4 ms·

I tend to be a skeptic with these types of technology but I must admit I've seen a video of supposed HoloLens footage (and even if it wasn't, it would do as a c

by nothis 10y ago

I tend to be a skeptic with these types of technology but I must admit I've seen a video of supposed HoloLens footage (and even if it wasn't, it would do as a concept), that made me wonder. This is the video I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mtS_224mKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mtS_224mKU Now it's super flimsy and everything, but I guess those technologies are best imagined as they would look like if all hardware quirks were solved. I can definitely see a future where, instead of a desktop/laptop/tablet, you put on glasses and see an unlimited amount of virtual, arbitrarily-sized, floating monitors in front of you. Forget the 3D-gimmmicks, even. That alone sounds cool and useful. It's 2030 tech more than 2020 tech, probably, but I can see a future where this works.

freehunter 10y ago
People love to dismiss an idea because of its current hardware limitations, acting like nothing has ever gotten better as time goes on. Sure Hololens has a small FOV, but so does my 13" laptop and I'm using it just fine. Even if AR hardware never makes it to 180 degree FOV, it's still going to be a game changer.
moron4hire 10y ago
There are two things to keep in mind when watching videos recorded through the HoloLens: 1. The frame rate and image stability are much better in person. The HoloLens has to cut the rendering frame rate in half to be able to record video through its front-facing camera because the camera and the display share a bus. So what you see is significantly degraded. 2. The constrained field of view is much more noticeable in person. With the video, you don't get to see anything out of the bounds of the frame, so there is no reminder that we can't "see" everything. Also, we are used to watching videos, so we don't think about the fact that we can't turn our eyes and look in different directions. What you see is significantly more generous to the HoloLens than reality. I think the combination of the two factors generally makes the video an "accurate" representation of the HoloLens, even if it's not terribly "precise". I don't consider the current iteration of the HoloLens to be a usable device. Comparably, the HTC Vive is a much better experience, one that is capable of providing to users an experience that is worth the drawbacks and the extra effort necessary to deal with them. The HoloLens is more effort than it is worth. But on the other hand, tethered, completely opaque systems that require external tracking hardware for head and limbs are clearly a dead-end technology, even if that dead end is 5+ years from now. The end goal with mixed-reality technology is clearly in the HoloLen's lineage, not Vive or Rift or even Meta 2.
robwormald 10y ago
i tried the Walk On Mars hololens demo at a conference last year. It seemed very clunky at first, but a couple of minutes into the demo, I entirely unconsciously crouched down to look under a virtual rock outcropping - that was the point I knew my brain had bought it. That's stuck with me. There's something there.

by nothis 10y ago

freehunter 10y ago

People love to dismiss an idea because of its current hardware limitations, acting like nothing has ever gotten better as time goes on. Sure Hololens has a small FOV, but so does my 13" laptop and I'm using it just fine. Even if AR hardware never makes it to 180 degree FOV, it's still going to be a game changer.

moron4hire 10y ago

There are two things to keep in mind when watching videos recorded through the HoloLens: 1. The frame rate and image stability are much better in person. The HoloLens has to cut the rendering frame rate in half to be able to record video through its front-facing camera because the camera and the display share a bus. So what you see is significantly degraded. 2. The constrained field of view is much more noticeable in person. With the video, you don't get to see anything out of the bounds of the frame, so there is no reminder that we can't "see" everything. Also, we are used to watching videos, so we don't think about the fact that we can't turn our eyes and look in different directions. What you see is significantly more generous to the HoloLens than reality. I think the combination of the two factors generally makes the video an "accurate" representation of the HoloLens, even if it's not terribly "precise". I don't consider the current iteration of the HoloLens to be a usable device. Comparably, the HTC Vive is a much better experience, one that is capable of providing to users an experience that is worth the drawbacks and the extra effort necessary to deal with them. The HoloLens is more effort than it is worth. But on the other hand, tethered, completely opaque systems that require external tracking hardware for head and limbs are clearly a dead-end technology, even if that dead end is 5+ years from now. The end goal with mixed-reality technology is clearly in the HoloLen's lineage, not Vive or Rift or even Meta 2.

robwormald 10y ago

i tried the Walk On Mars hololens demo at a conference last year. It seemed very clunky at first, but a couple of minutes into the demo, I entirely unconsciously crouched down to look under a virtual rock outcropping - that was the point I knew my brain had bought it. That's stuck with me. There's something there.