My biggest question is how this will intergrate with xbone and kinect!
My biggest question is how this will intergrate with xbone and kinect!
Confused by the 'holographic' term and 'photons bouncing around'.
I thought any kind of real-time holography was a long way away, if this is genuine it's an enormous step forward. The realist in me says it's just marketing speak gone awry, and it's either stereo screens or retinal projection. I await more details.
I'm not sure it will.
I feel they are really pushing this towards corporates and professional people. I think it's going to be quite pricey.
I'm hoping the 'holo' means real 3d images and not stereoscopic images that we've had since the 1880s.
My biggest question is how this will intergrate with xbone and kinect!
I'm not sure it will.
I feel they are really pushing this towards corporates and professional people. I think it's going to be quite pricey.
Maybe down the road.
I was wondering the same thing. May see something at E3.
They did mention Minecraft with it. I agree though that it does seem like it will be expensive. Will be surprised if it's under $250.
That may not technically be true. I'm guessing the user isn't looking directly at any screens, rather the reflection of tiny stereoscopic projectors, sorta like the old Sega 'holographic' game, Time Traveler. But yeah, I know what you mean. Only the wearer sees anything.It's not projecting anything. Only the user wearing the lens can see anything.
Uuhg, killed my hype right there
How Minecraft is supposed to look
I can't see this thing being cheap as it has it's own computer built into it.
The board game revolution I've been waiting all my life for.Table top gaming will be awesome with this.
How Minecraft is supposed to look
I can't see this thing being cheap as it has it's own computer built into it.
Looks amazing. Hopefully we will hear feedback from folks that have tried it today.
If it's cheap enough. Table top gaming will be awesome with this.
From my perspective it feels like an updated version of 3DS/PSV AR. Still would like to buy it, but Microsoft hasn't given out any concrete info regarding availability or pricing. Maybe it is still a prototype product.
Besides, Microsoft doesn't have a strong history of leading innovation. They had a lot of fantastic concepts, including eReader, Tablet PC, module-based mobile phones, and Kinect. But in the end it is always other companies - Apple, Google, Amazon, just to name a few - carries out the mass-market-ready version and takes all the credit. I am not jump to any conclusion here; I just get a little bit disappointed after being "tricked" into buying Windows 7 Tablet, Windows Phone 7 device, $499 XBOX One and a Lumia 920 through all these years.
It's just AR with a different name.
Can't believe people are actually falling for this shit again. of course it works in a MS created well lit controlled environment, so did Kinect...
smh.
Microsoft's problem is that they're always too far ahead before the technology has matured, this might run into the same problem.
If it works as well as in the ad then this will be pretty amazing.
Why do people say it's "just" AR? Is what they're showing old tech? Has anyone else been successful doing anything like this on this scale? Why so much emphasis on what they call their thing?
literally nothing works as well as in ads and promotional videos.
No it didn't. Any time Microsoft demonstrated Kinect live, it had the same flaws on stage (and in demo booths) as it does in your living room. People still pointed out the lag, and the tracking was flawed (hence the famous bottom of an avatars foot moment) and voice commands failed to register, all live on stage.
I'm kind of disappointed that Eurogamer called it VR.
The best William Gibson could come up with was wierdo shrines to celebrities parked on servers along tourist destinations.
Confused by the 'holographic' term and 'photons bouncing around'.
I thought any kind of real-time holography was a long way away, if this is genuine it's an enormous step forward. The realist in me says it's just marketing speak gone awry, and it's either stereo screens or retinal projection. I await more details.
I think that's on purpose that they used that word instead of augmentaed reality because you still need to wear those glasses to see pictures being displayed just like Google glasses.
Real time holography is more like this and it has been accomplished without any glasses : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEaBqiLeCu0
Except it seems to actually work, as people are using it today.
Here's WIRED's hands-on:
http://www.wired.com/2015/01/microsoft-hands-on/
Well one augments reality (you are walking on Mars and see your own hands) the other is a virtual world where even your own body is an avatar. If I had a table in the middle of the room I would expect to see it with AR, but not VR.The wired article made it sound as though the person using it was walking on a virtualMars landscape, what's the different between AR and VR in that instance?
It's probably smartphone-grade processing guts...that doesn't have to be super duper expensive, depending on what they want to go for.
The bigger cost would probably be in the display and/or maybe the cameras.
Although the latter in particular is just guess-work.
What's the difference?No it's MR Mixed Reality.
This comes to my mind.
Real time holography is more like this and it has been accomplished without any glasses : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEaBqiLeCu0
How dey do dat?! Lasers? I thought they needed some solid or liquid medium to reflect the light?
Anyway, bit disappointed that MS chose the 'holo' name; that's setting the bar pretty high if it ends up being images bounced off the translucent screen, or even is it's direct retinal projection. Holography it ain't.
What are your thoughts?