Microsoft HoloLens [Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Holograms]

I guess thats some kind of response to the news they fired the engineering staff & are changing tech?
http://wccftech.com/hololens-might-use-different-tech-after-microsoft-fires-60-engineers/

 

The team consists of 60 engineers, 30 of those are permanent employees which are given one month to find a new job within Microsoft. The other 30 engineers involve contracted workers, which are fired immediately.

According Ynet, the group was working on the HoloLens for the past 2 and a half years, based on technology of a company that Microsoft bought in Israel 6 years ago. Microsoft will now be stopping the project, and continue development on the HoloLens through a different technology, produced in the US.

 

*already posted*

 

Those videos are not representative of what the person will see, I wish they would stop doing that...show us the actual PoV.

 

One of the devs posted how they are doing it. They are compositing the actual AR generated image (that the user will see) over what the front facing camera is capturing.

Apparently all being done on the worn Hololens device. It's also possibly larger than the actual FOV of the physical device.

and more confirmation...

I'm wondering if one of them has actually had an accident like this...

Regards,
SB

 

The FOV is still small. Paul talked about it on windows weekly. However remember those who used it when it was still worn on a belt have said the FOV was bigger in those dev kits. So the FOV being small doesn't seem to be something they are stuck with and it sounds like we have at least a year before consumer stuff hits at this point , most likely 2 to 3 years sadly. So we will be way past cherry trail and willow trail. So if its a performance issue holding back the fov we should be past that. If its a power issue we could be past that with newer intel chips using less power and hopefully the cameras and other tech using less power also. If its a cost on the lenses problem then we might not see the FOV come back up unless producing more of them in scale will drive the cost down.

 

Could it be a physics or tech issue where it isn't possible regardless of the cost at this point?

 

I thought it'd already been clarified that the FoV isn't changing (in any big way) due to the limit of the tech?

 

Well, the FOV was noticeably wider in the original demo units. Then 6 months later, the FOV got noticeably narrower. There's always a chance for it to go back to the original FOV. But without knowing why the change was made, it's difficult to make any guesses as to whether that would or could happen.

Regards,
SB

 

well it was possible because the original units had a higher FOV. So we don't know why it changed. We know the FOV got smaller when the units became contained around your head. So like I said it could be computational limits , it could be power draw limits . But it doesn't seem a problem with the actual tech itself

 

The original FOV was still a window though. We've discussed the reasons why and the answer from those who knew more about this sort of thing was that the tech is limiting. The current small window may be to get more fidelity (same res shrunk to small area) or somesuch. Power doesn't seem like a reason. They could maintain the larger FOV and just draw to a smaller area, leaving the more peripheral space for simpler things like text not requiring processing power.

 

I still maintain that safety is likely the #1 reason. Microsoft envision corporations/businesses using this while walking around in work environments. Some of the tweets by Hololens developers indicate there is still an element of risk to personal safety (stairs, for example) when using this while moving around if one focuses too much on the holographic projections.

Since the projections can occlude real life objects reasonably well, if the FOV were to be too large, there's the potential for the Holographic projections to cover something (say near the feet of the person in their immediate walking path) that is of potential danger to the user.

Regards,
SB

 

As far as I can tell, the tech Microsoft used for hololens have limitations based on the refractive index of the material used. High refractive index materials are stupidly expensive, and even the best don't provide a wide FOV with any known holographic waveguide techniques. The tech looks like a dead end.

I wonder if this new development have something to do with Magic Leap releasing real footage, shot through the lens. Analysts previously thought they were nowhere near showing something like this. It has a wide FOV and a lightfield projection. Both of which are major features missing from hololens.

MS could always license this instead and get back in the game.

 

This could be the issue. We simply don't know yet. Like I said the change to a smaller FOV was when the whole unit became self contained on your head. So yes it could be that the lenses are expensive. However if that was the case I would wager MS would have stopped persuing it.

The claims of the FOV not changing were with comments to the dev units coming out. The final consumer grade stuff may still change.

its going to be a really interesting few years as this tech is just amazing and een if its magic leap that makes it happen and not MS is going to be really amazing

 

I'm pretty sure I read the FoV is stuck until a newer technology is realised (so a fair few years off). If it were for 'saftey' reasons they would demonstrate much larger than the current FoV and then lower it stating 'for saftey reasons'.

 

New Hololens review with tech details...

http://brekel.com/my-hololens-experience-and-technical-insights/

Tommy McClain

 

Interesting perspective coming from a self proclaimed skeptic of the device.

Regards,
SB

 

Article: https://www.petri.com/microsoft-sha...to-5-5-hour-battery-life-device-link-and-more

 

Hopefully when they finally get around to shipping business and eventually consumer version, they'll have upped the battery life. 2.5-5.5 hours isn't so bad for a dev. device, but for in the field use, I'd imagine many companies would potentially want something more. Then again if it's meant to be used in short stints it won't be so bad if it has a very fast charging time.

Regards,
SB

 

Yeah, if they can get those turbo chargers, like the PDP 60 second game controller chargers ( http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/12...r-in-under-60-seconds-with-pdps-super-charger ), it might not be so bad. Recharge fully during a bathroom break.

The 2.5 to 5.5 hour play time is the same range as the WuuBlets controller, perhaps slightly longer.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of plug and play recharger kit for the consumer version.