Microsoft HoloLens [Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Holograms]

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm looking at pictures of the headset and I don't see where it would be located. I'd assume it would have to be somewhere near the bridge of the nose, but there's nothing in the pictures.

They've only shown it from certain angles. Modern optics are tiny. Have you seen modern surveillance devices? Ok probably not, haha, but yeah - tiny. And optics capable of projection rather than capture are only a little larger. Angles? Doesn't matter, easily corrected for with a lens and/or software.

 

[eastmen]

In all seriousness to the thought of this as a gaming device, I see it more as adding additional sensory information to your environment. But I can't see this thing under $1k right now, so maybe another version is in development for Xbox One. To tie into the illumiroom rumors without using a projector, you still see your TV but it adds extra information around it. The HUD could be around your TV, or the environment expands around your room and walls.

Bah, I don't know how this would work for simulations, I want to be able to look around the (car/plane/ship) and not have reality bleeding through semi-clear lenses.

a tear down of google glass put it at $80 bucks to make, I can't imagine this being more than $200-$300 to make. The lenses are small and shouldn't be very expensive , its also most likely just using an arm apu and whatever the heck the hpu is. Add in ram and the cost of the plastic head set and the headset and cameras. Shouldn't cost thousands to make or sell

What the fuck is a micro projector?

 

[DieH@rd]

It's Augmented Reality.

So far it looks promissing, but we still don't have impressions from the journalists. I don't believe their commercials, not after how they promoted Kinect.

 

[Scott_Arm]

It's Augmented Reality.

So far it looks promissing, but we still don't have impressions from the journalists. I don't believe their commercials, not after how they promoted Kinect.

This story ran just as they were announcing it live.

http://www.wired.com/2015/01/microsoft-hands-on/

 

[Scott_Arm]

Unless they're totally full of shit, this doesn't sound like a projected image. Maybe something lost on the journalist. A projected image sounds a hell of a lot simpler.

Project HoloLens’ key achievement—realistic holograms—works by tricking your brain into seeing light as matter. “Ultimately, you know, you perceive the world because of light,” Kipman explains. “If I could magically turn the debugger on, we’d see photons bouncing throughout this world. Eventually they hit the back of your eyes, and through that, you reason about what the world is. You essentially hallucinate the world, or you see what your mind wants you to see.”

To create Project HoloLens’ images, light particles bounce around millions of times in the so-called light engine of the device. Then the photons enter the goggles’ two lenses, where they ricochet between layers of blue, green and red glass before they reach the back of your eye. “When you get the light to be at the exact angle,” Kipman tells me, “that’s where all the magic comes in.”

http://www.wired.com/2015/01/microsoft-hands-on/

 

[Deleted member 11852]

"To create Project HoloLens’ images, light particles bounce around millions of times in the so-called light engine of the device. Then the photons enter the goggles’ two lenses, where they ricochet between layers of blue, green and red glass before they reach the back of your eye. “When you get the light to be at the exact angle,” Kipman tells me, “that’s where all the magic comes in.”

Vague. I guess we'll have to wait until Microsoft want to explain it without using terms like "magic".

 

[Deleted member 11852]

"magic"

 

[Scott_Arm]

"magic"

Are you trolling or being sarcastic?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Are you trolling or being sarcastic?

Re-read the article/interview and count the number of the times the words "magic", "magical" or "magically" are used.

Spoiler

It's not magic!

 

[Scott_Arm]

It's not magic!

No shit. Do you think they mean it's magic in the literal sense?

 

[iroboto]

Just my feelings from reading it and I'm probably way wrong, but it sounds like projection into the pupils, so I don't think it's possible that an on looker could see the image from the side or something.

According to this very vague article the light is sent into the screen where it bounces back and forth enough till it reaches your eyes.

Simple rear projection onto the screen everyone would be able to see, and you couldn't see through the screen. The bleeding onto a clear screen would be enormous and spill over to the rest of the screen. The amount of mirror reflection you would receive would be insane, it's like having the lights on in your kitchen when it's night time outside and expecting you to be able to see outdoors using your kitchen light. It won't work.

If the illusion is created by tricking both your eyes into seeing something lay there then it's just gotta reflect light into your eyes like in real life the object would with proper depth, at least to fool you. To make you think that there was something on the desk that you were manipulating is going to require something different than an LCD panel. edit: to note I know that they have invented see through LCD panels. I believe samsung created a smart window at some CES show.

We're just going to have to wait and see from more media reviews. Luckily we won't have to wait too long.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

No shit. Do you think they mean it's magic in the literal sense?

I have no idea what they mean, I can only go on what they said. When engineers resort to terms like "magic" to explain science and technology, it's unhelpful. Unless it's actually magic.

Perhaps Microsoft's engineers don't fully understand it themselves, lots of discoveries have been stumbled upon by people who didn't fully understand them and there's plenty we don't understand about photons. Microsoft seemed surprised by the bi-drectional access properties of ESRAM during read/write behaviour. Not everything ends up working as designed.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I have no idea what they mean, I can only go on what they said. When engineers resort to terms like "magic" to explain science and technology, it's unhelpful. Unless it's actually magic.

Perhaps Microsoft's engineers don't fully understand it themselves, lots of discoveries have been stumbled upon by people who didn't fully understand them and there's plenty we don't understand about photons. Microsoft seemed surprised by the bi-drectional access properties of ESRAM during read/write behaviour. Not everything ends up working as designed.

You're serious? That wired article is about how the person got a demo from the guy who spent 7 years of his life researching and designing the thing. There's a lot of reasons they would not want to divulge how it all works, so they use words like "magic" to make it sound amazing, not because they don't understand it themselves.

 

[dobwal]

When I use to peruse through MS patents online (its been a couple of weeks, LOL), I came across a few patents regarding displays and HMDs.

2 projectors beaming images off two diffractive grating lenses, one horizontal and one vertical. Using IR cameras as pupil trackers by inducing and capturing red eye in images. Something or another about how holographic displays allow for wider FOV. A laptop or a tab with a clamshell design but with a HOE (holographic optical element) instead of a normal display.

I expect a Xbox branded version at E3. Maybe sans the HPU to make it cheaper but dependent on a XB1 for functionality.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

You're serious? That wired article is about how the person got a demo from the guy who spent 7 years of his life researching and designing the thing. There's a lot of reasons they would not want to divulge how it all works, so they use words like "magic" to make it sound amazing, not because they don't understand it themselves.

I can quite believe a branch of physics that has baffled the smartest people on the planet for decades has not be cracked by some dude at Microsoft in seven years. Definitely. I'm not saying this is what's happened because we don't know and this is my point. But given the complexity of their field of science, he likely could not really explain the fundamental principles of this in something less than a few dozen pages. It's not like they need to hide how it works because a) complexity and b) patents.

And yes, it was an interview between an engineer and Wired, who cover technology. It was not an interview with Harry Potter Monthly.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Here's what arstechnica has to say. Not at all similar to what the Wired article describes.

They're not really holograms, in the purely technical sense—there are no lasers involved, and the display is not using diffraction or interference to create a holographic projection. Instead, they use a high definition stereographic display and fool the eye into seeing things laid atop the real world, placed in the same context as real-world objects as if they were projected holograms.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/01/microsofts-new-interface-freaking-holograms/

Can you do stereoscopy with projection? multiple layers in the lens, each one reflects a different projection back to the correct eye?

 

[nggamer]

I expect a Xbox branded version at E3. Maybe sans the HPU to make it cheaper but dependent on a XB1 for functionality.

That's what I'm thinking. Perhaps a modified version with Kinect doing the positioning because while playing Xbox, you're essentially static and looking in the same direction.

It's pretty cool.. I'd be interested.

 

[Jwm]

Here is what I would call projection stereoscopy (done in the Glyph with TI DLP's) -

Image delivery is undertaken using a combination of custom optics and micro-mirrors (similar to DLP, and developed in partnership with TI) to reflect low-powered LED light directly onto a user's retinas, which is reported to result in a more vivid, lifelike image, with a level of clarity not available on other head-mounted displays.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Wired has running a second story with the same information about the lenses but with a slight addition.

To trick your brain into perceiving holographic images at certain make-believe distances, light particles bounce around millions of times in the so-called light engine. Then the photons enter the two lenses (one for each eye), where they ricochet some more between layers of blue, green and red glass before finally hitting the back of your eye.

http://www.wired.com/2015/01/microsoft-nadella/


They also add:

The device is more powerful than a laptop but won't overheat - warm air flows to the sides where it vents up and out.

I'd have a hard time believing it's more powerful than a tablet.

This thing is not going to be cheap. It tracks your pupils to know where you're looking. It has a forward-mounted Kinect. It has built in speakers (I think). It has a CPU, GPU and a custom processor of some sort. It must have a good chunk of RAM for the Kinect function. I don't know how much the LCD screens add to the price of tablets and smaller laptops, but I would think that cost would be offset by the cost of the other materials, like the lenses, the frame, all the sensors it includes.

Edit: More. Looks like arstechnica is wrong.

Project HoloLens is built, fittingly enough, around a set of holographic lenses. Each lens has three layers of glass—in blue, green, and red—full of microthin corrugated grooves that diffract light. There are multiple cameras at the front and sides of the device that do everything from head tracking to video capture. And it can see far and wide: The field of view spans 120 degrees by 120 degrees, significantly bigger than that of the Kinect camera. A “light engine” above the lenses projects light into the glasses, where it hits the grating and then volleys between the layers of glass millions of times. That process, along with input from the device's myriad sensors, tricks the eye into perceiving the image as existing in the world beyond the lenses.

 

[Jwm]

Wired has running a second story with the same information about the lenses but with a slight addition.



http://www.wired.com/2015/01/microsoft-nadella/


They also add:



I'd have a hard time believing it's more powerful than a tablet.

This thing is not going to be cheap. It tracks your pupils to know where you're looking. It has a forward-mounted Kinect. It has built in speakers (I think). It has a CPU, GPU and a custom processor of some sort. It must have a good chunk of RAM for the Kinect function. I don't know how much the LCD screens add to the price of tablets and smaller laptops, but I would think that cost would be offset by the cost of the other materials, like the lenses, the frame, all the sensors it includes.

Yes it has drivers for audio, though it seems to be a spatial effect (dolby headphone type or multiple drivers?). Looking at where the ears are, it does appear to have different outlets for the audio.

No way this is in impulse buy range for a gaming accessory, I say min low end would be $1k and I might be dreaming at that. Will the gaming version even use the same tech if one does exist?

Edit @Scott_Arm Yep, Brit and Shifty are going to kill some of us.