4 ms·

I'm not skeptical that this is real footage "shot from Magic Leap technology", however I am skeptical that the final product will be anywhere near this good. Mi

by iLoch 10y ago

I'm not skeptical that this is real footage "shot from Magic Leap technology", however I am skeptical that the final product will be anywhere near this good. Microsoft announced HoloLens around a year ago now (I think?) and they were able to show videos like this at that time. My expectation of what the disclaimer in this video is saying is that you can use Magic Leap "technology" without using the consumer hardware. Microsoft has shown us how amazing this technology can be when you hook it up to very expensive gear that's tethered, etc. HoloLens probably represents the best technology we've ever seen in this field, and even still you have a very limited FOV and 3D capability in the consumer product. Sorry, but I don't think Magic Leap developers have the ability to solve this problem better than Microsoft Research.

Grazester 10y ago
"Wired claims the quality of Magic Leap's virtual objects "exceeds all others," http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/19/11457880/magic-leap-photonic-lightfield-chip-features http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/19/11457880/magic-leap-photon...
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  43 exceeds 42.
rtkwe 10y ago
> "shot from Magic Leap technology" That's my main concern. Microsoft could have reasonably made the same claim about the HoloLens-on-a-Camera setup that they were using during their announcement videos that ultimately didn't show the actual view. The graphics and fidelity were really similar from what I've heard but the experience as a whole wasn't close. My biggest concern with the video's we've seen is a) how closely this FOV matches the real thing b) what kind of processing power this will require (AR gets much less interesting if it requires a highend PC attached to do the rendering and tracking) and c) what that room actually looks like, ie every Magic Leap video that's been shown as shot through the actual technology looks like it's REALLY DIM.
- tgb 10y ago
  Regarding FOV, I wouldn't be surprised if this did match the real thing and I wouldn't be surprised if the Hololens demo also matched the real thing. The problem is that we're looking at a video and have a hard time judging the FOV of a video. If it fills the video, it must fill our field of view, right? Well, a typical cellphone camera has a horizontal FOV of like 60 degrees, versus 180 or so for human vision. But videos don't look low FOV to us when we view them.
  - rtkwe 10y ago
    True, I thought of that and saw a couple people mention that when the original hullabaloo about the FOV differences started. Even if it's accurate to the actual FOV the end result is that the video doesn't give a good feel for the actual device so ideally to me it'd be done differently to give a more accurate feel to what the final FOV would look like.

by iLoch 10y ago

Grazester 10y ago

"Wired claims the quality of Magic Leap's virtual objects "exceeds all others," http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/19/11457880/magic-leap-photonic-lightfield-chip-features http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/19/11457880/magic-leap-photon...

erikpukinskis 10y ago
43 exceeds 42.

rtkwe 10y ago

> "shot from Magic Leap technology" That's my main concern. Microsoft could have reasonably made the same claim about the HoloLens-on-a-Camera setup that they were using during their announcement videos that ultimately didn't show the actual view. The graphics and fidelity were really similar from what I've heard but the experience as a whole wasn't close. My biggest concern with the video's we've seen is a) how closely this FOV matches the real thing b) what kind of processing power this will require (AR gets much less interesting if it requires a highend PC attached to do the rendering and tracking) and c) what that room actually looks like, ie every Magic Leap video that's been shown as shot through the actual technology looks like it's REALLY DIM.

tgb 10y ago
Regarding FOV, I wouldn't be surprised if this did match the real thing and I wouldn't be surprised if the Hololens demo also matched the real thing. The problem is that we're looking at a video and have a hard time judging the FOV of a video. If it fills the video, it must fill our field of view, right? Well, a typical cellphone camera has a horizontal FOV of like 60 degrees, versus 180 or so for human vision. But videos don't look low FOV to us when we view them.
- rtkwe 10y ago
  True, I thought of that and saw a couple people mention that when the original hullabaloo about the FOV differences started. Even if it's accurate to the actual FOV the end result is that the video doesn't give a good feel for the actual device so ideally to me it'd be done differently to give a more accurate feel to what the final FOV would look like.