4 ms·

I think this stuff is cool, but I think it is going to be held back by a romantic attachment to "real". Why not use something like the occulus rift? Instead o

by blhack 13y ago

I think this stuff is cool, but I think it is going to be held back by a romantic attachment to "real". Why not use something like the occulus rift? Instead of projecting new objects over the top of existing ones; replace the users field of vision completely. I'd love that. One of the guys in our hackerspace (plug: heatsync labs, Phoenix AZ) got an occulus, and we've been talking about how cool it would be to build a "virtual office" of sorts. Sit down with an occulus and some noise cancelling headphones, and have an infinitely large workspace. 2 monitors? or 1000 monitors; it doesn't matter because your entire field of vision (or your entire environment) is being rendered for you. -- I think people are very attached to the idea of your eyes seeing the "real" world instead of a re-displayed one. I understand that, but I think that ideology is going to hold AR back for a while.

kronholm 13y ago
I do believe the retail version of the Oculus Rift will come with two cameras on the front, and I've heard rumors of a depth camera as well. We'll see. Exciting times we live in, that's for sure.
jlgreco 13y ago
I think the reason is that people like to consider being able to move around environments that you don't have memorized without tripping on things. Do I have to step out of my virtual office to go get a beer from the fridge, or can I get the real-life obstacles that are in the way projected into my virtual office? Imagine a virtual office with a thousand monitors that is your apartment that has been plopped down in the middle of a forest with the walls knocked out.
npsimons 13y ago
Why not use something like the occulus rift? While the occulus rift is cool, I think you're missing the point. VR has been around for quite some time, and while it has it's applications, AR, IMHO, is more immediately applicable today. Even if you are selectively reproducing pieces of reality in your VR, that's going to take extra processing power and not going to be quite realistic (or real-time) for a long time. AR, on the other hand, is just rife with applications that we can use now. The classic one I always think of is helping someone with Alzheimer's get home by "painting" a path of footsteps on the ground. Try that with an occulus rift, or any other VR setup. Almost guaranteed to be cumbersome and dangerous, if it can even be used outside of a lab at all.
- blhack 13y ago
  of course that could be used outside of a lab. look at things like world lens.
  - npsimons 13y ago
    1) Your original post I responded to was talking about oculus rift; while it may be possible to use the oculus rift outdoors or untethered, it's definitely not currently being developed for that use case. 2) FWIW, world lens is described as augmented reality. Also, it has a much narrower FOV, probably doesn't update in real-time (and probably doesn't need to), doesn't require wearing a bulky headset, doesn't occlude your entire FOV, and in any case, is not connected to an oculus rift.
    - blhack 13y ago
      World lens does update in [practically] real time. And bringing it up was to address your claim that it was computationally infeasible to retransmit video with some of the content changed.
      - npsimons 13y ago
        World lens does update in [practically] real time. And "practically real time" isn't going to cut it for something which occludes your view, that was why I brought that, and my other points up. I didn't claim it was infeasible; I claimed it was currently infeasible to do it for the entire FOV of a human, and with that being true, it was impractical to assume that VR and AR can currently be applied to the same problems. In the future, the distinction between AR and VR may not need to be made, but before that can happen, VR (as it currently is) has a long way to go.
gosu 13y ago
> infinitely large workspace. I've never considered this. As many terminals as the eye can fit, with a living rainforest as a backdrop. If it doesn't seriously hurt the eyes to do it for programming-session durations, then I'd gladly pay good money for that. And yes, the ARI comparisons are not lost on me.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  That was the first thing I considered. Another commenter here pointed out that it would not be very possible due to the relatively low resolution of the display on the Oculus. Maybe on the next model, though.
jjoonathan 13y ago
It's not romantic attachment, it's pragmatism. It will be a while before the VR experience becomes seamless. Resolution and dynamic range of VR still lag the real world by an order of magnitude. Latency is extremely touchy for scenes of any complexity, especially given hardware that is designed to be wearable. Even if these issues only manifest subconsciously, the differences add up: the human eye has ~100megapixel resolution and hardwired motion tracking so detailed that the information has to be lossfully compressed 100:1 before being shipped across the optic nerve (the first level of feature extraction happens in your eye). Those compression "algorithms" suffer under VR. People will probably be willing to put up with the quality drop to play games because games are viscerally engaging in a way that allows you to push through sensory obstacles. Workplaces, however, lack that energy and are subject to the constraint of productivity, which I think will make them much harder to penetrate with VR: tiny psychological stresses quickly become intolerable if you're already frustrated by dependency management / tedious busywork / whatever, while the virtual world doesn't actually allow you to do all that much that you couldn't do before. Pro apps will probably take 5-10 years to adjust in a meaningful way, and I doubt that more than a handful of industries will actually be revolutionized by the difference. In the meantime, AR dramatically helps the smoothness problem while still enabling almost all of the gee-whiz features of VR that would have relevance in a professional setting. Military applications are the obvious exception (full VR potentially offers protection from lasers/irritants/bullets to the face) but even military funding won't be enough to close the gap between VR and AR instantaneously. In the long term, you're right, VR will win, but given that the "short term" will probably last for decades, I think you're jumping the gun on VR.
angersock 13y ago
My housemates and I have one coming in the mail. My idea was to make a window compositor for X--the idea being that all open windows would be scattered around the inside of a sphere or hemisphere or perhaps hypercone with the user's head at the center. You look at a window and slowly turn to face directly forward, and the window blows up and moves into focus. A shake of the head dismisses the window, and a sharp snap to either side cycles through open windows. Shoot me an email if you'd like to talk more. EDIT: X programming is fucking arcane. :(
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  Skip X, jump to QML and QWayland. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FjuPn7MXMs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FjuPn7MXMs Take that and extrapolate. Doesn't seem that "crazy" really. Compiz and KWin both already have window animations you're describing. There was even a Wii-head-tracking plugin for compiz that would give your desktop a third perspective dimension. (Moving your head would reveal the edges/bits of the other windows underneath higher ones). It'd be a neat demo, but it sounds like a nightmare for daily usability, etc.
  - angersock 13y ago
    I'm quite happy doing it with X/GLX--I'm only interested in chasing one kind of shiny at the moment. (I reserve the right to eat my words and recant this misguided decision later.)
hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
> I think people are very attached to the idea of your eyes seeing the "real" world instead of a re-displayed one. I understand that, but I think that ideology is going to hold AR back for a while. I don't think it's fair calling "ideology" the fact screens still suck, and they suck hard. Dynamic range, refresh rate, color reproduction and depth perception are all big shortcomings not solved yet. Just look at digital cameras. If EVFs are not even ready to replace conventional optical viewfinders yet, it's utopia to ask people to slap one in their faces 24/7.
- sigkill 13y ago
  >refresh rate In this age of nanotechnology I find it entirely ridiculous that manufacturers are cost cutting by multiplexing column and row transistors. LCDs are such awesome tech that you don't even need to have refresh rate. It might increase initial complexity but in the long run it will be worth it.

by blhack 13y ago

kronholm 13y ago

I do believe the retail version of the Oculus Rift will come with two cameras on the front, and I've heard rumors of a depth camera as well. We'll see. Exciting times we live in, that's for sure.

jlgreco 13y ago

I think the reason is that people like to consider being able to move around environments that you don't have memorized without tripping on things. Do I have to step out of my virtual office to go get a beer from the fridge, or can I get the real-life obstacles that are in the way projected into my virtual office? Imagine a virtual office with a thousand monitors that is your apartment that has been plopped down in the middle of a forest with the walls knocked out.

npsimons 13y ago

Why not use something like the occulus rift? While the occulus rift is cool, I think you're missing the point. VR has been around for quite some time, and while it has it's applications, AR, IMHO, is more immediately applicable today. Even if you are selectively reproducing pieces of reality in your VR, that's going to take extra processing power and not going to be quite realistic (or real-time) for a long time. AR, on the other hand, is just rife with applications that we can use now. The classic one I always think of is helping someone with Alzheimer's get home by "painting" a path of footsteps on the ground. Try that with an occulus rift, or any other VR setup. Almost guaranteed to be cumbersome and dangerous, if it can even be used outside of a lab at all.

blhack 13y ago
of course that could be used outside of a lab. look at things like world lens.
- npsimons 13y ago
  1) Your original post I responded to was talking about oculus rift; while it may be possible to use the oculus rift outdoors or untethered, it's definitely not currently being developed for that use case. 2) FWIW, world lens is described as augmented reality. Also, it has a much narrower FOV, probably doesn't update in real-time (and probably doesn't need to), doesn't require wearing a bulky headset, doesn't occlude your entire FOV, and in any case, is not connected to an oculus rift.
  - blhack 13y ago
    World lens does update in [practically] real time. And bringing it up was to address your claim that it was computationally infeasible to retransmit video with some of the content changed.
    - npsimons 13y ago
      World lens does update in [practically] real time. And "practically real time" isn't going to cut it for something which occludes your view, that was why I brought that, and my other points up. I didn't claim it was infeasible; I claimed it was currently infeasible to do it for the entire FOV of a human, and with that being true, it was impractical to assume that VR and AR can currently be applied to the same problems. In the future, the distinction between AR and VR may not need to be made, but before that can happen, VR (as it currently is) has a long way to go.

gosu 13y ago

> infinitely large workspace. I've never considered this. As many terminals as the eye can fit, with a living rainforest as a backdrop. If it doesn't seriously hurt the eyes to do it for programming-session durations, then I'd gladly pay good money for that. And yes, the ARI comparisons are not lost on me.

StavrosK 13y ago
That was the first thing I considered. Another commenter here pointed out that it would not be very possible due to the relatively low resolution of the display on the Oculus. Maybe on the next model, though.

jjoonathan 13y ago

It's not romantic attachment, it's pragmatism. It will be a while before the VR experience becomes seamless. Resolution and dynamic range of VR still lag the real world by an order of magnitude. Latency is extremely touchy for scenes of any complexity, especially given hardware that is designed to be wearable. Even if these issues only manifest subconsciously, the differences add up: the human eye has ~100megapixel resolution and hardwired motion tracking so detailed that the information has to be lossfully compressed 100:1 before being shipped across the optic nerve (the first level of feature extraction happens in your eye). Those compression "algorithms" suffer under VR. People will probably be willing to put up with the quality drop to play games because games are viscerally engaging in a way that allows you to push through sensory obstacles. Workplaces, however, lack that energy and are subject to the constraint of productivity, which I think will make them much harder to penetrate with VR: tiny psychological stresses quickly become intolerable if you're already frustrated by dependency management / tedious busywork / whatever, while the virtual world doesn't actually allow you to do all that much that you couldn't do before. Pro apps will probably take 5-10 years to adjust in a meaningful way, and I doubt that more than a handful of industries will actually be revolutionized by the difference. In the meantime, AR dramatically helps the smoothness problem while still enabling almost all of the gee-whiz features of VR that would have relevance in a professional setting. Military applications are the obvious exception (full VR potentially offers protection from lasers/irritants/bullets to the face) but even military funding won't be enough to close the gap between VR and AR instantaneously. In the long term, you're right, VR will win, but given that the "short term" will probably last for decades, I think you're jumping the gun on VR.

angersock 13y ago

My housemates and I have one coming in the mail. My idea was to make a window compositor for X--the idea being that all open windows would be scattered around the inside of a sphere or hemisphere or perhaps hypercone with the user's head at the center. You look at a window and slowly turn to face directly forward, and the window blows up and moves into focus. A shake of the head dismisses the window, and a sharp snap to either side cycles through open windows. Shoot me an email if you'd like to talk more. EDIT: X programming is fucking arcane. :(

drivebyacct2 13y ago
Skip X, jump to QML and QWayland. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FjuPn7MXMs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FjuPn7MXMs Take that and extrapolate. Doesn't seem that "crazy" really. Compiz and KWin both already have window animations you're describing. There was even a Wii-head-tracking plugin for compiz that would give your desktop a third perspective dimension. (Moving your head would reveal the edges/bits of the other windows underneath higher ones). It'd be a neat demo, but it sounds like a nightmare for daily usability, etc.
- angersock 13y ago
  I'm quite happy doing it with X/GLX--I'm only interested in chasing one kind of shiny at the moment. (I reserve the right to eat my words and recant this misguided decision later.)

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago

> I think people are very attached to the idea of your eyes seeing the "real" world instead of a re-displayed one. I understand that, but I think that ideology is going to hold AR back for a while. I don't think it's fair calling "ideology" the fact screens still suck, and they suck hard. Dynamic range, refresh rate, color reproduction and depth perception are all big shortcomings not solved yet. Just look at digital cameras. If EVFs are not even ready to replace conventional optical viewfinders yet, it's utopia to ask people to slap one in their faces 24/7.

sigkill 13y ago
>refresh rate In this age of nanotechnology I find it entirely ridiculous that manufacturers are cost cutting by multiplexing column and row transistors. LCDs are such awesome tech that you don't even need to have refresh rate. It might increase initial complexity but in the long run it will be worth it.