mirror you get 4mm that has also beam profile therefore intensity variation near the limits and that's it - not even good example of Maxwellian).
Lately it become this :
And they are trying to make second variant work by steering the output (the coupler) according to eye rotation. (Whereas with scan mirror you get 4mm that has also beam profile therefore intensity variation near the limits and that's it - not even good example of Maxwellian).
Last edited:
...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 "pupil replication" ).
ARception
www.uploadvr.com
Developers Are Using Vision Pro & Quest 3 At The Same Time
Of course developers are testing Vision Pro and Quest 3 at the same time.
www.uploadvr.com
Oops, I misunderstood what they did. But then I don't understand how they can aim the eye box, the scanning systems can use tricks to move the focal point of all the rays with the pupil, but here everything is static.
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 of extra heat). AR is too early, ppl should be excited about displays looking like ordinary polarized glasses and that's that (an untracked HUD in practice).
Similar threads
