5 ms·

It looks like the acquired startup, Akonia, uses waveguides like Hololens but uses photopolymer in place of the diffraction grating. https://mspoweruser.com/ak

It looks like the acquired startup, Akonia, uses waveguides like Hololens but uses photopolymer in place of the diffraction grating. https://mspoweruser.com/akonia-plans-holographic-waveguide-eye-piece-60-degree-field-view-oems/ https://mspoweruser.com/akonia-plans-holographic-waveguide-e... https://venturebeat.com/2016/12/26/akonia-uses-holography-to-create-transparent-augmented-reality-display/ https://venturebeat.com/2016/12/26/akonia-uses-holography-to... Whitepaper on the photopolymer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25835673/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25835673/ They were going to replace tape storage with holographic storage before they figured out how to apply it to AR. Here's the holographic storage pitch deck: https://science.energy.gov/~/media/np/pdf/sbir%2520sttr/SBIR_STTR_2016/Day2/Anderson_Akonia_Presentation_For_Publication.pdf https://science.energy.gov/~/media/np/pdf/sbir%2520sttr/SBIR... http://www.pdsw.org/pdsw15/slides/AkoniaHolographicsKeynote.pdf http://www.pdsw.org/pdsw15/slides/AkoniaHolographicsKeynote....

threeseed 8y ago
Akonia/Apple: 60° FOV (targeted) Hololens: 35° FOV (currently) Magic Leap: 40° FOV horizontal / 30° vertical (currently)
- amelius 8y ago
  Humans: 210° FOV (for reference) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view
  - pen2l 8y ago
    Consider foveation as well — only a small part of that is truly in “focus”. Some up and coming be glasses take this into account and expend lesser resources on the part that’s outside the important part (they don’t render that part in a high resolution, so it’s left blurry, which is actually how our eyes work anyway)
    - Filligree 8y ago
      That only really works when combined with low-latency eye tracking. Yes, whatever we don't look directly at is really blurry, but our eyes move. On the other hand, eye tracking is just about ready already. I've heard Google is working on a VR system using foveated rendering with tracking.
      - jobigoud 8y ago
        It's already implemented in the StarVR headset (which has 210° FOV) using Tobii eye tracking tech. They had a working demo at Siggraph a couple weeks ago.
        pen2l 8y ago
        It’s crazy unbelievable how low-latency Tobii’s eye tracking is Even their consumer grade 4c is extremely impressive. It has neat uses for simple desktop usage. For the handicapped folks it’s an absolute boon
        mncharity 8y ago
        > It’s crazy unbelievable how low-latency Tobii’s eye tracking is Tobii uses cameras at 60 or 120 Hz, so >8 ms. It's the mature but old and limited tech. MEMS-based tracking is faster. During a saccade, you've the samples to predict where the eye is going to end up fixated, 20 ms before it happens.[1] GGP> but our eyes move. Slowwwwwlllyyyy. ;) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUAxVhZQs-o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUAxVhZQs-o
    - FrojoS 8y ago
      Not important. Rendering performance is not what limits the FOV. It’s the display technology.
    - mncharity 8y ago
      > Consider foveation as well — only a small part of that is truly in “focus”. Here's an optical illusion which illustrates how surprisingly tiny your fovea's FOV is: https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4dsXzM https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4dsXzM .
  - arethuza 8y ago
    Out of interest, what's the FOV for people who normally wear glasses?
    - Filligree 8y ago
      From glancing at the edges of my glasses, about 160-180 degrees, but anything close to the edges is always blurry; there's no way to avoid some level of lensing error. (Barring contacts.) I've always favored extra-wide glasses, though. Some of the smaller ones might be 140 or even 120 degrees.
    - amelius 8y ago
      Interesting question, but I'm not sure how relevant that is. Try covering the parts of your view beyond the edges of your glasses, e.g. with your hands, and see if the experience is the same as with just your glasses. I bet there is a huge difference. I think the issue is that the parts outside your glasses are blurry anyway (even for people with perfect vision), but even the blurry part is important for the experience.
      - arethuza 8y ago
        "I bet there is a huge difference." Not sure there is for me - if I blank off the area outside my glasses things really don't look that different - but I am quite shortsighted... :-)
        brazzledazzle 8y ago
        I’m quite near sighted as well but being able to see light and motion (even if blurry) is important to me even if it’s only really beneficial mentally. I might be blind but I don’t want to feel blinded.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Aryzon - 110° FOV.
  - russelldc 8y ago
    Do you have a source for that? Their website says it has a FOV of 35° x 20°.
    - v_lisivka 8y ago
      When I configure FOV in "Sites in VR", I can see 110°. Maybe I'm wrong, because I have no other gadget to compare.
techstrategist 8y ago
Thanks for the details. I briefly looked at holographic storage when I did my undergrad thesis on holography. Anyone care to comment as to whether this storage methodology could be moved forward? (Apple acquisitions are always fascinating. I did a deck on PrimeSense for an old boss when we thought it was going into an Apple TV product rather than FaceID.)

threeseed 8y ago

Akonia/Apple: 60° FOV (targeted) Hololens: 35° FOV (currently) Magic Leap: 40° FOV horizontal / 30° vertical (currently)

amelius 8y ago
Humans: 210° FOV (for reference) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view
- pen2l 8y ago
  Consider foveation as well — only a small part of that is truly in “focus”. Some up and coming be glasses take this into account and expend lesser resources on the part that’s outside the important part (they don’t render that part in a high resolution, so it’s left blurry, which is actually how our eyes work anyway)
  - Filligree 8y ago
    That only really works when combined with low-latency eye tracking. Yes, whatever we don't look directly at is really blurry, but our eyes move. On the other hand, eye tracking is just about ready already. I've heard Google is working on a VR system using foveated rendering with tracking.
    - jobigoud 8y ago
      It's already implemented in the StarVR headset (which has 210° FOV) using Tobii eye tracking tech. They had a working demo at Siggraph a couple weeks ago.
      - pen2l 8y ago
        It’s crazy unbelievable how low-latency Tobii’s eye tracking is Even their consumer grade 4c is extremely impressive. It has neat uses for simple desktop usage. For the handicapped folks it’s an absolute boon
        mncharity 8y ago
        > It’s crazy unbelievable how low-latency Tobii’s eye tracking is Tobii uses cameras at 60 or 120 Hz, so >8 ms. It's the mature but old and limited tech. MEMS-based tracking is faster. During a saccade, you've the samples to predict where the eye is going to end up fixated, 20 ms before it happens.[1] GGP> but our eyes move. Slowwwwwlllyyyy. ;) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUAxVhZQs-o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUAxVhZQs-o
  - FrojoS 8y ago
    Not important. Rendering performance is not what limits the FOV. It’s the display technology.
  - mncharity 8y ago
    > Consider foveation as well — only a small part of that is truly in “focus”. Here's an optical illusion which illustrates how surprisingly tiny your fovea's FOV is: https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4dsXzM https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4dsXzM .
- arethuza 8y ago
  Out of interest, what's the FOV for people who normally wear glasses?
  - Filligree 8y ago
    From glancing at the edges of my glasses, about 160-180 degrees, but anything close to the edges is always blurry; there's no way to avoid some level of lensing error. (Barring contacts.) I've always favored extra-wide glasses, though. Some of the smaller ones might be 140 or even 120 degrees.
  - amelius 8y ago
    Interesting question, but I'm not sure how relevant that is. Try covering the parts of your view beyond the edges of your glasses, e.g. with your hands, and see if the experience is the same as with just your glasses. I bet there is a huge difference. I think the issue is that the parts outside your glasses are blurry anyway (even for people with perfect vision), but even the blurry part is important for the experience.
    - arethuza 8y ago
      "I bet there is a huge difference." Not sure there is for me - if I blank off the area outside my glasses things really don't look that different - but I am quite shortsighted... :-)
      - brazzledazzle 8y ago
        I’m quite near sighted as well but being able to see light and motion (even if blurry) is important to me even if it’s only really beneficial mentally. I might be blind but I don’t want to feel blinded.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
v_lisivka 8y ago
Aryzon - 110° FOV.
- russelldc 8y ago
  Do you have a source for that? Their website says it has a FOV of 35° x 20°.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    When I configure FOV in "Sites in VR", I can see 110°. Maybe I'm wrong, because I have no other gadget to compare.

techstrategist 8y ago

Thanks for the details. I briefly looked at holographic storage when I did my undergrad thesis on holography. Anyone care to comment as to whether this storage methodology could be moved forward? (Apple acquisitions are always fascinating. I did a deck on PrimeSense for an old boss when we thought it was going into an Apple TV product rather than FaceID.)