3 ms·
i think by the sheer amount of funding that the prototype gear has been able to raise is a testament to the quality of the experience. the article also elaborat
by clifft 10y ago
i think by the sheer amount of funding that the prototype gear has been able to raise is a testament to the quality of the experience. the article also elaborated on why the quality is much better - "an optical system that creates the illusion of depth in such a way that your eyes focus far for far things, and near for near, and will converge or diverge at the correct distances.
In trying out Magic Leap’s prototype, I found that it worked amazingly well close up, within arm’s reach, which was not true of many of the other mixed- and virtual-reality systems I used. I also found that the transition back to the real world while removing the Magic Leap’s optics was effortless, as comfortable as slipping off sunglasses, which I also did not experience in other systems. It felt natural."
I am not sold on hololens since people who have tested it complained about the effective 'field of vision' which the experience applies to. see http://imgur.com/uCmWnis http://imgur.com/uCmWnis
- ZenoArrow 10y agoLook at it with a critical eye. If they've already solved those issues, why would they have any reason to restrict who they demo to? I'd suggest they still have technical issues to overcome, and the Wired piece is at least partly hyperbole.
- mdorazio 10y agoI'm always very hesitant to gauge quality/capability by amount of funding. Remember Solyndra? Better Place? Color? The startup annals are littered with companies that raised huge money amid hype and then failed to deliver. The fact that Magic Leap is being so secretive when everyone else is plowing ahead with improvements to VR and AR hardware available to the public is troubling.
- joak 10y agoSolving the vergence-accommodation conflict, as described by Kevin Kelly, is a big leap for AR/VR/MR. If they succeed in delivering, it will be huge. Hence the bet made by the investors.