4 ms·

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 vi

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.
Gravityloss 10y ago
If we look at the human eye, only the off-axis angle of the coming light matters. It doesn't matter if it's off-axis to the right or to the top, if the angle is the same. This is because they will result in an identical signal at the retina, because the lens has circular symmetry and the aperture is circular too. Now, I don't know about Light Field VR for goats, the.

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.

Gravityloss 10y ago

If we look at the human eye, only the off-axis angle of the coming light matters. It doesn't matter if it's off-axis to the right or to the top, if the angle is the same. This is because they will result in an identical signal at the retina, because the lens has circular symmetry and the aperture is circular too. Now, I don't know about Light Field VR for goats, the.