3 ms·

Sorry for the really basic question but why is the narrow field of view a problem? This wasn't ever supposed to be like Google Glass, a device that you wear al

Sorry for the really basic question but why is the narrow field of view a problem? This wasn't ever supposed to be like Google Glass, a device that you wear all day as you walk around. You put the glasses on for a specific experience. If I'm putting them on to play a game, or read interactive motion comics from Marvel, I'm fine looking through a smaller window. I used to stare at my GameBoy screen for hours and its only a couple inch rectangle.

ssewell 9y ago
There is a pretty significant difference between the expectations of a GameBoy screen, in which your focusing your fovea on the screen, and a visual projection in AR. The biggest issue with narrow FOV in this case is AR strives to make items appear as if they are in the real world. The moment you slightly turn your head and item is clipped by the projected FOV, yet you can still see the real world where the AR item "was", breaks the immersive illusion. With VR, even a narrow FOV doesn't have this problem: As you rotate your head and a virtual item moves out of the FOV, it's simply clipped into blackness... no visual dissonance as you have with AR item vs. real world it lives within. Edit to address the article: I think the fixed IPD is the real deal-breaker here. People have greatly varied IPDs. Some VR HMDs, such as the Oculus Rift, have a physical IPD adjustent. I don't see why the ML headset couldn't have this feature in the consumer version as well, though.
TipVFL 9y ago
The current/near future of augmented reality is mainly about preparing for the future of AR, and the future of AR is full-FOV devices that you wear all the time to seamlessly integrate data with the world around you. As it is, a tiny FOV drastically changes the experience and the possibilities of the equipment. It could also mask issues that are only apparent at higher FOVs (like lagging overlays causing motion sickness). They've managed to make one of the smaller and sleeker AR devices, which will be important for mass adoption, but based on the current state of the tech it's probably putting the cart before the horse. At this point I'd rather work on a tethered and bulky system with a massive FOV like Leap Motion's Project North Star, as it more closely matches the capabilities (but not form factor) of what we should expect from the first mass market AR devices.
roywiggins 9y ago
When you're trying to interact with objects placed around you, and you can't seem them out of the corner of your eye, it's weird. You're looking at your desk, and you can see the AR objects placed right in front of you, but slightly to the left and right, the desk is empty. Swivel your head, and you can see some more objects, but now the entire left side of your desk is empty. It's a pretty big problem, it feels like you're looking at the world through a straw that you have to scan back and forth.

ssewell 9y ago

There is a pretty significant difference between the expectations of a GameBoy screen, in which your focusing your fovea on the screen, and a visual projection in AR. The biggest issue with narrow FOV in this case is AR strives to make items appear as if they are in the real world. The moment you slightly turn your head and item is clipped by the projected FOV, yet you can still see the real world where the AR item "was", breaks the immersive illusion. With VR, even a narrow FOV doesn't have this problem: As you rotate your head and a virtual item moves out of the FOV, it's simply clipped into blackness... no visual dissonance as you have with AR item vs. real world it lives within. Edit to address the article: I think the fixed IPD is the real deal-breaker here. People have greatly varied IPDs. Some VR HMDs, such as the Oculus Rift, have a physical IPD adjustent. I don't see why the ML headset couldn't have this feature in the consumer version as well, though.

TipVFL 9y ago

The current/near future of augmented reality is mainly about preparing for the future of AR, and the future of AR is full-FOV devices that you wear all the time to seamlessly integrate data with the world around you. As it is, a tiny FOV drastically changes the experience and the possibilities of the equipment. It could also mask issues that are only apparent at higher FOVs (like lagging overlays causing motion sickness). They've managed to make one of the smaller and sleeker AR devices, which will be important for mass adoption, but based on the current state of the tech it's probably putting the cart before the horse. At this point I'd rather work on a tethered and bulky system with a massive FOV like Leap Motion's Project North Star, as it more closely matches the capabilities (but not form factor) of what we should expect from the first mass market AR devices.

roywiggins 9y ago

When you're trying to interact with objects placed around you, and you can't seem them out of the corner of your eye, it's weird. You're looking at your desk, and you can see the AR objects placed right in front of you, but slightly to the left and right, the desk is empty. Swivel your head, and you can see some more objects, but now the entire left side of your desk is empty. It's a pretty big problem, it feels like you're looking at the world through a straw that you have to scan back and forth.