No not necessarily true.
The video may (probably given the size of his fingers in the video) have been cropped to only show within AR. A child's field of view is their wingspan.
Microsoft HoloLens [Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Holograms]
The video may (probably given the size of his fingers in the video) have been cropped to only show within AR. A child's field of view is their wingspan.
You are talking FOV. I was talking transparency. Re-read my post.
Oh. But you can't show transparency. I've never tried it in bright light but the AR was pretty solid looking to me at time I used it. Not much has changed on that front I imagine.
Big take away for me was that Hololens built the scene for him. When I was at build it was clearly some sort of external application providing the AR area. But at the beginning of the video you could see him scanning the environment or that bush.
Whatever it is, the software stack has been changed enough to not require Unity3D anymore. Would be interested if more people could shed light on the SDK if you know
Oh, i see. In that case, the way the unit records video is deceptive. Plain and simple.
It's not abot that. It is dishonest to show footage of 3D graphics overlayed on top of real world images in a way current holo lens cannot actually display and say "this is what the kid sees".
No, this is not what he sees. In the actual hololens he only sees bright neon-ghost like objects. One thing is to project a concept of tech you wanna reach some day. Another is to get an in-development product and say " this is what it does" when, in fact, that is not exactly what it actually does yet, and there are no signs of it being really able to do it anytime soon.
No, this is not what he sees. In the actual hololens he only sees bright neon-ghost like objects. One thing is to project a concept of tech you wanna reach some day. Another is to get an in-development product and say " this is what it does" when, in fact, that is not exactly what it actually does yet, and there are no signs of it being really able to do it anytime soon.
They are using the Hololens camera's to film the view and then imposing what its rending over it. The only other way to film is to stick a camera inside of it visor but that doesn't look good at all .
So its whatever. I never see you complain about cell phone videos that don't show the real screen , or siri / android now videos that are shortened for time. I don't see you complain when consoles use cgi or pc graphics to show off their games in comercials .
It depends what they're trying to show. If the idea is to show what the play is seeing/experiencing, then it's unrealistic. If the intention is to show the gameplay and software, it's okay.
For accuracy they could change the superimposed graphics feed from an alpha matte to additive blending, tweaked to more match what the user actually experiences. Also crop it to the FOV.
Huh?! These are labelled as much. We had a spell of games not telling people that the marketing materials were prerenders and everyone was up in arms! We've also have Downgradegate on a lot of big-name titles. So yeah, people do complain about misrepresentation all the time, in a big way. In this case the video is labelled "what I see" and that's not what the boy sees, at least not in a complete representation. That's the content he sees, but not how it's presented. This video shows ship to left and right that he won't see because they're outside Hololens's FOV.
For accuracy they could change the superimposed graphics feed from an alpha matte to additive blending, tweaked to more match what the user actually experiences. Also crop it to the FOV.
I don't mind them not using the actual visor man. Its ok to simulate it. But do it acurately. Its easy peasy. When super imposing what they render, use aditive blending. Like the bush trimming one. That was honest. The aliens one, wasn't.
I think some people underestimate how limiting an additive-only display is, or how different that makes things look. So I went through the trouble of making a rough mock-up of how a couple frames of that video would look like if they were accurate.
That doesn't look too bad, but certainly doesn't look the same, and it would take very little effort to present it this way. Any video editing software that allows you to overlay a piece of footage on top of another supports blending modes such as screen or add. To me though, making that mockup was harder since I didn't have the separate layers, I had to recreate the background behind the ships in photoshop and cut them out by hand.
Now look how bad those augmented cracks on the wall look, and how hard it is to see things under a very bright window:
Doesn't look too hot eh? This is the kind of scenario in which additive only really shows its limitations. And it is dishonest, in my opinion, to hide those limitations, or pretend they aren't there. If the video said "this are the real time rendered augmentations" I wouldn't mind, but the video said "what I see" ( where I is the kid that represents an user ) which is misleading. I am also perfectly ok in cutting them slack for using the camera footage instead of actually filming from the exact POV of an user. I'm even ok with them cheating with the FOV a bit for demonstrational purposes. But pretending they can overlay dark objects over bright BGs just fine and have them look solid is not a tiny detail to me. Its a big and important limitation of the tech, and one you have to be honest about.
I would even say, I don't think the actual game uses those assets. Some of those alien ships are very dark, and might not display very well. You really need bright stuff on Holo Lens.
Additive only displays are not unusable though, there are lots of things you can do with them. You can create a very good Tron-like game with it, or a game about ghosts and spirits. You might not be able to overlay dark holes over your white wall, but you could create cracks to a bright alien second dimension, with fancy god-rays coming through it. You can even do a good enough job of faking solid non-see-through darkish realistic objects on darker environments. But you most definitely CAN'T acuratly display realistic solid objects over bright environments with Holo Lens's current additive only display technology. There are no two ways around that. I think this game is not playing to the tech's strengths, and is portraying the final result deceptively.
That doesn't look too bad, but certainly doesn't look the same, and it would take very little effort to present it this way. Any video editing software that allows you to overlay a piece of footage on top of another supports blending modes such as screen or add. To me though, making that mockup was harder since I didn't have the separate layers, I had to recreate the background behind the ships in photoshop and cut them out by hand.
Now look how bad those augmented cracks on the wall look, and how hard it is to see things under a very bright window:
Doesn't look too hot eh? This is the kind of scenario in which additive only really shows its limitations. And it is dishonest, in my opinion, to hide those limitations, or pretend they aren't there. If the video said "this are the real time rendered augmentations" I wouldn't mind, but the video said "what I see" ( where I is the kid that represents an user ) which is misleading. I am also perfectly ok in cutting them slack for using the camera footage instead of actually filming from the exact POV of an user. I'm even ok with them cheating with the FOV a bit for demonstrational purposes. But pretending they can overlay dark objects over bright BGs just fine and have them look solid is not a tiny detail to me. Its a big and important limitation of the tech, and one you have to be honest about.
I would even say, I don't think the actual game uses those assets. Some of those alien ships are very dark, and might not display very well. You really need bright stuff on Holo Lens.
Additive only displays are not unusable though, there are lots of things you can do with them. You can create a very good Tron-like game with it, or a game about ghosts and spirits. You might not be able to overlay dark holes over your white wall, but you could create cracks to a bright alien second dimension, with fancy god-rays coming through it. You can even do a good enough job of faking solid non-see-through darkish realistic objects on darker environments. But you most definitely CAN'T acuratly display realistic solid objects over bright environments with Holo Lens's current additive only display technology. There are no two ways around that. I think this game is not playing to the tech's strengths, and is portraying the final result deceptively.
I've already agreed to that point, but it's not as bad as you paint in your stills. We're working in real-world HDR, with light added to the view in the real light space and the eye adjusting. The dark cracks are likely invisible rather than white lines (which is of course terrible in its own way!).
This is really why it needs to be presented properly, because people trying to determine/guess FOV and end result aren't going to be able to represent the product as well as MS who have all the real details and experience. It's also why this video can be seen as underhanded, because MS are wanting to showcase the tech to a degree that's more in keeping with want people want from AR than what they can currently provide.
And regards these assets not being the in-game assets, they loks very VR to me. I wonder if the project was originally, or still, working with AR on VR headsets, and this is a Hololens version? Or the guy just grabbed assets and tried it out, not really designing the art for Hololens because it's an early WIP?
This is really why it needs to be presented properly, because people trying to determine/guess FOV and end result aren't going to be able to represent the product as well as MS who have all the real details and experience. It's also why this video can be seen as underhanded, because MS are wanting to showcase the tech to a degree that's more in keeping with want people want from AR than what they can currently provide.
And regards these assets not being the in-game assets, they loks very VR to me. I wonder if the project was originally, or still, working with AR on VR headsets, and this is a Hololens version? Or the guy just grabbed assets and tried it out, not really designing the art for Hololens because it's an early WIP?
From my personal experience, your images are way too transparent, it's much closer to the original than it is to yours. It terms of quality, I would liken it to a strong projector being beamed onto a wall. I personally haven't seen it in all different lighting setups, but in my demo setup, it was as solid as a strong projector would be.
They are not transparent in my mock up. I used the original aliens with no transparency, just additive blending (screen) over a the touched up BG. Opacity is set to 100%. I've actually even darkened the background a bit on my mock-up to account for the lens (although I don't really know what amount of darkening would be realistic) and increased the contrast of the alien ships. Both mesures to make them more visible, so people wouldn't say I was cheating. It looks exactly like a strong projector would. The stuff that is against dark objects looks pretty solid, but no projector can display stuff very clearly over a brightly back-sun-lit curtain, and neither will Holo Lens. Shifty says in real world HDR those cracks would actually disappear. I don't know how that isn't worse.
For this to work, the brightness of the holograms would have to be signifcantly brighter than the ambient light. The contrast ratio is going to be terrible! If you avoid blacks, and start from mid-tones up, it'll probably work quite well. Which comes back to the earlier issue about not being able to draw black. As long as demo material shows this 'darker than ambient' content, I think there's good reason to complain about accuracy. It's actually a technical limitation that a prospective business customer should be aware of. As too should developers thinking of a Hololens app, because they may otherwise invest on a misinformation about what the product will actually be capable of.
I felt the shielding made operating hololens quite dark already. it is similar to being in a fully enclosed set of sunglasses. I don't want to say you guys are wrong, that's not the purpose of the post, but it certainly requires each person to wear it to really know. I unfortunately didn't get enough time with the device to answer all your questions. But I was fairly impressed with it.
That's not what it looks like. I've used it.
The holograms are much darker and don't look washed out like that. The only time it came close to looking like that is if I would look up into one of the bright lights in the room
