Support NeoGAF

[Heigic]

Meanwhile, you're actually viewing the world thru a postage stamp sized window.

When it actually becomes a consumer product in 3-5 years it wont be like that.

 

[Dreamwriter]

Why would the guy appear in front of the rendered stuff? I'm not sure I get what you're saying at all.

Some people think there's a massive media coverup hiding a secret limitation of the Hololens, where the 3D "holograms" will always appear in front of everything else you see, including your hand, no matter how far away from you the "hologram" is supposed to be. This is all speculation, the media haven't been saying anything about it (though the media *have* talked about other problems like the limited FOV), and strange speculation considering the built-in Kinect could easily see where things are in the room that should be occluding the image and cut those bits out of the "hologram".

 

[Alx]

But that's not a positive thing to me. I would want the simulated data to display in at least a 90 degree FOV if not more. If I can see my real world at 170 degrees, why shouldn't the simulated data work in that same FOV space?

Well, you know the answer, there are limitations to what the technology can do. Right now it's narrow, in a few years you'll get your 90°, and maybe later 170°. But you say it yourself, you'd settle with 90°, so it would still be interesting even if it doesn't fill your whole field of view.
The positive of not limiting your fov still remains. Seeing 170° of real world with 90° AR is still better than seeing 90° AR and nothing else.

 

[CoG]

Felt like an awkward interactive CD demo from the 90s. Terrible presentation.

 

[Head.spawn]

Some people think there's a massive media coverup hiding a secret limitation of the Hololens, where the 3D "holograms" will always appear in front of everything else you see, including your hand, no matter how far away from you the "hologram" is supposed to be. This is all speculation, the media haven't been saying anything about it (though the media *have* talked about other problems like the limited FOV), and strange speculation considering the built-in Kinect could easily see where things are in the room that should be occluding the image and cut those bits out of the "hologram".

Gotcha. I didn't even think to test that out during my session.

I don't think there is a cover-up, that's just the last thing you would even think to do during the demo. If I had seen people complaining about that, I would've checked myself.

 

[Oner]

You have to applaud (and laugh at) the intricacy of how they danced around the whole explanation in the intro of what is actually seen versus what is shown in the demonstration and how it was specifically worded ~

"We also have this custom camera that can see a FULL VIEW OF EVERY Hologram, Dan sees all the Holograms HE IS LOOKING AT, but this camera will show you ALL OF THE ACTION ON STAGE."

What an amazing piece of contrived and loaded lawyer speak to make it seem like this is the experience you will get but you won't. Way to stand behind your product and give a proper representation of what the public will actually "see".

Ever since the whole FOV size was revealed I honestly wondered if Hololens will ever be able to utilize a wider FOV because of the position of what each eye can see relative to each other ~ I.E. Stereoscopic Vision is only possible in a narrow area because of peripheral/central vision, and anything outside of that area is not able to be properly utilized because of focus or the lack of stereoscope being available at the distance the opposite eye can't physically "see" per se.

An easy way to show/prove this is to close one eye (say the right) and draw your right finger (from the right) into the line of sight of where the left one just about sees it, then while holding its position there and doing the same with the opposite eye, you can easily see (with both eyes open obviously) the confined/small width area of which the Hololens is effective.

I don't think it's an actual hardware limitation for the Hololens more so than a physical limitation that they have to work within or are bound to. Now does that mean Hololens is doomed? No. Not at all, just a bit of a disappointment when touted to be this completely immersive experience, although it will still have usefulness in proper application that should be made clear to consumers IF that is the situation.

 

[mckmas8808]

Ever since the whole FOV size was revealed I honestly wondered if Hololens will ever be able to utilize a wider FOV because of the position of what each eye can see relative to each other ~ I.E. Stereoscopic Vision is only possible in a narrow area because of peripheral/central vision, and anything outside of that area is not able to be properly utilized because of focus or the lack of stereoscope being available at the distance the opposite eye can't physically "see" per se.

An easy way to show/prove this is to close one eye (say the right) and draw your right finger (from the right) into the line of sight of where the left one just about sees it, then while holding its position there and doing the same with the opposite eye, you can easily see (with both eyes open obviously) the confined/small width area of which the Hololens is effective.

I don't think it's an actual hardware limitation for the Hololens more so than a physical limitation that they have to work within or are bound to. Now does that mean Hololens is doomed? No. Not at all, just a bit of a disappointment when touted to be this completely immersive experience, although it will still have usefulness in proper application that should be made clear to consumers IF that is the situation.

Great point. I just hate that it's being advertised in this way.

 

[Alx]

Ever since the whole FOV size was revealed I honestly wondered if Hololens will ever be able to utilize a wider FOV because of the position of what each eye can see relative to each other ~ I.E. Stereoscopic Vision is only possible in a narrow area because of peripheral/central vision, and anything outside of that area is not able to be properly utilized because of focus or the lack of stereoscope being available at the distance the opposite eye can't physically "see" per se.

Stereoscopy isn't a requirement for AR as a concept. You can perfectly augment a monoscopic image, it's actually the more common way of doing AR.
As a matter of fact areas where stereoscopic vision is "active" makes it more difficult for AR, since you should take into consideration elements like convergence. While if you're in the field of view of one eye only, it's easier to "fool" it into believing there is a 3D object at a given position.

 

[Oner]

Stereoscopy isn't a requirement for AR as a concept. You can perfectly augment a monoscopic image, it's actually the more common way of doing AR.
As a matter of fact areas where stereoscopic vision is "active" makes it more difficult for AR, since you should take into consideration elements like convergence. While if you're in the field of view of one eye only, it's easier to "fool" it into believing there is a 3D object at a given position.

I don't propose to be an expert in the field or anything, it's just something I simply came to notice of which I questioned, reasoned & wanted to discuss as to why the image size could be so limited that seems to make sense...especially when there hasn't been any real clarification/response from MS as to why the inherent design and continual claim of it being a 3D Stereoscopic platform. I really do hope the technology grows because the practicality of using a set of glasses or a head mounted unit I believe would be the way to go vs the over reaching dreams of an actual Hologram without masses amount of tech supporting it.

 

[Raist]

Some people think there's a massive media coverup hiding a secret limitation of the Hololens, where the 3D "holograms" will always appear in front of everything else you see, including your hand, no matter how far away from you the "hologram" is supposed to be. This is all speculation, the media haven't been saying anything about it (though the media *have* talked about other problems like the limited FOV), and strange speculation considering the built-in Kinect could easily see where things are in the room that should be occluding the image and cut those bits out of the "hologram".

That's not speculation, you can see it happen in a couple of MS's demos.

 

[DorkyMohr]

Regarding different accounts of the FOV and the way they're currently explaining it: All they have to do is draw a faint "cone of vision" protruding from the headset every time they show 3rd person footage via their camera rig. They'd be able to do this easily because they're rendering the scene multiple times to account for the different perspectives anyways, they know exactly where the headset is oriented in physical space, and they know the dimensions of what they need to render to the actual glasses. Seeing a highly produced mockup that's already cut down from actual human FOV, or a stage demo serves only to build it up more than the reality.

 

[paulogy]

Another very cool demo. At this point, though, I'm more impressed with the camera choreography than I am the technology. Once again it was filmed exclusively from a third person perspective and they made sure to always have every hologram appear overlayed on top of the player, to avoid showing object occlusion. Every dodge he made was away from the cameraman so the fireballs would pass in between him and us (from our perspective). They even had the player go around the cameraman twice just to prevent the illusion from being broken. Masterful, really.

 

[Pie and Beans]

You have to applaud (and laugh at) the intricacy of how they danced around the whole explanation in the intro of what is actually seen versus what is shown in the demonstration and how it was specifically worded ~

"We also have this custom camera that can see a FULL VIEW OF EVERY Hologram, Dan sees all the Holograms HE IS LOOKING AT, but this camera will show you ALL OF THE ACTION ON STAGE."

What an amazing piece of contrived and loaded lawyer speak to make it seem like this is the experience you will get but you won't. Way to stand behind your product and give a proper representation of what the public will actually "see".

Ever since the whole FOV size was revealed I honestly wondered if Hololens will ever be able to utilize a wider FOV because of the position of what each eye can see relative to each other ~ I.E. Stereoscopic Vision is only possible in a narrow area because of peripheral/central vision, and anything outside of that area is not able to be properly utilized because of focus or the lack of stereoscope being available at the distance the opposite eye can't physically "see" per se.

An easy way to show/prove this is to close one eye (say the right) and draw your right finger (from the right) into the line of sight of where the left one just about sees it, then while holding its position there and doing the same with the opposite eye, you can easily see (with both eyes open obviously) the confined/small width area of which the Hololens is effective.

I don't think it's an actual hardware limitation for the Hololens more so than a physical limitation that they have to work within or are bound to. Now does that mean Hololens is doomed? No. Not at all, just a bit of a disappointment when touted to be this completely immersive experience, although it will still have usefulness in proper application that should be made clear to consumers IF that is the situation.

Yep, just affirmed theyre gonna be scumbags about this all the way and then look perplexed at the inevitable backlash.

 

[Trup1aya]

You have to applaud (and laugh at) the intricacy of how they danced around the whole explanation in the intro of what is actually seen versus what is shown in the demonstration and how it was specifically worded ~



What an amazing piece of contrived and loaded lawyer speak to make it seem like this is the experience you will get but you won't. Way to stand behind your product and give a proper representation of what the public will actually "see".

Ever since the whole FOV size was revealed I honestly wondered if Hololens will ever be able to utilize a wider FOV because of the position of what each eye can see relative to each other ~ I.E. Stereoscopic Vision is only possible in a narrow area because of peripheral/central vision, and anything outside of that area is not able to be properly utilized because of focus or the lack of stereoscope being available at the distance the opposite eye can't physically "see" per se.

An easy way to show/prove this is to close one eye (say the right) and draw your right finger (from the right) into the line of sight of where the left one just about sees it, then while holding its position there and doing the same with the opposite eye, you can easily see (with both eyes open obviously) the confined/small width area of which the Hololens is effective.

I don't think it's an actual hardware limitation for the Hololens more so than a physical limitation that they have to work within or are bound to. Now does that mean Hololens is doomed? No. Not at all, just a bit of a disappointment when touted to be this completely immersive experience, although it will still have usefulness in proper application that should be made clear to consumers IF that is the situation.

Yeah... I don't think this is anywhere near that serious...

Hololens isn't a a consumer product... It won't be for at least another 3-5 years. Only developers and industry will be able to purchase DEV KITS, and at $3000, you can bet your bottom dollar that any interested parties are well aware of the devices current limitations...

I totally disagree that these demonstrations are intended to "make it seem like this is the experience you will get but you won't"... Because consumers actually WON'T BE GETTING ANYTHING BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING TO BUY... Currently, we have no idea what experience consumers will get.

You guys are acting like there are trying to trick people into buying something when it isn't even close to being on the market.

These demonstrations are designed to show the world that they are working on a Windows powered AR device... They show the entirety of the Hologram being processed by the computer, even if much of it would be "off screen". There really isn't a better way to show people what they are aiming for in a live setting...


Now, when MS starts actually marketing this device to consumers, the material should be more reflective of the actual experience... (If it isn't THEN we should be raging) Hopefully, their will be far fewer limitations by then anyway...

We should also note, that on the actual Hololens advertisements (the videos intended to sell the device to developers and industry), the FOV is apparent.

 

[KiraXD]

Yet another orchestrated demo where they never show depth occlusion. The guy never appears over/in front of the rendered stuff. Seems they have no solution for this.

just coming to say this too... yeah these "demos" showing things layered over stuff isnt impressive... once they show the hologram passing behind your hand/body/anything else... call me.

if theres no occlusion solution... AR fall into gimmick.

 

[hawk2025]

I get a lot of what you guys are trying to say, but don't give me this thing that they are not trying to market it to consumers when the thing is shown at major E3 press conferences and consumer-targeted events.

In fact, the very first reveal made it a point to say that it would be a consumer-grade device for Windows 10, which while not suggesting a Windows 10-launch period, is clearly meant to set it up as a consumer-grade device sooner, rather than later.

None of this is to downplay the immense advances and the challenges ahead, of course.

 

[Neuromancer]

I get a lot of what you guys are trying to say, but don't give me this thing that they are not trying to market it to consumers when the thing is shown at major E3 press conferences and consumer-targeted events.

In fact, the very first reveal made it a point to say that it would be a consumer-grade device for Windows 10, which while not suggesting a Windows 10-launch period, is clearly meant to set it up as a consumer-grade device sooner, rather than later.

None of this is to downplay the immense advances and the challenges ahead, of course.

Actually they did suggest a Windows 10 launch period release:

Microsoft says HoloLens will go on sale “in the time frame” when Windows 10, its new operating system, is released this summer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/technology/microsoft-yes-microsoft-has-a-far-out-vision.html?_r=0

I agree that they are actively marketing this to consumers which seems strange when a viable commercial product has to be years out. But on the other hand I don't know that they have anything to lose by doing so.

 

[The_Almighty_Swan]

It isn't ready for gaming. The first version will not focus on gaming and will stick to enterprise use cases. I have no idea why they keep doing these misleading demos. It's like they are selling some future vision that won't be ready for 3-5 years, just to get everyone excited and keep the hype going.

I'm fully aware of that... This version they showed us however is meant for gaming. I was really optimistic from the other demo from before E3. This one though has me slightly turned off of it as a whole. If it's quick and responsive come release I'm totally on board, but this slow cumbersome showing in the demo has me thinking otherwise

 

[Head.spawn]

I'm fully aware of that... This version they showed us however is meant for gaming. I was really optimistic from the other demo from before E3. This one though has me slightly turned off of it as a whole. If it's quick and responsive come release I'm totally on board, but this slow cumbersome showing in the demo has me thinking otherwise

Well, I used it last night. It wasn't slow or cumbersome. Everything on the headset moved fluidly.

 

[Citadelofmythoughts]

I'm fully aware of that... This version they showed us however is meant for gaming. I was really optimistic from the other demo from before E3. This one though has me slightly turned off of it as a whole. If it's quick and responsive come release I'm totally on board, but this slow cumbersome showing in the demo has me thinking otherwise

They likely slowed the action down in order for the audience to be able to watch everything that was happening.

 

[Vinland]

I will believe that gets in the hands of consumers in the next decade at nominal costs when I believe my mortgage company gives me 5 years of waved payments out the kindness of their hearts.

That being said, i really wish they would make a new Nick Arcade with that type of tech. Enterprise and gamers be damned, that is pimp for interactive game shows man.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

At Microsoft's event today, they revealed the HoloLens game "Project X-Ray"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NkoS0vNQTY

And here's Magic Leap's demo video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMHcanq0xM

Project X-Ray looks more realistic, but still has quite a bit similar with Magic Leap's game.

This picture reminds me of old PC games boxes. You know, the ones which showed pictures on the backside which had absolutely nothing in common with how the game actually looked like. What MS promises with such pictures has nothing to do with what can currently be done with HoloLens. And allthough the tech is still awesome, that's not cool at all.

 

[Rembrandt]

just coming to say this too... yeah these "demos" showing things layered over stuff isnt impressive... once they show the hologram passing behind your hand/body/anything else... call me.

if theres no occlusion solution... AR fall into gimmick.

so instead of watching videos, have you read any of the actual hands on impressions?

 

[Alx]

just coming to say this too... yeah these "demos" showing things layered over stuff isnt impressive... once they show the hologram passing behind your hand/body/anything else... call me.

if theres no occlusion solution... AR fall into gimmick.

Calling KiraXD...

We've seen examples of occlusion handling since the Minecraft demo at E3, and later in the Maya motorcycle demo.
Those were always with occlusion from static objects, though. Even if I think we can see examples of dynamic occlusion handling in the x-ray demo, as I mentioned earlier.



It's still obvious that they're trying to avoid that situation on stage. My theory would be that dynamic occlusion would show more artifacting and overlap, mostly because of the lower resolution of the real-time depth map : the "magic camera" is using a kinect2 for depth perception, and it only has a 512x424 resolution. And if the screenshot above is actually illustrating dynamic occlusion, you can notice a gap between the edge of the user's hand and the virtual object behind it.
On the other hand, static objects in the environment can be modelized with much more accuracy with a preliminary scan from multiple points of view (what MS calls "kinect fusion" in the SDK)

 

[Tntnico]

The first Oculus Rift dev kit went for $300, while HoloLens Development Edition is coming Q1 2016 for $3,000. There is literally an order of magnitude difference in price. The point I am making is that few devs are going to develop apps for this product because it is going to cost too much. How many consumer units will Microsoft be able to sell with a price that high? This isn't going to be a consumer product for quite a while.

Remember that Oculus Rift is "just" a display headset and need a (high-end) PC to run VR experiences ($350 + $1000+). Hololens has a computer in it that needs to be powerfull, light and very small. This level of miniaturization has a cost. But yes, that's not a consumer product for now. It needs to be below $1999 IMO.

 

[Monty Mole]

Yeah, which like I say, feels like a step back from VR for gaming.

I mean don't get me wrong, AR looks vastly better for productivity and non gaming applications to VR to me, but specifically for games, the only thing it looks to be an improvement over VR is for real world spatial awareness, and I'd say the Vives solution is far superior overall.

VR and AR are completely different things and I don't see AR's primary application being gaming. In fact, I think a couple of years from now VR's primary application will be for commercial use too, and not for gaming. But one advantage AR has over VR is that you're not completely cutting yourself from the real world.

We'll soon see people's homes being burgled around them whilst they're right there playing a VR game

 

[Fupri]

Looked good for the first couple of seconds.

 

[Kikorin]

Tech looks pretty incredible, but I think this would be more useful for other things than gaming.

 

[mckmas8808]

We'll soon see people's homes being burgled around them whilst they're right there playing a VR game

You mean the same way it can happen if you were in the shower or sleeping?

 

[juliushandle]

i tried hololens and project x-ray this week. i really came away impressed. it was better than i thought it would be.

the field of view was small, meaning the screen area that overlays the visor doesn't cover your entire field of view. that seems to be the only thing negative that i can think of.

pretty cool that it's un-tethered and is a complete stand alone windows 10 device. also, once adjusted properly, it's pretty comfortable. that said, if the device could get smaller and lighter (i'm thinking google glasses) then apps and games can be developed where the user can really get physical. as of now, your physicality is limited. yes you can walk, turn around, crouch down, but things like jumping and running are a no no.

the whole "mixed reality" thing isn't something you won't fully understand unless you try it. my mind was blown when the screen in front of me overlayed a damn hole in the wall that you can look into and almost touch. after playing a single stage i wanted more but my time was limited.

i also like that the real world isn't closed off compared to vr/oculus. for example, if i just wanted to watch Netflix on a blank wall i could yet i'd still be able to interact, hear, and talk to my wife, pets, etc, all while i'm wearing the hololens. there are no speakers that cover your ears yet the spacial 3D sound was the best i've experienced.

would i buy it? yes. it's a damn novelty i know but it's a pretty damn good one. i don't think we're too far off from something like forza on hololens where you sit in an actual car and the hololens overlays a game screen on your windshield and side windows. or better yet, as you are driving, virtual cars are projected on the road you are on. until then though, i'd be pretty happy looking at an empty wall with a virtual imax screen on it watching a movie or as i'm watching my real tv i can browse the web where my entire coffee table is a web browser.