Microsoft HoloLens [Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Holograms]

[function]

I think that's where you'd have to darken the ambient by clouding the visor (again, photoreactive or LCD) and then overlay bright white text (and obviously not black).

UI /overlay design will probably be a tricky thing to get right and I guess that's one of the reasons MS has been keen to get the dev kits out into the hands of developers in the field. If the device allows you to monitor brightness of zones in the users field of vision that might be a useful tool to allow software to adapt to some degree on the fly.

 

[Egmon83]

I think this is about the same, contrast wise:

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Are you serious? You just stretched numbers to extremes trying to win an argument? You think most people have their eyes 4 feet from a 24 inches monitor, and that most people can actually hold a tablet 3 feet in front of their face?

http://lookafteryoureyes.org/eye-care/computers-and-other-screens/
"Most people find a distance of 50 to 65 centimetres (20 to 26 inches) comfortable."

Holding something in front of your eyes is the same distance as using the thumb rule for estimating sizes. Most people are around 20 inches.

This is literally called the rule of thumb, it's to multiply your IPD by 10.

At 20 inches the equivalent to hololens is between 11 and 12 inches tablet.

I just measured from the tip of my chin to a tablet held in my hand at arms length (Goonergaz's original statement). It is 30". So yes, it's not the 3 feet I stated. But is certainly far longer than the 20" that site is using and the 24" that Microsoft is using for the comparison. I'm also considered just slightly more than average height for an average male in Western countries (5'10" versus 5'9.5"). Perhaps Goonergaz is less than 5 feet tall and thus has shorter than average arms.

I never stated that other people have their monitors at the same distance I have mine. My monitors are ~3.5-4 feet away. I use a large executive style desk. I use that area between me and monitors not only for my keyboard but other items associated with my workflow.

My error was in not stating that it was my particular workspace and hence my use of a 20-24" monitor.

And yes, I realize most people aren't going to hold their tablet at "arms length" but that was the criteria that Goonergaz used. Which was a patently trollish statement in an attempt to discredit the device.

Regards,
SB

 

[MrFox]

Stop. Just.... stop.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Stop. Just.... stop.

Stop with real measurements? Uh yeah.

Regards,
SB

 

[Egmon83]

I just measured from the tip of my chin to a tablet held in my hand at arms length (Goonergaz's original statement). It is 30". So yes, it's not the 3 feet I stated. But is certainly far longer than the 20" that site is using and the 24" that Microsoft is using for the comparison.

Well there you have it; you should measure from your eyes (that would make the distance longer but I thought it was a funny picture )

Btw a tablet is held like a newspaper; at reading length; not the furthest away possible; unless you are viewing something really nasty; in which case you want to maximise the distance to the tablet, while looking away in disgust and saying: "somebody close the browser before I drop this iPad, a little help here, close the browser. I will drop this iPad"

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Well there you have it; you should measure from your eyes (that would make the distance longer but I thought it was a funny picture )

Btw a tablet is held like a newspaper; at reading length; not the furthest away possible; unless you are viewing something really nasty; in which case you want to maximise the distance to the tablet, while looking away in disgust and saying: "somebody close the browser before I drop this iPad, a little help here, close the browser. I will drop this iPad"

Take a tape measure. Measure out 20". Now extend your arm. Put one end at the base of your hand, on your wrist (which will be closer to your face than anything held in that hand). The other end of the tape measure will be nowhere near your face (unless you have REALLY short arms).

20" is likely meant to represent a comfortable maximum distance to hold a device while in use. I myself use my tablet far closer than 20" to my face. But Goonergaz stated at arm's length, which is entirely different from a comfortable useable position.

BTW - nice troll post, I didn't think B3D had degenerated to that level of childish posting.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Take a tape measure. Measure out 20". Now extend your arm. Put one end at the base of your hand, on your wrist (which will be closer to your face than anything held in that hand). The other end of the tape measure will be nowhere near your face (unless you have REALLY short arms).

Just tried, and I'm about 20" from chin to wrist of forward-extended arm!

BTW - nice troll post, I didn't think B3D had degenerated to that level of childish posting.

Egmon tries to make every post a joke. I don't like it either.

 

[zed]

Just tried, and I'm about 20" from chin to wrist of forward-extended arm!

yeah same here ~22", unless you're 2.5 meters tall or have orangutan arms theres no way this is 30"

 

[MrFox]

And it's more like looking at a 20-24" computer monitor on your desk.

I never stated that other people have their monitors at the same distance I have mine.

Everything you added after claiming gonnergaz was wrong, and implying he knew nothing, was spin spin spin. B3D isn't a used car show room, you can't use these tricks here. If you're going to call someone a troll, you better have supporting arguments.

I gave you a statement from MS about the perceived FoV, the discussion should have moved on.
I gave you a reference for the usual monitor distance. (you made it personal)
Another reference for the normal rule of thumb distance. (also became personal)
And now I don't have the inclination to give you a link to medical publicatition about human proportions.

 

[goonergaz]

lol, come on @Silent_Buddha 30" is freakishly long - I am just your joe average person @5ft 10" and if I hold a tablet (as one would when holding a tablet at arms length) and measure distance to my eyes it's 22". The tablet as a whole is 12" in size (9.7" screen)- so I see nothing wrong with my statement "this is no different to saying it's like holding an iPad at arms length". I maybe should have clarified about it being the whole unit but I thought that was a given, what I am saying is that by holding an iPad at arms length the bit blocked out by the unit is roughly the same as the FoV of Hololens.

It's just to give people an incredibly rough idea of the FoV and I think it's a fair statement, it's certainly an easier thing to imagine than 'bigger than a 65" TV at 4.5m away' (or whatever it was above)!

 

[Malo]

I simply can't imagine anyone sitting 4ft away from 20-24" monitors and actually being able to see anything and be productive. I don't think that's even close to the norm.

 

[hughJ]

Something that I have to remind myself with the limited FOVs (whether it be the FOV of Hololens or even VR in cases where only the center portion of the lens allows the screen to be in full focus) is that not all tasks and types of interaction have our eyes naturally resting at the plane of the head. For example, any sort of routine interaction with objects on a table top that's below head level we tend to naturally rotate our eyes downward to keep the head as upright as possible to keep as much tension off the neck as possible. This was something that I hadn't paid a great deal of thought to until I tried playing VR pinball where I realized I needed to have my head rotated 45deg down (almost chin to chest) to accommodate what would have been shared between the head and the eyeballs.

In the case of Hololens where a great deal of the most interesting use cases seem to involve 3D objects resting in physical space on table tops and floors I can imagine this being problematic. Not only is the total FOV area not large enough for displaying something like a board game at arm's reach, the vertically narrow 16:9 makes for an either/or engineering choice of the device - you either center the waveguide in front of the eyes to maximize the size of medium distance, eye-level virtual windows, or lower it to accommodate more comfortable nearer distance object/environment interaction, but you can't really have both.

 

[Egmon83]

If Hololens upgraded to a 110 degree FOV, then we could finally discuss the 3000 dollar price.

 

[eastmen]

If Hololens upgraded to a 110 degree FOV, then we could finally discuss the 3000 dollar price.

How would we discuss the 20,000 price tag of the ps3 dev kits ?

 

[Egmon83]

A PS3 dev kit is something you need when developing games for +50 million consumers, it was an investment for game developers and it has no relevancy to Hololens.

 

[eastmen]

A PS3 dev kit is something you need when developing games for +50 million consumers, it was an investment for game developers and it has no relevancy to Hololens.

Wait you mean a Ps3 dev kit that costs hundreds of times the price of the consumer ps3 has no bearing on the Hololens dev kit's price and its comparision to what the final consumer hardware will cost ?

The only hololens avalible is the dev kit which is used for developers to create content for the final hololens for consumers.

The price of the dev kit has no baring on the price of the final hardware for consumers. Just like the cost of the ps3 dev kit had no baring on the price of the final consumer ps3.

 

[Egmon83]

"hundreds" means "multiples of hundred"
the price of 20.000 was when PS3 was 599. I don't want to assume you can't count, but (about)34 times is not "hundreds"
by 2008 it dropped to 10.000 and the year after it was around 2000.
PS4 dev kits are free (loaned) for indy developers and cost 2500 for Ubisoft.

With PlayStation dev kits there has always been an accompanying consumer product. With Hololens, there will never be a consumer product; which is why I will repeat:
playstation dev kits have no relevancy to Hololens.

 

[eastmen]

"hundreds" means "multiples of hundred"
the price of 20.000 was when PS3 was 599. I don't want to assume you can't count, but (about)34 times is not "hundreds"
by 2008 it dropped to 10.000 and the year after it was around 2000.
PS4 dev kits are free (loaned) for indy developers and cost 2500 for Ubisoft.

With PlayStation dev kits there has always been an accompanying consumer product. With Hololens, there will never be a consumer product; which is why I will repeat:
playstation dev kits have no relevancy to Hololens.

I was exaggerating.

Anyway the ps3 launched in 2006.

What year did Hololens release to consumers ?

A PS4 also doesn't cost $2500 , I can buy one at its launch for $400. So why is it so expensive for a dev kit ?


Hololens is a product that will be released in the future. The cost of the dev kit has no baring on the cost of hololens for consumers. To suggest is is just silly.

 

[Egmon83]

Again,

there will never be a consumer Hololens.

MS to developers:

"yeah, you just have to develop and test your applications while imagining that the actual screen portion is... not less than 20% of your vision. While you are imagining that, imagine we will one day release said consumer product. You are going to have to imagine that we are sharing that information with you before we take your 3000 dollars because we are not going to"