5 ms·

Another post from today, really laying out the math behind hi-res FSD being a bad joke. http://www.kguttag.com/2018/01/06/magic-leap-fiber-scanning-display-fsd

Another post from today, really laying out the math behind hi-res FSD being a bad joke. http://www.kguttag.com/2018/01/06/magic-leap-fiber-scanning-display-fsd-the-big-con-at-the-core/ http://www.kguttag.com/2018/01/06/magic-leap-fiber-scanning-... Key point... Thus the fiber needs go 10.17 meters X 240/sec = 2,400 meters/sec. For reference, the speed of sound is a mere ~343 meters per second (varies with temp and air density) so the fiber has to average about 7 times the speed of sound and because it is accelerating and decelerating back to zero at each end, it has to have a peak velocity of greater than 14 times the speed of sound!!!!!

drcode 9y ago
I'm definitely a Magic Leap skeptic, but these Karl Guttag posts do not read like posts from someone who is trying to do an objective analysis of the tech, they read like posts from someone who has an axe to grind. Often, when I see posts from very smart and technically savvy people that call things "cons" or "scams" it's because they have very high personal standards of technology and are disappointed that others do not share their views. Frequently in these situations, it turns out that the mass consumer market is still satisfied with the product, since their expectations of the technology are more modest than those of a tech expert. I guess only time will tell whether Magic Leap will end up being a "con" or, instead, whether they are able to put in place some crude mitigations for these technical challenges that allows them to still release interesting and usable technology. In the latter case, the technology would likely still have flaws that Karl would find wholly unbearable, but may nevertheless allow for compelling products for ordinary consumers.
- kguttag 9y ago
  Objective is often in the eye of the beholder. I do express opinion, but I try to back them up with evidence. The Fiber Scanning Display is in a whole different category. This looks like pure lying on Magic Leap's part. In this particular case I have tried to lay out the math that proves that Fiber Scanning Displays are never going to support high resolution. No amount of money or time is going to make Fiber Scanning Displays work. I picked this case because the math was simple to follow and easy to prove that it was not possible. Yet it has been a key point in Magic Leaps Presentations and patent applications through to the latest ones printed. I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible. It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? There are other areas of optics and image quality where you can argue about whether the image quality will be "good enough" but Fiber Scanning Displays is a black and white issue.
  - drcode 9y ago
    I agree you make great points- Thank you for writing up these posts!
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible. It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. And people are still throwing money at Theranos ( https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos-gets-100m-funding-softbank-fortress.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos... ). About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      > I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. Wouldn't "uBeam of VR" be a more apt description? There's no outright fraud yet, just (apparently) tons and tons of bullshit and impossible promises. > About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money. In case someone with an itchy wallet reads this: I'm working on quantum flux capacitance technology that can revolutionize cold fusion research schedules. I need only a modest $10M and zero oversight to bring it to a market. It's a safer and better investment (AAA+ five stars!) than Theranos - I'm not a kind of person that could turn it into a massive media scandal. Contact me, and I'll tell you where to wire the money.
  - sytelus 9y ago
    But... they had done demos to many investors and at least one journalist who were convinced to give them money and write article. They have already announced that there will be product in 2018. What do you think they demoed and what the actual product will be?
    - 9y ago
onion2k 9y ago
I don't know anything about FSD so I'm asking as a layman: why only have one fiber? If you could focus, say, 16 fibers on the same plane (as spirals making overlapping circles) then each one would only need to cover 120x68 pixels of the HD display so they could move much more slowly.
- kguttag 9y ago
  The parallel fiber idea is "optically silly" but it takes some understanding of light to prove it is impossible too. It is yet another example of trying to fool people. I did try and explain this before on my blog over a year ago. See http://www.kguttag.com/2016/11/20/magic-leap-separating-magi.. http://www.kguttag.com/2016/11/20/magic-leap-separating-magi.... and scroll down to the Appendix at the bottom. Basically you have multiple fibers going in a circle each with their center of origin it becomes impossible to get them to act like a single image for use in near eye optic. What the layman would not understand is that this is very different from image stitching on a projection screen that in part relies on the light being diffused/randomized by the screen. In the case of near eye optics, there is no way to get the multiple projector image collimated AND seamlessly put together. It is yet another example of a good con has to seem believable.
alakin 9y ago
Couldn't they just use multiple fibers per display to get around that problem?
- kguttag 9y ago
  The parallel fiber idea is "optically silly" but it takes some understanding of light to prove it is impossible too. It is yet another example of trying to fool people. I did try and explain this before on my blog over a year ago. See http://www.kguttag.com/2016/11/20/magic-leap-separating-magi.. http://www.kguttag.com/2016/11/20/magic-leap-separating-magi.... and scroll down to the Appendix at the bottom. Basically you have multiple fibers going in a circle each with their center of origin it becomes impossible to get them to act like a single image for use in near eye optic. What the layman would not understand is that this is very different from image stitching on a projection screen that in part relies on the light being diffused/randomized by the screen. In the case of near eye optics, there is no way to get the multiple projector image collimated AND seamlessly put together. It is yet another example of a good con has to seem believable.
  - klibertp 9y ago
    You shouldn't repost literally the same comment you already posted up thread. If you don't want to rehash the same content in different words, you should just paste a link to the previous comment.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

drcode 9y ago

I'm definitely a Magic Leap skeptic, but these Karl Guttag posts do not read like posts from someone who is trying to do an objective analysis of the tech, they read like posts from someone who has an axe to grind. Often, when I see posts from very smart and technically savvy people that call things "cons" or "scams" it's because they have very high personal standards of technology and are disappointed that others do not share their views. Frequently in these situations, it turns out that the mass consumer market is still satisfied with the product, since their expectations of the technology are more modest than those of a tech expert. I guess only time will tell whether Magic Leap will end up being a "con" or, instead, whether they are able to put in place some crude mitigations for these technical challenges that allows them to still release interesting and usable technology. In the latter case, the technology would likely still have flaws that Karl would find wholly unbearable, but may nevertheless allow for compelling products for ordinary consumers.

kguttag 9y ago
Objective is often in the eye of the beholder. I do express opinion, but I try to back them up with evidence. The Fiber Scanning Display is in a whole different category. This looks like pure lying on Magic Leap's part. In this particular case I have tried to lay out the math that proves that Fiber Scanning Displays are never going to support high resolution. No amount of money or time is going to make Fiber Scanning Displays work. I picked this case because the math was simple to follow and easy to prove that it was not possible. Yet it has been a key point in Magic Leaps Presentations and patent applications through to the latest ones printed. I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible. It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? There are other areas of optics and image quality where you can argue about whether the image quality will be "good enough" but Fiber Scanning Displays is a black and white issue.
- drcode 9y ago
  I agree you make great points- Thank you for writing up these posts!
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible. It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing? I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. And people are still throwing money at Theranos ( https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos-gets-100m-funding-softbank-fortress.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos... ). About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. Wouldn't "uBeam of VR" be a more apt description? There's no outright fraud yet, just (apparently) tons and tons of bullshit and impossible promises. > About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money. In case someone with an itchy wallet reads this: I'm working on quantum flux capacitance technology that can revolutionize cold fusion research schedules. I need only a modest $10M and zero oversight to bring it to a market. It's a safer and better investment (AAA+ five stars!) than Theranos - I'm not a kind of person that could turn it into a massive media scandal. Contact me, and I'll tell you where to wire the money.
- sytelus 9y ago
  But... they had done demos to many investors and at least one journalist who were convinced to give them money and write article. They have already announced that there will be product in 2018. What do you think they demoed and what the actual product will be?
  - 9y ago

onion2k 9y ago

I don't know anything about FSD so I'm asking as a layman: why only have one fiber? If you could focus, say, 16 fibers on the same plane (as spirals making overlapping circles) then each one would only need to cover 120x68 pixels of the HD display so they could move much more slowly.

kguttag 9y ago
The parallel fiber idea is "optically silly" but it takes some understanding of light to prove it is impossible too. It is yet another example of trying to fool people. I did try and explain this before on my blog over a year ago. See http://www.kguttag.com/2016/11/20/magic-leap-separating-magi.. http://www.kguttag.com/2016/11/20/magic-leap-separating-magi.... and scroll down to the Appendix at the bottom. Basically you have multiple fibers going in a circle each with their center of origin it becomes impossible to get them to act like a single image for use in near eye optic. What the layman would not understand is that this is very different from image stitching on a projection screen that in part relies on the light being diffused/randomized by the screen. In the case of near eye optics, there is no way to get the multiple projector image collimated AND seamlessly put together. It is yet another example of a good con has to seem believable.

alakin 9y ago

Couldn't they just use multiple fibers per display to get around that problem?

kguttag 9y ago
The parallel fiber idea is "optically silly" but it takes some understanding of light to prove it is impossible too. It is yet another example of trying to fool people. I did try and explain this before on my blog over a year ago. See http://www.kguttag.com/2016/11/20/magic-leap-separating-magi.. http://www.kguttag.com/2016/11/20/magic-leap-separating-magi.... and scroll down to the Appendix at the bottom. Basically you have multiple fibers going in a circle each with their center of origin it becomes impossible to get them to act like a single image for use in near eye optic. What the layman would not understand is that this is very different from image stitching on a projection screen that in part relies on the light being diffused/randomized by the screen. In the case of near eye optics, there is no way to get the multiple projector image collimated AND seamlessly put together. It is yet another example of a good con has to seem believable.
- klibertp 9y ago
  You shouldn't repost literally the same comment you already posted up thread. If you don't want to rehash the same content in different words, you should just paste a link to the previous comment.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]