It's not that bad - Microsoft released a video actually showing the visible area, and people who have tried it said it looked pretty accurate (aside from letterboxing the video)
It's not that bad - Microsoft released a video actually showing the visible area, and people who have tried it said it looked pretty accurate (aside from letterboxing the video)
That's because it's AR, not VR.
It's a shitty pic but it conveys the FOV a lot more clearly than that screenshot from the official video that people keep dreaming about.
Human FOV: I made a panorama of what my eyes can see when I look straight ahead.
VR: I plotted a 90 degree angle from where I was standing and widened it about 10% to approximate the 100-110 degree FOV of the Rift CV1 and Vive respectively. I could have widened it more for Vive but it's more of an average.
Hololens: I held my hands out, thumbs touching like this guy did.
No it's MR Mixed Reality.
I'm curious to hear a valid reason for why you trust certain "third parties" and not "secondary sources." Especially when those third parties are looking at a mockup filmed with a camera that has an unknown field of view that snugly frames the Hololens area.that screenshot that people "keep dreaming about" is supposedly very close to the real thing according to third parties. whereas this pic you made is a bit misleading because a. you guesstimate how much hololens is based off of a secondary source
First off, let's establish some context so your "very small" term makes sense. When I'm looking at my phone, I'd call that very small. iPad, that's medium. When I'm looking at a fullscreen game on my monitor at my desk, that's large. When I'm playing VR, that's huge. When I'm looking out from the top of a mountain, that's gargantuan. Now, when it comes to what's necessary for videogames, I don't mind if the game is a cell phone game or real life sports, as long as the game is designed with those perspective limitations in mind. But when I'm playing something that's supposed to augment/emulate reality, and things are supposed to come out of my walls, I don't want to be limited to slow-paced simplistic gameplay like this demo. I and others have an expectation that if something is claiming to augment your reality anywhere you look, there's a major disconnect when things are invisible outside a small to medium sized window.b. even if you have a large fov visible at all times most of the time you only focus on a very small part of it.
The VR frame centering was deliberate. The natural right angle that i referenced was my multimedia rack and the bathroom doorway. I took the panorama without thinking 2 steps ahead about the VR reference points. I can shift both VR borders to the left a little to make it centered, if it's bugging you.edit: also at the very least your vr drawing isn't centered
This demo killed my hype for Hololens. I love the concept of it all but watching the demo and how slow it was reminded me of Kinect when it was first unveiled and how slow and unresponsive that was. Looks like they got a lot of kinks to work out before using it seriously for gaming.
I'm curious to hear a valid reason for why you trust certain "third parties" and not "secondary sources." Especially when those third parties are looking at a mockup filmed with a camera that has an unknown field of view that snugly frames the Hololens area.
First off, let's establish some context so your "very small" term makes sense. When I'm looking at my phone, I'd call that very small. iPad, that's medium. When I'm looking at a fullscreen game on my monitor at my desk, that's large. When I'm playing VR, that's huge. When I'm looking out from the top of a mountain, that's gargantuan. Now, when it comes to what's necessary for videogames, I don't mind if the game is a cell phone game or real life sports, as long as the game is designed with those perspective limitations in mind. But when I'm playing something that's supposed to augment/emulate reality, and things are supposed to come out of my walls, I don't want to be limited to slow-paced simplistic gameplay like this demo. I and others have an expectation that if something is claiming to augment your reality anywhere you look, there's a major disconnect when things are invisible outside a small to medium sized window.
The VR frame centering was deliberate. The natural right angle that i referenced was my multimedia rack and the bathroom doorway. I took the panorama without thinking 2 steps ahead about the VR reference points. I can shift both VR borders to the left a little to make it centered, if it's bugging you.
Mixed reality is the AR equivalent of 1080pr.
Devkits always cost way more than consumer products. I'm excited for the AR future.
Using "some guy's guesstimate" is easier for anyone to understand, as they can do it themselves. The MS gif on the other hand is much more difficult to replicate, because it's a composite hand, composite hololens feed, and a zoomed view overall. If we take it as "pretty accurate," then you have to be like 12 feet away to see the approximately 6 foot tall cabinets in the background, so you have to have a lot of space if you want to see those big aliens crashing through your wall.i meant third parties as people who have used the headset, giving their opinion on the image. your image is one step removed from that, as you used the explanation of some guy who used it to guestimate what hololens looks like.
It's hard not to focus on and point out the fov ramifications when MS keeps putting out gaming videos that portray a full-scale holographic experience taking over your living room, shot by a third person camera with a deceptively larger field of view.your whole blurb about complaining that "augmenting things should be everything instead of a small space" doesn't really connect when the whole point of this device isn't just gaming; in fact that's at most a small side of what the device does.
Oculus Rift dev kit is $350, and they are saying the consumer version will be more.
MEH, somethings are better left on the R&D floor.
Using "some guy's guesstimate" is easier for anyone to understand, as they can do it themselves. The MS gif on the other hand is much more difficult to replicate, because it's a composite hand, composite hololens feed, and a zoomed view overall. If we take it as "pretty accurate," then you have to be like 12 feet away to see the approximately 6 foot tall cabinets in the background, so you have to have a lot of space if you want to see those big aliens crashing through your wall.
It's hard not to focus on and point out the fov ramifications when MS keeps putting out gaming videos that portray a full-scale holographic experience taking over your living room, shot by a third person camera with a deceptively larger field of view.
ok that magic leap demo is like the greatest thing i hav eever seen. Like real life Horde mode!
I think hololens has the most potential as it mixes real life with VR
The haters have arrived!
That looked absolutely incredible. This would be so amazing for kids running around the house and shooting things. Really impressive demo of this stuff.
For some reason i think i would prefer this kind of stuff to total VR.
My kids will have kids by the time anyone can run anywhere and do things with this.
Hololens seems like it has great possibilities in interaction with a UI... they should stop shoehorning terrible game demo's onto it and focus on where it is ideally suited in the next few years
In fairness he didn't say which kids...
Everyone knows this is in its infancy man. Its still pretty amazing.
i just think they can do more "realistic" things with it then these demo's they keep throwing up. Tabletop games, augmentation of existing game systems if they want to focus on gaming, but the general use case of this outside of gaming is much more interesting and much more realistic
He's moving so slow and awkwardly in that demo. Hololens is an interesting technology that could have many great applications, it just appears that gaming is not one of them.
All I'm saying is that the MS image masks how much of the player's field of view resides outside the active area. I'm not arguing that it's inaccurate- just liable to confuse people who don't understand cameras. If you hold your hand out like that demo shows, and then you bring your other hand into frame and touch your thumbs together and measure as shown in the method shown by the blogger I quoted, you'll find that the hand:screen scale is very similar to MS's own visualization. So it's not like I'm saying one is more accurate than the other- just that the thumbs-together method will give you a better idea of how big the active area is because you can see it with your own eyes in your own environment.i can't even tell what you're talking about in the first paragraph. your image was made using one guy's quick rule of thumb to describe what he saw when he used hololens, which means, at best, it's three steps removed and unverified by anyone else. the ms image comes from the same people who make the device, and other people who used the device and do not work for ms describe it as highly accurate.
as for the second part, they're doing that so that a year or two down the line when they make version two that has much better fov, people will have been already sold on the idea instead of consumers being incredibly vary because of stuff like kinect. they've made it very clear that hololens gen 1 is for enterprise and other similar uses only.
I don't think anyone has published a definitive solution to the fov issue or a timeline for when they're going to improve it and by how much. All we know is that the early version had an estimated 45 degree fov and the consumer version will be more like 30 degrees. If they can get it back up to 45 for V2, that's 50% more space and can be approximated by spreading your hands apart to accommodate an invisible third outstreched hand. That's an improvement, but you'd still have to be about 10 feet away to fit a 6 foot creature coming out of your wall. And we're still talking less than half of VR's fov.based off of the fact that the very, very early devkits they showed to press had a much, much larger FoV, even if they required being wired to a desktop.
Sure he has, he points it out pretty late in the post:it doesn't even seem like he's actually used the device himself. so your picture is one step further removed from the actual hololens experience.
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.
All I could think while watching this is that it's a fancy version of that face raiders game that comes preinstalled on the 3DS.
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.
There is depth occlusion at least for the environment, since you can see the spiders hiding behind the couch. And I'll have to check the video in details, but since the blaster is semi transparent, you should be able to see if the parts on the back are hidden by the users hand.
Can't wait for the next generations of this tech. I'm seeing the benefits of studies and design rather than with gaming.
Meanwhile, you're actually viewing the world thru a postage stamp sized window.
Why do some people seem to always forget this part?
Because the cool factor overshadows the technical limitations ?
Also you're not seeing the world through a small window, you can see it fine with your full field of view. It's the simulated objects that you only see within a window.
Which is a positive aspect of AR actually : even if the fake data is limited, you still have the real world around you to fill your perception.
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.