2 ms·
No, it's a much wider field of view than the magic leap 2. 45 degrees vs 70 degrees. And more importantly it's in a much smaller form factor. https://www.magic
by Manuel_D 2y ago
No, it's a much wider field of view than the magic leap 2. 45 degrees vs 70 degrees. And more importantly it's in a much smaller form factor.
https://www.magicleap.io/hubfs/ML_22214-104-1.jpeg https://www.magicleap.io/hubfs/ML_22214-104-1.jpeg
https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/GettyImages-2173579243.jpg?resize=1536,1022 https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/GettyImage...
The magic leap has a much narrower FOV, it's bulkier, and has a wired connection. The Orion are wireless, have a wider FOV, and are slimmer.
- cma 2y agoBoth have the same 70 degree diagonal field of view. You're comparing Meta's diagonal to ML2's horizontal. Its lighter, but years newer and not in significant production. The full wireless and self contained stuff is impressive, but not really tied to the display is it? Maybe more efficient for less battery drain? Do we have numbers on the display power consumption at a given brightness, and is it from the optics or the image source?