3 ms·
The exploded view [0] showcases them placing a very small MicroOLED panel at the top of the frame, whose light then appears to get projected into your eye using
by Topfi 3y ago
The exploded view [0] showcases them placing a very small MicroOLED panel at the top of the frame, whose light then appears to get projected into your eye using something they call an "AR Lens".
In principle, this is roughly comparable with the approach Viture, XREAL, Nreal, etc. have taken. Each places a 1080p MicroOLED panel at the top of a prism that bounces the image into your eye, covering the top third of your vision. That's one of their main disadvantages and more than likely why neither Meta nor Apple utilize this tech, it really works best if you combine very tall nose bridges and then push it as far forward towards the nostriles as you can, in hopes of getting the top section with that prism roughly at eye level. Again, Brilliant Labs claim an incredibly wide-range of FOV and nearly full lens coverage from the center, not the top.
Also, the prisms used be the competition require far more phisical depth and the MicroOLED panels in those seem (very rough estimate using the exploded view rendering as a reference) two times larger in area size, so I have a hard time understanding how Brilliant Labs could manage such full screen coverage at such high quality, with such a thin "AR Lens" and what likely would be a lower resolution panel. In fact, the panel size looks incredibly close to the panel size in the render of their Monocle [1], which is 640x480 and projected using a similar prism solution into the lower third, not across the entire lens, which would be far more realistic and believable.
I'd be a bit more trusting if their images, representing what the display is supposed to look like, leaned towards the North Focal direction of very simple, low-res graphics. That would indicate a massive success in designing their lens solution and would make sense with a smaller MicroOLED panel. But high-resolution, full lens coverage using something fairly slim; that's a lot of sudden innovation that may deserve a more in-depth presentation, ideally with some independent journalists to verify.
Again, I'm mainly skeptical because I'd really love for this to be real.
[0] https://imgur.com/MnOW2Rr https://imgur.com/MnOW2Rr
[1] https://docs.brilliant.xyz/monocle/images/monocle-exploded-view.png https://docs.brilliant.xyz/monocle/images/monocle-exploded-v...
- fancl20 3y agoI think what you decribed is birdbath. RayNeo X2 and INMO (Air2 or Go) use waveguide display as the "see through screens" you described. It doesn't seem to be radically better than or even as good as RayNeo X2 Lite, scheduled to release in 2024, so it's not that unreal. (Or if they are targeting single color display then INMO Go is a closer comparison)
- awfulneutral 3y ago> Brilliant Labs claim an incredibly wide-range of FOV The website says ~20 degree diagonal FOV, isn't that really low? I thought XReal/Viture/etc had around 40 FOV.
- Topfi 3y agoSorry, I made a mistake, I accidentally typed FOV, when I meant IPD. The IPD they clame for this product has a range of 58-72mm, which is very wide when comparing the competition. They made no claim of FOV, from what I've seen, for the glasses, ~20 degrees was for the Monocle.
- awfulneutral 3y agoOh okay, that makes sense. If you go to preorder, and then FAQ->specifications, it does say ~20 deg for the frames too.