michaelius
Banned
More like Gimmick Reality
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft: Hololense isn't VR or AR
- Thread starter Natureboy99
- Start date
AR+M$ = ARM$, doofus.
Natureboy99
Banned
When holograms become easy enough to project, you will be able to make the holodeck, where nothing from reality is seen. It's VR without the headgear.
I think the beef people have with this claim is that the images are inside headgear and not projected. People want these experiences without the headgear.
I would have been more excited for this if MS had been more frank about what they had invented; VAR.
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
Natureboy99
Banned
Alx
Member
How many 2D camera games did register motions towards the screen ? And how many of those could tell your foot from your head or your fist ?
Let alone being able to track you at all when there are moving elements in the background...
More like it's textbook Microsoft PR.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
I guess it's good people are visualizing this stuff so we know what to avoid.
Betta Lines
Member
No I don't work at MS & it's MR so is Eyepet.
shacklesmcgee
Member
Pshh, yeah guys, next thing you'll be saying is that their HPU is really just a CPU and Holographic Processing Unit is just marketing!
Dreamwriter
Member
It's more than just that, it's that the technology is completely unrelated to holograms. Projecting a different 2D image onto a material in front of each eye is not a hologram.
UnluckyKate
Member
lol yeah exactly
Visualante2
Member
3rdamention
Member
I know, the guy was like "this isn't AR, this isnt VR, it's totally different" then proceeds to describe Augmented Reality exactly, to a T, except adds the words Holograms instead of digital overlays, digital elements, or computer generated overlays.
Wow, hilarious, and basically completely true. Its PR for AR.
3rdamention
Member
Double Post, Apologies!.
Alx
Member
To be honest I don't think the definition of a hologram is set in stone. Or if it is, then it seems to be restricted to a very specific technology. For example wikipedia says :
So the only true kind of holograms would be those fancy 3D images you can engrave in glass-like trinkets.
I would say that popular culture would call hologram any virtual 3D object appearing in the real world. We would expect them to be intangible, although that would conflict with the "other holograms" above. Maybe we could discuss whether a headset is required or not for a "true" hologram, in which case headset-holograms would be mostly an emulation of holograms. But we're getting in nitpicking territory.
In the end if Hololens can make a tiny Princess Leia appear on my coffee table and tell me "save us Obiwan Kenobi, you are our only hope", I wouldn't mind calling that an hologram.
KidGalactus
Member
Microsoft PR: liars, or a bunch of dummies?
You decide.
You decide.
It pretty much is. It feels like very Apple like steps to make existing ideas, there own. Like apple calling their cameras eyeSight or their video calling Facetime.
Betta Lines
Member
Are you denying that it is AR?
More than likely their HPU is just a DPU that's designed to handle all the camera & voice sensing.& maybe raytracing the real world lighting.
I get what you mean, but there's still a distinction.
The Hologram in this case is simply an overlay to reality seen by those who wear said glasses that augment reality.
A projected hologram that is seen by anyone/anything is therefore part of reality. It's there. Like a projector that projects a movie. The movie is there, you don't augment reality. You don't augment the theatre curtains.
If you could only see that movie by looking at the curtains with glasses that overlay a movie, and nobody else in the theatre could see it, then it would be AR, which this device is.
I'm excited for VR and AR, but let's not pretend this is something else than a product belonging to that category of devices.
imagine you had a outward facing kinect on your hololense. you could then have ar elements that are more completely informed of the space rather than just in 2 dimensions. things could walk on the ground, go behind things, interact with physics with the actual spacial environment.
thats just me thinking about the next logical step knowing what they have for tech. ive actually thought a bit more about it and its great (in my head anyway). kinect could map a point cloud that you could then use in your vr.
seems pretty exciting to me honestly... but there is still plenty of time to crush my fantasy
i also saw this:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4451
thats just me thinking about the next logical step knowing what they have for tech. ive actually thought a bit more about it and its great (in my head anyway). kinect could map a point cloud that you could then use in your vr.
seems pretty exciting to me honestly... but there is still plenty of time to crush my fantasy
i also saw this:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4451
Cheeseman Battitude
Member
TheSlySoul
Member
We already know it can do both.
Makes sense they do not want to classify it as one or the other.
Makes sense they do not want to classify it as one or the other.
No AR is a part of MR. to call it AR is to take away the fact that you can interact with it in the same way that you can in VR.
AR isn't really aware of the real world that it's overlaying.
Quite frankly the vast majority of AR stuff is "MR" and yet would be labeled and marketed as AR. MS is just trying to communicate that their stuff is like nothing else out there.
AR is not by definition strictly restricted to non-interactive stuff.
This.
TouchMyBox
Member
Okay, we get it, you don't want to be called AR because that will draw comparisons with what you think are lesser products. Instead of making up shit, you can just call it "Next-gen AR". Fools love Next-Gen.
It is indeed AR. However, I can't blame them for trying to turn it into their own thing by using more exciting-like references.
Alx
Member
Well, yes. I'm mostly with joesiv here, all kinds of AR can be likened to holograms (in the common sense of the word). It's becoming more impressive with headsets and better rendering, but in the end it's still creating the illusion of an object being there when it's not.
I would say it's quite the opposite, AR has a specific requirement of being aware of the real world, so the displayed information will match with it. Can't augment reality if you don't know what kind of reality you're dealing with.
Betta Lines
Member
Where have you got this definition from?
got dammit beaten LOL
Wouldn't a true hologram system with projectors and whatever else is involved to make that simulated image be limited to whatever room its in? With the MS hololens you can take them to different environments and still be able to reproduce the AR/hologram effect. My take is, If I'm MS and I just showed the world the most advance HMD the world has seem. I'll call whatever I damn well please. Apple don't sell fruit either.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Microsoft is really fond of making things up and using terms that don't mean anything, yet can be very appealing to the general public. You have to remember that "Blast Processing" worked really well for kids in the schoolyard in the 90s. Same principle here.
They're going to keep saying holographic because that's Star Trek Holodeck stuff and makes the product sound magical. Just like "The Power of the Cloud" was used to make people think Xbox One had the Hot Graphics of a million computers in your living room.
They're going to keep saying holographic because that's Star Trek Holodeck stuff and makes the product sound magical. Just like "The Power of the Cloud" was used to make people think Xbox One had the Hot Graphics of a million computers in your living room.
Because, to be honest, that's what I would do too if I was working in their PR department *embarrased*
