Sure great , nothing there says they will never release the product. But cool story bro.
Microsoft HoloLens [Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Holograms]
Sure you can, just run the PC in super chunky font mode
So the $3k is for a developement kit? I thought that was the rough BoM for some reason...I did wonder where the $3k came from?
The 3k is for the dev kitSure you can, just run the PC in super chunky font mode
So the $3k is for a developement kit? I thought that was the rough BoM for some reason...I did wonder where the $3k came from?
https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us/development-edition
They ahave sold enough dev kits that if you do get accepted for a wave it wont come before the end of the year. So they are doing something right
It's a cutting-edge tech with a specific professional market. Furthermore, price is dictated by desirability, and as long as people are willing to pay that price (eastmen says they're booked up to the end of the year) then it's priced correctly.
Can you please stop 'quoting' made up snide remarks. There are more polite, constructive ways to expain one's personal interpretation of events than sarcasm.
Cheers. It does make you wonder how far off this is and how the end product might change (although from what I read it won't change much).
The heads up, hands free video here (3rd one down) is a good example of the FoV limitations but also what I imagine is the perfect use for Hololens in it's current form;
https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us/apps/skype
The heads up, hands free video here (3rd one down) is a good example of the FoV limitations but also what I imagine is the perfect use for Hololens in it's current form;
https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us/apps/skype
Yes according to MS each wave takes 2-3 months to roll out. They have up to wave 4 and climbing it seems. They say wave 4 will be towards the autumn time frame
https://twitter.com/HoloLens/status/718111022104576001
I think people need to take a step back on the tech. I think we will see an updated model at some point in 2017 with improved FOV and battery life. It looks like all the augmented reality groups are rushing towards a 2018/19 launch.
Anyway did we talk about the smart ring patent by ms ?
http://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-patents-new-smart-ring/
Apparently full vision Hololens-type projection is a lot closer than we think, it's just not made by MS:
http://www.wired.com/2016/04/magic-leap-vr/
There is a video which shows the image through the visor. I am not going to compare the 2, as 1 has a fully contained prototype for sale, while the other one is backed by 1.4 billion dollar for just the visor, with no need to rush unfinished/unrealised technology to the market.
I have to say that I always kind of believed in the hololens concept; and to me it looks like it will be fully realisable in the future if magic leap is anything to go by. I just hope that Google won't buy it to spite their competitor
http://www.wired.com/2016/04/magic-leap-vr/
There is a video which shows the image through the visor. I am not going to compare the 2, as 1 has a fully contained prototype for sale, while the other one is backed by 1.4 billion dollar for just the visor, with no need to rush unfinished/unrealised technology to the market.
I have to say that I always kind of believed in the hololens concept; and to me it looks like it will be fully realisable in the future if magic leap is anything to go by. I just hope that Google won't buy it to spite their competitor
MS wont buy them , people are throwing money at the company hand over fist.
We already know that the hololens is limited by rendering power , battery power and the cost of the lenses for higher fov.
Magic leap is tethered to a computer so rendering and battery power don't apply and since they aren't selling them to even devs at this point the price of the lenses don't matter either .
Also lest we forget MS has a fully working OS running on their hardware and applications which are only going to grow since hololens is in developers hands now.
We already know that the hololens is limited by rendering power , battery power and the cost of the lenses for higher fov.
Magic leap is tethered to a computer so rendering and battery power don't apply and since they aren't selling them to even devs at this point the price of the lenses don't matter either .
Also lest we forget MS has a fully working OS running on their hardware and applications which are only going to grow since hololens is in developers hands now.
I expect magic leap to work with win10 therefore the uwp apps to work on it, which includes HoloLens apps
Yeah, that's what I meant by "fully contained prototype".
Though it would make a lot of sense to have a Magic Leap tethered device as a dev kit for Hololens instead of the low FOV version we have now.
They can create the final version once the technology is ready. Even if the final version of Magic Leap requires ('wireless') tethering to another device; to consumers it could seem like the superior concept. I don't see people walking around the house like this:
Not even in the future.
Though this I can see easily:
You put on the holohelmet for business, as a tool, to get things done. Not around the house.
But that's just my opinion. Maybe people in the future will be walking around and charging their hololens all the time
Though it would make a lot of sense to have a Magic Leap tethered device as a dev kit for Hololens instead of the low FOV version we have now.
They can create the final version once the technology is ready. Even if the final version of Magic Leap requires ('wireless') tethering to another device; to consumers it could seem like the superior concept. I don't see people walking around the house like this:
Not even in the future.
Though this I can see easily:
You put on the holohelmet for business, as a tool, to get things done. Not around the house.
But that's just my opinion. Maybe people in the future will be walking around and charging their hololens all the time
This device looks a lot nicer than the 3 VR headsets, OK they don't have to worry about light leakage which is a massive advantage but I betcha the 3 VR makers could improve their headsets a lot, Im wondering perhaps instead of a LCD/OLED use a small projector and the heads up is just a reflector = curved screen, variable FOV
A lot of the higher-end HMDs of the past used LCoS/DLP projection, including some of the earlier VR R&D that Valve was doing prior to their move to OLED (in Abrash's older AR/VR articles you see him reference LCoS a lot, and the CastAR tech that spun-off from Valve uses LCoS projectors.) The big benefits come in the form of size and form factor flexibility, but the drawbacks are/were significant in that you're limited to much smaller economies of scale (no smartphone overlap), and the desire for low persistence necessitates simultaneous RGB display (off the shelf LCoS/DLP implementations commonly being sequential color, otherwise you'd need separate chips/arrays and emitters for each component and route them via separate optical paths.) At some point VR will probably have to make the move back to that sort of projection system if they want to bring the profile down to a pair of sunglasses. I'm sure behind the scenes folks like texas instruments are busting their ass to build new specs that better accommodate this new market.
Texas Instrument came out last year with a new DLP-TRP specifically for pico projectors, EVF and HMD... at 5.4um pixels.
http://www.ti.com/lit/wp/dlpa051/dlpa051.pdf
But DLP is improving at a very slow pace, it used to be magical and it's now barely competitive. FLCOS (ferroelectric variant of lcos) seems to be the best technology for AR with holographic waveguides. I wouldn't be surprised all the AR devices we've seen so far since Google Glass are FLCOS and waveguides.
I'm more hopeful at some eventual price (and brightness) breakthrough of OLED-on-silicon or some form of laser-on-silicon which would allow the current waveguide to require only a flat chip directly glued on the emitter side. It could use wafer-level per-pixel optics, which is not possible with any light modulating techs like DLP or LCOS. Being reflective, the light needs to go through both ways, it cannot be manipulated or collimated until it reached beyond the in/out intersection point. OLED would allows some additional tricks.
The ideal tech would be a true light field, but we still have no information about how Magic Leap is doing it... It would need both a revolutionary emitter, and a revolutionary waveguide. There's a big difference between doing something in a lab and making a mass-market product.
http://www.ti.com/lit/wp/dlpa051/dlpa051.pdf
But DLP is improving at a very slow pace, it used to be magical and it's now barely competitive. FLCOS (ferroelectric variant of lcos) seems to be the best technology for AR with holographic waveguides. I wouldn't be surprised all the AR devices we've seen so far since Google Glass are FLCOS and waveguides.
I'm more hopeful at some eventual price (and brightness) breakthrough of OLED-on-silicon or some form of laser-on-silicon which would allow the current waveguide to require only a flat chip directly glued on the emitter side. It could use wafer-level per-pixel optics, which is not possible with any light modulating techs like DLP or LCOS. Being reflective, the light needs to go through both ways, it cannot be manipulated or collimated until it reached beyond the in/out intersection point. OLED would allows some additional tricks.
The ideal tech would be a true light field, but we still have no information about how Magic Leap is doing it... It would need both a revolutionary emitter, and a revolutionary waveguide. There's a big difference between doing something in a lab and making a mass-market product.
z
The video is amazing. The Nasa guy is right that this doesn't need a dedicated room and you can use it any where which is a great site.
Norm also talks about how this demo was more of a vr demo than what you think of AR. He talked about how great it felt on his head. He talked about the FOV also and that while it wasn't a large part of his VR is was able to walk around and navigate his surroundings without any trouble while still focusing on the AR.
The video is amazing. The Nasa guy is right that this doesn't need a dedicated room and you can use it any where which is a great site.
Norm also talks about how this demo was more of a vr demo than what you think of AR. He talked about how great it felt on his head. He talked about the FOV also and that while it wasn't a large part of his VR is was able to walk around and navigate his surroundings without any trouble while still focusing on the AR.
The deception continues... Again, more unrepresentative footage with non-aditive-only augmentations. Sorry, that's not what the kid sees.
