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.
Meanwhile, you're actually viewing the world thru a postage stamp sized window.
Why would the guy appear in front of the rendered stuff? I'm not sure I get what you're saying at all.
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?
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".
"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."
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Actually they did suggest a Windows 10 launch period release: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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/technology/microsoft-yes-microsoft-has-a-far-out-vision.html?_r=0Microsoft says HoloLens will go on sale “in the time frame” when Windows 10, its new operating system, is released this summer.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We'll soon see people's homes being burgled around them whilst they're right there playing a VR game