3 ms·

Seems like most people here are skeptical/dubious of ML. I don't blame them there is a lot of hype. But it is quite fascinating technology. If you look seriousl

Seems like most people here are skeptical/dubious of ML. I don't blame them there is a lot of hype. But it is quite fascinating technology. If you look seriously at the detailed technical coverage on how the technology works [1] and watch the recent Stanford lecture by Brian Schowengerdt [2], Co-Founder of Magic Leap, then I think you will see why ML is actually quite special. Personally I am fascinated and optimistic about the potential represented by scanning fiber + waveguide display for AR and VR. I'm optimistic about the future of this tech platform far more than any other AR/VR tech out there mainly owing to form factor it affords (lightweight glasses) and the superior bio-compatibility of the light-field it produces (all day use). On principal its imagery is clearly light-years ahead of anything using a flat screen with lenses and its potential form factor could be surprisingly close to regular glasses. The image quality and form factor are huge part of why this tech could replace phone or a tv or a laptop. I am sure the first iterations will be cool but not perfect. I expect a progression much like that of the iPhone. It works, its awesome, then it keeps getting better and better and better. IMHO this really does look like a viable platform for the future of computing for the next 10-20 years. People still buy PCs but the laptop largely replaces most uses for it other than hard-core gaming. Similarly I could see the same effect happening with screens vs ML over time. I say all this with the caveat that the form factor really is much much closer to glasses than something like HoloLense. Here are couple things I have learned about the tech that kind of blew my mind: * The same tech used to display the light-field can also be used to capture images of they eye for eye tracking, no extra camera needed. It is conceivable that the same scanning fiber technology could be used to dramatically miniaturize the sensors needed for SLAM inputs as well. * The detail falloff of human vision from a small point in the center is huge. We largely piece together a detailed picture over time in our minds with quick eye movements. This means that good eye-tracking + foveated rendering largely mitigates concerns about achieving a very high perceived resolution with manageable IO. * I assumed this kind of display would only be able to produce semitransparent ghostly images. Not so. Apparently it can block incoming light from points where it is projecting. * It is not simple stereoscopy, the light hitting the eye is focusable at the distance the virtual object appears to exist in real space rather than at the surface of the waveguide. This is why it is so compatible with the human visual system and can be used all day as opposed to other tech. This has to do with how the visual system to point both eyes at an object in space is wired in sync with the system that focuses the lenses. No other system, to my knowledge, accommodates this linkage and thus causes strain. Watch the video to understand this more. [1] http://uploadvr.com/magic-leap-how-it-works/ http://uploadvr.com/magic-leap-how-it-works/ [2] https://talks.stanford.edu/brian-schowengerdt-human-sensory-systems-perception-and-immersive-digital-experiences/ https://talks.stanford.edu/brian-schowengerdt-human-sensory-...

occamjmv 10y ago
Hi there, About usability: I have used the hololens for entire battery charges (about 3hours). I work on various experiments in AR, including path finding, assembly, etc. Had no noticeable eye fatigue. Hololens works great already, and although light field may bring a technology imporvement, ML seems to come a tad too late (I mean, all the ML videos I have seen can be produced with an hololens)... but I'd love to be convinced.
- tigershark 10y ago
  I don't think that hololens with its tiny FOV can do anything vaguely comparable to what ML can do with a much larger one from what I've read around.
  - occamjmv 10y ago
    I'd say yes and no. Many people who have complained about the small FOV of Hololens expect applications where you want virtual stuff everywhere. Certainly nice for all around usage, but not necessary for many others. Again, after hours of continuous use, I've come to "forget" the FOV problem. The key is to switch from eye movement to head movement. When you know you have to look straight at the virtual content to see it, it's actually quite manageable. Don't get me wrong: I'll take 120° anytime, but I know it's around the corner, with Hololens or ML. In the meantime, I'll take what exists. I've seen so much vaporware in 25 years in the AR field...

occamjmv 10y ago

Hi there, About usability: I have used the hololens for entire battery charges (about 3hours). I work on various experiments in AR, including path finding, assembly, etc. Had no noticeable eye fatigue. Hololens works great already, and although light field may bring a technology imporvement, ML seems to come a tad too late (I mean, all the ML videos I have seen can be produced with an hololens)... but I'd love to be convinced.

tigershark 10y ago
I don't think that hololens with its tiny FOV can do anything vaguely comparable to what ML can do with a much larger one from what I've read around.
- occamjmv 10y ago
  I'd say yes and no. Many people who have complained about the small FOV of Hololens expect applications where you want virtual stuff everywhere. Certainly nice for all around usage, but not necessary for many others. Again, after hours of continuous use, I've come to "forget" the FOV problem. The key is to switch from eye movement to head movement. When you know you have to look straight at the virtual content to see it, it's actually quite manageable. Don't get me wrong: I'll take 120° anytime, but I know it's around the corner, with Hololens or ML. In the meantime, I'll take what exists. I've seen so much vaporware in 25 years in the AR field...