7 ms·

Avegant “Light Field” Display

159 points by _pius 10y ago

nickparker 10y ago
A publicity video can be found here: https://vimeo.com/207586226 https://vimeo.com/207586226
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aethr 10y ago
Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:k1NGo0qpydYJ:www.kguttag.com/2017/03/09/avegant-light-field-display-magic-leap/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:k1NGo0q...
DiabloD3 10y ago
I dunno, build one of those for $200, I'd consider buying it. Latency is far more important than resolution.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
Fun. I hope they are successful. One of the things that my daughter pointed out about 3D movies is that because they are 3D your brain thinks it should be able to shift the focus but it can't and that 'fight' gets in the way of enjoying the content. My understanding is that light field optics don't have this issue.
- asher_ 10y ago
  If that's true about this tech, then it will be awesome. The focus issue is the only thing that kills my enjoyment in 3D movies.
  - monk_e_boy 10y ago
    I've not seen many 3D movies, but those I did see were very flat. Like cardboard cut outs. I saw some of the hobbit in 3D and it looked weird. There is no volume to the characters...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - hashhar 10y ago
      Yes, because it's only a 2D stereo image and live in only a single focal plane - so no depth.
- jboggan 10y ago
  3D movies are a misnomer, they're actually forced perspective.
  - taneq 10y ago
    Forced perspective refers to optical illusions relying on a particular viewpoint. '3D movies' are stereo pairs.
- Leszek 10y ago
  Your daughter will be glad to hear that she's in good company, in noticing the "Vergence-Accommodation conflict"[1] that is unavoidable on two-view stereoscopic displays. You're correct that light field optics don't have this issue -- other options are volumetric displays and "super multi-view" displays (which are, to a certain interpretation, a type of lightfield display). [1] http://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2122611 http://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2122611
- epalmer 10y ago
  >One of the things that my daughter pointed out about 3D movies is that because they are 3D your brain thinks it should be able to shift the focus but it can't and that 'fight' gets in the way of enjoying the content. My two grown daughters and I avoid 3D movies. We have all come to the conclusion that the 2D versions are more enjoyable. Plus our local theater is now digital in 4K. We love that theater experience. [edit] fixed typo
glibgil 10y ago
We're going to need a new word for resolution at depth. Cubic resolution? "Cubic resolution of 1080p by 32p"
- jsemrau 10y ago
  You are right, I believe that the current process still contains a lot of 2D / 3D translation which is not really helping efficient processes. https://formlabs.com/blog/resolution-meaning-3d-printing/ https://formlabs.com/blog/resolution-meaning-3d-printing/
- jeff_marshall 10y ago
  volume pixel (voxel) is already a term of art. I'm not aware of jargon to decouple the sampling precision in different axis, though that probably exists too.
- alanbernstein 10y ago
  Hopefully the "p" suffix can die before we get to that point
- vanderZwan 10y ago
  I wonder if you can get away with depth interpolation - I mean CRT TV's used to do pretty OK with wide pixels, maybe the same is true for depth?
- mojomark 10y ago
  >We're going to need a new word for resolution at depth. Well then I have good news for you - we already have a metric for resolution irrespective of the depth at which an object is rendered, and we've had it for years. That metric is Pixels Per Degree (PPD). PPD complements the way the eye resolves images (visual acuity) and is independent of depth. ~62 PPD is generally the maximum resolution of the human eye - although motion/shapes/contrast/color can alter (increase or decrease) this threshold. PPD takes into account FOV, binocular overlap, and rederable pictures - all in one clean metric. The truth of the matter is that when companies use this standard unit such that all AR/VR display resolutions can be compared on an level playing field, that tends to lift the veil that is obfuscating how poor the actual imaging resolutions truly are.
m3kw9 10y ago
Isn't this how magic leap got started? Low valuation at first then bigger and bigger..
jordache 10y ago
go blue!
mozumder 10y ago
This is a horrible misuse of the term "light-field" for a display. An actual light-field display would have, for every pixel, maybe 16 sub-pixels, each only visible from a certain vantage point. They represent the rays that travel through each point in space. This is something that could bring true glass-less 3-D, and would be an ideal VR holographic display if they could make a 16K display that could fit in a headset. You wouldn't even need lenses to focus - just stick the display right up to your face.
- colordrops 10y ago
  Isn't that what they are offering though? How else would you be able to focus at different lengths?
  - josephpmay 10y ago
    This display is really an accommodating display, not a lightfield display. Although it's simulating a lightfield, it's not technically producing one.
- kguttag 10y ago
  I would tend to agree and why I put it in quotes in my article. It it is not as egregious as M/S Hololens calling what they are doing "Holograms" and everyone knows it but they are all calling mixed reality objects Holograms now. At least the focus planes are doing something similar to Light Fields. Similarly it looks like Avegant is calling what they are doing "Light Fields" because Magic Leap was calling Focus/Focal Planes "Light Fields". Loosely conceptually, Light Field work in the horizontal direction relative to the light rays from the image source, where Focus Planes work in the vertical direction. I have not done much with Light Fields personally, but Nvidia has published some good work about them (https://research.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/publications/NVIDIA-NELD_0.pdf https://research.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/publications...) using what I would call "classic light fields." Gordon Wetzstein has presented how to do light fields with much fewer sub-elements (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSjM_OzVtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSjM_OzVtA) and there is a lot of other material out there on "compressive light field displays" that he has been working on for a long time. He claims to get decent results with just 2 fields. BTW, I highly recommend reading about everything I have seen from Dr. Wetzstein, he does an excellent job of explaining complex optics concepts.
nom 10y ago
Hmmmm, just some brainstorming here: You should be able to convert your smartphone's HD display into a low-resolution light field display by attaching a special lens array. It's like the lenticular 3D displays (they refract two rows of pixels in two different directions to create a stereo image), just omnidirectional. I'm not sure how complex the manufacturing and calibration is but in theory we could create an attachable lens array for smartphones and use it to display a low-res light field, couldn't we?
- randyrand 10y ago
  yes. and people have. you're right that its very low res! The newest idea is to use "programmable" difractive optics instead of lenticular lenses.
  - zodiac 10y ago
    Do you have some links? Curious to try it out myself
    - drazvan 10y ago
      http://www.leia3d.com http://www.leia3d.com for instance. I have one of their early dev kit displays and it's quite impressive (but very small).
- Gravityloss 10y ago
  And also your camera to a light field camera by changing the microlens array on top of the image sensor.

159 points by _pius 10y ago

nickparker 10y ago

A publicity video can be found here: https://vimeo.com/207586226 https://vimeo.com/207586226

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

aethr 10y ago

Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:k1NGo0qpydYJ:www.kguttag.com/2017/03/09/avegant-light-field-display-magic-leap/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:k1NGo0q...

DiabloD3 10y ago

I dunno, build one of those for $200, I'd consider buying it. Latency is far more important than resolution.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

Fun. I hope they are successful. One of the things that my daughter pointed out about 3D movies is that because they are 3D your brain thinks it should be able to shift the focus but it can't and that 'fight' gets in the way of enjoying the content. My understanding is that light field optics don't have this issue.

asher_ 10y ago
If that's true about this tech, then it will be awesome. The focus issue is the only thing that kills my enjoyment in 3D movies.
- monk_e_boy 10y ago
  I've not seen many 3D movies, but those I did see were very flat. Like cardboard cut outs. I saw some of the hobbit in 3D and it looked weird. There is no volume to the characters...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - hashhar 10y ago
    Yes, because it's only a 2D stereo image and live in only a single focal plane - so no depth.
jboggan 10y ago
3D movies are a misnomer, they're actually forced perspective.
- taneq 10y ago
  Forced perspective refers to optical illusions relying on a particular viewpoint. '3D movies' are stereo pairs.
Leszek 10y ago
Your daughter will be glad to hear that she's in good company, in noticing the "Vergence-Accommodation conflict"[1] that is unavoidable on two-view stereoscopic displays. You're correct that light field optics don't have this issue -- other options are volumetric displays and "super multi-view" displays (which are, to a certain interpretation, a type of lightfield display). [1] http://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2122611 http://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2122611
epalmer 10y ago
>One of the things that my daughter pointed out about 3D movies is that because they are 3D your brain thinks it should be able to shift the focus but it can't and that 'fight' gets in the way of enjoying the content. My two grown daughters and I avoid 3D movies. We have all come to the conclusion that the 2D versions are more enjoyable. Plus our local theater is now digital in 4K. We love that theater experience. [edit] fixed typo

glibgil 10y ago

We're going to need a new word for resolution at depth. Cubic resolution? "Cubic resolution of 1080p by 32p"

jsemrau 10y ago
You are right, I believe that the current process still contains a lot of 2D / 3D translation which is not really helping efficient processes. https://formlabs.com/blog/resolution-meaning-3d-printing/ https://formlabs.com/blog/resolution-meaning-3d-printing/
jeff_marshall 10y ago
volume pixel (voxel) is already a term of art. I'm not aware of jargon to decouple the sampling precision in different axis, though that probably exists too.
alanbernstein 10y ago
Hopefully the "p" suffix can die before we get to that point
vanderZwan 10y ago
I wonder if you can get away with depth interpolation - I mean CRT TV's used to do pretty OK with wide pixels, maybe the same is true for depth?
mojomark 10y ago
>We're going to need a new word for resolution at depth. Well then I have good news for you - we already have a metric for resolution irrespective of the depth at which an object is rendered, and we've had it for years. That metric is Pixels Per Degree (PPD). PPD complements the way the eye resolves images (visual acuity) and is independent of depth. ~62 PPD is generally the maximum resolution of the human eye - although motion/shapes/contrast/color can alter (increase or decrease) this threshold. PPD takes into account FOV, binocular overlap, and rederable pictures - all in one clean metric. The truth of the matter is that when companies use this standard unit such that all AR/VR display resolutions can be compared on an level playing field, that tends to lift the veil that is obfuscating how poor the actual imaging resolutions truly are.

m3kw9 10y ago

Isn't this how magic leap got started? Low valuation at first then bigger and bigger..

jordache 10y ago

go blue!

mozumder 10y ago

This is a horrible misuse of the term "light-field" for a display. An actual light-field display would have, for every pixel, maybe 16 sub-pixels, each only visible from a certain vantage point. They represent the rays that travel through each point in space. This is something that could bring true glass-less 3-D, and would be an ideal VR holographic display if they could make a 16K display that could fit in a headset. You wouldn't even need lenses to focus - just stick the display right up to your face.

colordrops 10y ago
Isn't that what they are offering though? How else would you be able to focus at different lengths?
- josephpmay 10y ago
  This display is really an accommodating display, not a lightfield display. Although it's simulating a lightfield, it's not technically producing one.
kguttag 10y ago
I would tend to agree and why I put it in quotes in my article. It it is not as egregious as M/S Hololens calling what they are doing "Holograms" and everyone knows it but they are all calling mixed reality objects Holograms now. At least the focus planes are doing something similar to Light Fields. Similarly it looks like Avegant is calling what they are doing "Light Fields" because Magic Leap was calling Focus/Focal Planes "Light Fields". Loosely conceptually, Light Field work in the horizontal direction relative to the light rays from the image source, where Focus Planes work in the vertical direction. I have not done much with Light Fields personally, but Nvidia has published some good work about them (https://research.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/publications/NVIDIA-NELD_0.pdf https://research.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/publications...) using what I would call "classic light fields." Gordon Wetzstein has presented how to do light fields with much fewer sub-elements (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSjM_OzVtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSjM_OzVtA) and there is a lot of other material out there on "compressive light field displays" that he has been working on for a long time. He claims to get decent results with just 2 fields. BTW, I highly recommend reading about everything I have seen from Dr. Wetzstein, he does an excellent job of explaining complex optics concepts.

nom 10y ago

Hmmmm, just some brainstorming here: You should be able to convert your smartphone's HD display into a low-resolution light field display by attaching a special lens array. It's like the lenticular 3D displays (they refract two rows of pixels in two different directions to create a stereo image), just omnidirectional. I'm not sure how complex the manufacturing and calibration is but in theory we could create an attachable lens array for smartphones and use it to display a low-res light field, couldn't we?

randyrand 10y ago
yes. and people have. you're right that its very low res! The newest idea is to use "programmable" difractive optics instead of lenticular lenses.
- zodiac 10y ago
  Do you have some links? Curious to try it out myself
  - drazvan 10y ago
    http://www.leia3d.com http://www.leia3d.com for instance. I have one of their early dev kit displays and it's quite impressive (but very small).
Gravityloss 10y ago
And also your camera to a light field camera by changing the microlens array on top of the image sensor.