I am probably being stubborn too but the ideal that MS would "profoundly" (as stated by the author of the ars article) change the experience just to accommodate a subset of users seems rather extreme to me. Why not design a unit that accommodates all users but limits the reduction of the FOV to those who must wear spectacles? Google Glass initially didn't really make any real attempt to deal with prescription glasses. And did changing the eye relief of OR or Morpheus dramatically change the FOV?
Microsoft HoloLens [Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Holograms]
I am probably being stubborn too but the ideal that MS would "profoundly" (as stated by the author of the ars article) change the experience just to accommodate a subset of users seems rather extreme to me. Why not design a unit that accommodates all users but limits the reduction of the FOV to those who must wear spectacles? Google Glass initially didn't really make any real attempt to deal with prescription glasses. And did changing the eye relief of OR or Morpheus dramatically change the FOV?
I don't disagree it's extreme, but I'm happy they did, as I wear glasses and I can't use contacts.
BTW the two different optics A and B from DK2 were doing exactly what you described, give more FOV to people with no glasses.
A vertex distance of 10mm would definitely press my glasses against my face, but I could use it. Subjectively that would fit the description Ars Technica's experience with the first prototype. The standard prescription is 12mm or 14mm and would make most people comfortable.
So let's use 10 to 14 for an example. I'm not sure if I'm calculating this correctly, but let's say it's a simple projection and they went from 10mm to 14mm to make it comfortable. If they started with 40 degrees it would be down to 30 degrees. It's a big deal.
With a big VR thing, 10mm to 14mm would be from 110 degrees down to 90 degrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertex_distance
http://www.edmundoptics.com/images/articles/fig-1-oae.gif
Last edited:
That's a more exaggerated response to other users who have stated a reduction maybe. I don't think the reduction is huge. It might well help with image integrity (artefacts as described in MrFox's technical quote).
BTW my previous link was Optinvent trying to sell their system as being superior to competitors so they seemed to be over-stating the flaws of other methods.
Here's a paper from 2008 about holographic waveguide. They claim to have solved most of the issues that Optinvent stated, and that was 7 years ago I guess the technology improved since. It's side-mounted in the paper, and only 20 degrees FOV, while MS have an obviously better top mounted setup and a much better FOV, but the technology could be based on similar principles.
Going from 20 deg to 35+ FOV at the expense of "uniformity" could have been solved in software, just like chromatic aberration and geometry is a software correction in VR.
https://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets...yEntertainmentAccessGlassesWhitePaper_8-4.pdf
Here's a paper from 2008 about holographic waveguide. They claim to have solved most of the issues that Optinvent stated, and that was 7 years ago I guess the technology improved since. It's side-mounted in the paper, and only 20 degrees FOV, while MS have an obviously better top mounted setup and a much better FOV, but the technology could be based on similar principles.
Going from 20 deg to 35+ FOV at the expense of "uniformity" could have been solved in software, just like chromatic aberration and geometry is a software correction in VR.
https://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets...yEntertainmentAccessGlassesWhitePaper_8-4.pdf
I think I found the Microsoft patent that allowed such a high FOV... They first talk about methods to increase FOV by tiling multiple holographic layers. This needs a lot of layers (3 holographic layers per tile). The time-sequential aspect of tiling will limit the frame rate, but increase the resolution, since it tiles the resolution of a single LCOS or DLP device.
They present instead a production method and replication where instead of tiling they are making a single grating that contains multiple gratings at different angle, and the sum is wider FOV from a single layer. It's like tiling on the same plate.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140168735.pdf
They present instead a production method and replication where instead of tiling they are making a single grating that contains multiple gratings at different angle, and the sum is wider FOV from a single layer. It's like tiling on the same plate.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140168735.pdf
Last edited:
Also drive cars around your room
bounce balls around your room
shoot aliens in your room
rescue the princess by leaping barrels in your room
hmm, Im seeing a pattern here
How is a rollercoaster sim in your room better than one out in space or in a rainforest or whereever you want?
AR be it HoloLens or google glass or whatever does have an excellant role to play in the future but its obvious this role isn't chiefly going to be gaming
Seems to be a limited view of what it will be capable of.
I wouldn't mind a game using my xbox or a future xbox where I'm playing a game on the tv with my hololens also on. The hololens could then expand the game screen . Things like your hud can exist slightly outside of the screen.
I've also described a laser tag like game where you can go to an open field and have an arena designed. Virtual walls could be put up so while playing there are dividers and places to hide that other players can't see through and then you could have a laser tag like experience.
I wouldn't mind a game using my xbox or a future xbox where I'm playing a game on the tv with my hololens also on. The hololens could then expand the game screen . Things like your hud can exist slightly outside of the screen.
I've also described a laser tag like game where you can go to an open field and have an arena designed. Virtual walls could be put up so while playing there are dividers and places to hide that other players can't see through and then you could have a laser tag like experience.
Hardly a game changer worth wearing a headset for. Plus the same experience is possible in VR - just model a living room with a TV and render the game on that TV.
Great for everyone with a private field and multiple other players to player with. I'd hardly call that a mainstream application though. And given the narrow FOV, the sense of immersion would actually be pretty limited. You'd have clear space to your side, only for there to be a wall there that you can't see unless you turn to face it. And one person could sneak up on another behind some obstacles, only for those obstacles to be invisible to the person they're sneaking up on because they're just to the side of the hologram.
VR is great and can do a lot of stuff but its a closed experience. I wouldn't mind playing games with my friends together and being able to see each other.
FOV can improve. Just look at how far VR has come in the last 3 years.
Sure, but that's still a niche experience. Most folk don't get much chance to meet up with people for a gaming party. For example, Wii was taken out at family get togethers, then put back in the cupboard with the board games. As an ocassional experience, how much would people be willing to spend on headsets for everyone to play together? That's what I mean by niche. Your specific example is a great option for people who have a field and time to get together and several thousands dollars to buy headsets for each player.
Yep, but I think we should gauge our expectations based on what's known and shown rather than theoreticals at this point. VR has only improved massively over the past 3 years because of a tech breakthrough (OVR's cheap lenses with software fixes and big screen) and the screens have, the screen tech being driven by a mass-consumer commodity item. The legacy of VR goes back decades and improved slowly. There's no timeline for Hololens's tech advancements because we don't know what they're doing and what the limits are, so we can't say with any confidence that the retail version in 3 years will be $150 a headset and a full 90 degree FOV, for example. If the tech changes significantly, its value changes as well. Not much use in speculating on what might be though, especially if it doesn't come to pass. I doubt many devs will be designing their Hololens games based on an assumption that the kit they release to is radically different from that just shown.
HMD AR/VR have been in developement for 50 years. New tech most often come out in scientific papers 20 years before they are feasible in a mass market product. Many times it's only the US defense contractors or NASA that gets to play with shiny new things because they are too expensive for mass production. Diffractive and holographic waveguides are nothing new.
The most advanced tech potential seems to be Magic Leap, and it's simply not ready. MS and Sony, and Google are all coming out with an unfinished and/or overpriced product without enough FOV, frame rate, resolution, to provide a reasonable experience for gaming AR. Most product will end up niche, and attempts to make games prematurely will fail spectacularly. Just like google glass was too soon even for information display, and they went back to the drawing board. An android smartwatch is more useful than google glass was. So Google invested significantly in Magic Leap this time.
"Magic Leap asserts that it achieves better resolution with a new proprietary technique that projects an image directly onto the user's retina."
To be blunt, I think MS is also jumping the gun and are releasing a product before it can be produced cheaply (this thing is going to be around $1000), and before the tech necessary is available. They missed the VR boat, and now they try to be first in the AR field against other competitors coming out with similar tech. They are refusing to tell us any kind of specs so that journalists spread the words "magical" and "revolution" to steal the show. The sizzle video is the same insanity that we saw with the Kinect-1 unveiling.
It's stupid that this product is being talked about in console discussions all around the internet, but unsurprising since MS doesn't have a product to counter Morpheus in the console space. I expect MS will announce at E3 an oculus-like product for XBone, as we have Project Cars compatible with Morpheus an Oculus on PS4 and PC, while xbox one have nothing, yet. Hololens is not a gaming product, and is no replacement for a VR headset.
Last edited:
Hololens is very much for industry for the next 3-4 years. The price will be greater than $1000. They need adoption of industry because its clear that Microsoft can easily sweep up a lot of units sold in industries that traditionally have tons of costs in which hololens could lessen. Looking specifically at things like construction and architecture, they've already found a perfect place for the device to exist. In fact anything with some sort of prototyping is a win for hololens. You want to see it live in person before you build it. And that matters and that reduces costs because all your redesigns are up front and quick.
We've been discussing the usage of hololens for it's usage in mueseums, historical locations where you can see where things where, overlaid where things are today etc. Or for any sort of educational purpose, like wearing Hololens to see what's going on inside a dishwasher while it's oeprating. Learning the biology of an animal without having to cut it up and create all these corpses for study. MS released the SDK to find out the best ideas, incorporate them into their marketing plan and focus it's efforts in deploying solutions there.
The need for consumer hololens is not yet there yet. I agree with that. Oculus is a better device served there.
We've been discussing the usage of hololens for it's usage in mueseums, historical locations where you can see where things where, overlaid where things are today etc. Or for any sort of educational purpose, like wearing Hololens to see what's going on inside a dishwasher while it's oeprating. Learning the biology of an animal without having to cut it up and create all these corpses for study. MS released the SDK to find out the best ideas, incorporate them into their marketing plan and focus it's efforts in deploying solutions there.
The need for consumer hololens is not yet there yet. I agree with that. Oculus is a better device served there.
These need decent AR computer vision. Using a smart device as a window on the world is perfectly adequate for a lot of task you describe.
Its true. For a lot of it yes. But to see a physical representation of it with your own two eyes, does provide a different scale, one that your mind relates to very well.
Similar to how there are two camps that have used VR googles. Ones that have, and Ones that haven't. The same applies to this AR projection onto real life. And there are far fewer of us who have experienced Hololens too, many people at //build/ did not get the chance to try the device.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I don't think so. At some point you need to seed things to developers and grow support. Whether HoloLens itself (as it exists) succeeds or not isn't as important to Microsoft as Windows becoming associated with AR. And assuming industry adoption, this is likely. Industry which likely would drive productization of potentially more capable products for whatever industry niche requires it.
In other words, if Windows becomes associated as the THE OS to use for AR, it's a win, regardless of whether HoloLens succeeds, or a competitor's hardware succeeds...as long as it uses Windows. They've laid the foundations for anyone to use. And they've provided their hardware to show that it is possible. If the hardware itself is a success, that's a huge bonus for them. But the real battle in their eyes is getting Windows associated with AR.
As well with a common development platform that even hobbyists (support in something as common as Unity?) could use, interest in a potentially open market could drive more investment into R&D of AR devices which could accelerate development of a more consumer friendly device.
Agreed. Although at least it isn't Microsoft that is driving the console related talk. They have said virtually nothing about HoloLens WRT XBO and have done nothing to promote that. Other than the occasional non-committal, "we're looking into it" when asked by the media. They have their sights realistically set on industry first with consumer coming whenever it is practical/ready. Even their 2-3 year time frame for a consumer facing product is tentative and when pushed they've basically stated they have no idea when it would be available to consumers.
Regards,
SB
Yep, E3 is the next major showing of the device they are currently showing. It says so on the MS Hololens website. Whether an XB1 derivative will show up or not, only time will tell.
Sure it'll be better on AR than mobiles, but $n hundred better? Hololens would be the crème-de-la-creme of AR interactive experiences, but it's not essential and that impacts its viability IMO. A lot of the suggested uses I read don't need AR. Kinda like suggesting you need a theatre and real people to convey a story. Well, a flat screen with images of people works to present the same story.
If iPad incorporated a depth cam and Hololens like computer vision, I expect the same industrial AR showcases to be met with far greater sales than the AR headset.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
For industries that routinely spend more for less benefit (to drive more profit) than that provided by HoloLens it's an obvious choice.
The iPad comparison falls flat as it doesn't incorporate a development environment to support the AR. Not to mention a well supported development environment. Not to mention implementation while potentially offering a wider FOV if held close to the face wouldn't offer the flexibility or capabilities of the HoloLens.
For example, would it be even remotely accurate at placing an object correctly within the real life environment and then maintain that while a user walks around it looking at the computer generated project from multiple angles and multiple distances in real time? Would a user with a 2nd iPad be able to see the exact same object/scene from from where they are standing with the object oriented correctly with regards to them and not the first iPad user? Would a 3rd iPad user be able to view the same scene and make changes to it in real-time that the other users will see as they are making those changes? If the first iPad user then decides the placement is incorrect and moves the object to a different location, would the other iPad users also see this correctly and in the correct place. Speaking of which, how are they going to interact with this n the first place...in 3 dimensions...while correctly interacting with the environment, or not depending on the users requirements. For example, you may want the item to be place on top of the table, near a corner...or centered. Or you may want to enlarge the object and have it replace the table.
HoloLens makes much of that either trivial or relatively easy to do. Placing a non-existent object correctly in a real environment is easier when you can see it as a 3 dimensional object. Likewise if the device projecting that image has a spatial awareness of the environment.
For extremely simplistic tasks, yes you don't really need a real AR device, except for the "wow" factor.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
http://www.wired.com/2015/01/microsoft-nadella/
Development kits are going to released first then hardware is going to commercial partners and finally a retail release. It probably means that initially it going to be release like OR with devs kit for those who want them to produce apps or just want it early. Followed by releasing to commercial partners which I assume are third party vendors like HP and Dell. And finally a consumer product release where its not only Hololens (I am guessing) but a bevy of Hololens based devices by your traditional sellers of window based PCs.
That kind of makes sense because unlike OR where Facebook is going to have to spend the money to produce and market their headset, MS is going to use a bunch of partners and their capital to help produce and market hololens technology. Also, its kind of hard to maintain strong business alliances when you operate in the same business (Windows Surface) and offer a competing windows product where you restrict their access to the technology of which the product (Hololens) is based.
Given how MS's Windows is built around it partnerships with PC manufacturers, MS may not care about owning the product (like Apple) but rather generating revenue through licensing fees. It also allows some flexibility in that some vendors may be willing to produce designs more conducive to gaming like nvidia whose already in the business of producing hardware like the Shield portable and tab.
It would also make it pretty difficult to determine a release date as MS has to wait and see how readily third parties will adopt the technology for product release.
Last edited:
