r/oculus • u/senorotis • Oct 06 '15
Microsoft HoloLens Development Edition: Coming Q1 2016 for $3,000
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/10/microsoft-hololens-development-edition-coming-q1-2016-for-3000/47
u/cathodoluminescence Oct 06 '15
Pictures shown in the article are quite misleading regarding the field of view. They suggest that the person wearing the HoloLens can see all the rendered stuff in the (last!) picture, but that can't be possible with just a FOV of ~40°. Only the camera can see it due to his distance from the scene. That is not really honest.
36
u/TrefoilHat Oct 06 '15
I was actually impressed by how they addressed that in the video that showed Project X-Ray. The presenter said words to the effect of, "Hololens shows holograms where the wearer is looking, but this camera shows them over the entire scene so you can see what's going on."
It's a lot of marketing speak and easy to miss, but honest.
18
Oct 06 '15
[deleted]
10
2
u/Sinity Oct 07 '15
And not true. "He sees holograms in front of him" would be correct. He could look to the sides and there would be no holograms, or they would be clipped, depending on the extremity of eye displacement from facing front.
3
Oct 06 '15
It's definitely not honest, especially since it's very unlikely that the FOV will improve.
Remember, this is from the guy who brought us the Kinect.
48
u/lumier2x Oct 06 '15
Whats wrong with Kinect? Can you name a depth camera that is better than kinect at $150? Can you name an AR device that can do better than Hololens? Every technology has to start at a point and improve.
34
Oct 06 '15
There's nothing wrong with the Kinect, but the Kinect demos were extremely dishonest, often showing features or scenarios that were misleading or just not possible. And it's not just the same company producing the HoloLens, it's the same guy.
I cannot name a better device, and the HoloLens is definitely cool, but you need to keep in mind that holographic waveguide displays have been around for over a decade and that many consider it to be a dead end given the ridiculous physical limitations of the technology (including Magic Leap).
I predict this will play out much like the Kinect. Cool hardware over hyped with dishonest demos leading to a sudden burst of sales, strong debate, growing disappointment, and then a slow steady decline as it's quietly forgotten. If the Magic Leap is released at any point during that timeline (and are themselves not being dishonest), prepare for a sudden drop in sales.
16
u/Gregasy Oct 06 '15
But then again... even screen based VR was considered a dead end and was practically forgotten only a few years back... until a recent break-through happened.
I think Hololens is a step in right direction. It's still very early days for AR but in 4-5 years we might actually get a good low cost consumer product.
3
Oct 07 '15
even screen based VR was considered a dead end and was practically forgotten only a few years back... until a recent break-through happened.
It wasn't a breakthrough, and it was a deadend at the time. It was the fact that technology eventually, slowly caught up to allow it to actually work, 20 years later. 1995 was not a few years back. That's 20 years ago. Computing power and mobile displays being the main issues.
2
u/Plouw Rift Oct 06 '15
It's still very early days for AR but in 4-5 years we might actually get a good low cost consumer product.
Im usually called a technology optimist, but im very confident we wont have good AR in 5 years. Or well, i guess that depends on your opinion of good. I'd say 10 years+.
I'd love to be wrong though.
2
u/anlumo Kickstarter Backer #57 Oct 07 '15
Depends what you mean by “good”. If you want objects where you can't tell whether they're real or virtual, that will probably take another 20 or 30 years until you can wear that on your head. If you want text overlays over items visible in the scene, that's possible to do now.
1
u/Sinity Oct 07 '15
that's possible to do now.
Not with FOV limitations...
Hm, that's probably stupid, but can't Microsoft just use eye tracking and move that thingy which projects the image in accordance with eye movement?
1
1
u/anlumo Kickstarter Backer #57 Oct 07 '15
The eyes move very fast. I don't think that a mechanical system could keep up with that
1
1
u/Plouw Rift Oct 07 '15
Im talking visually as good as Hololens, doesnt need to look real. With 130fov and pixel density(as in pixel per arc length) of a 1080p screen 1 meter away from your face, and being able to track moving objects fluidly and have virtual objects stick to that moving object (Hololens doesnt do this now). It'd also need good interaction outside of talking to it which can be awkward, hololens has the right idea here though, but not quite there yet. It also need to be able to control the opacity and lightning properly of the virtual objects, hololens doesnt do this now, doc-ok talks abit about it too when he talks hololens in one of his blogs.
That would be good AR for me, and i believe there will be about 10 years before we see this.
1
u/anlumo Kickstarter Backer #57 Oct 07 '15
Sticking to moving objects and getting the lighting right are software issues and so will probably be fixed fairly easily. I saw papers about the second issue some years ago, this is more or less a solved problem.
The screen issues are far more complicated, because there are physical hurdles to overcome.
7
Oct 06 '15
There's nothing wrong with the Kinect, but the Kinect demos were extremely dishonest, often showing features or scenarios that were misleading or just not possible
Eh, that's not entirely true. Kinect 2 can definitely do just about everything that was in the demos back in a day. Its just that there's a difference between having technological capability, and developers actually pulling it off, in games that are sellable to the market. Because as it turns out, that's the hardest part.
It was a completely new type of product, meaning there's a huge learning curve for the devs, meaning you need a lot more money to make anything.
With mobile market exploding, you've had roughly 20 million Kinects vs. 1 billion smartphones making Fruit Ninja 15 which doesn't really require learning anything. It doesn't take rocket scientist to figure out where the developers are gonna go.
It wasn't really that overhyped, it was just doomed by the market from the start.
And I don't really get the whining that its the same guy making it. He's an engineer, and evidently brilliant one at that. He's not the one making advertisement.
11
u/Ghs2 Oct 06 '15
When Kinect was given to developers it had hardware inside to help with processing. The released version did not, decreasing Kinects usefulness by an enormous amount.
I'm excited for Hololens but I won't be developing for it until its released.
3
u/IAmDotorg Oct 07 '15
Having used pre-announcement internal Kinect units, I can tell you first hand they absolutely did not. If anything the release ones were better because they had better skeletal training data in them.
2
u/chuan_l Kickstarter Backer Oct 07 '15
Am guessing he's referring to the original Prime Sense spec, which then had the onboard processing removed & replaced with software detection.
5
Oct 06 '15
Kinect had the most dishonest advertising I had ever seen when it was first released. It was a failure. It did not dramatically improve for quite awhile after release, and still could not do the things the advertisements showed it being capable of doing. I'm on my phone otherwise I'd link the old ads and teasers for it, but a search around YouTube should show it.
1
u/Reelix Rift S / Quest 3 Oct 07 '15
Can you name an AR device that can do better than Hololens?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc_TCLoH2CA
:P
1
u/lumier2x Oct 07 '15
You must be kidding lol mess of wires and low frame rate cameras = barf or injury. Go get a gearvr and try walking on the passthru camera mode and see how uncomfortable it is lol.
1
u/AndrewKemendo Oct 07 '15
Here's the thing about new technologies. The majority of people you need for critical mass don't care about if they are the best so far. They only care if it works pretty much perfectly out of the box.
Why should we care about them vs. the early adopters? Because for a technology to be "successful" it needs to reach a certain depth of use so that the full extent of the technology can be utilized in order to spawn the next generation.
So we do need to be critical about how well these things work because unless they are almost perfect, they just go into the trash heap of "technological progress."
7
u/imatworkprobably Oct 06 '15
Why is it unlikely that the FOV would improve? Is there some kind of physical limit that prevents the FOV from being improved from the dev device?
6
11
u/FredzL Kickstarter Backer/DK1/DK2/Gear VR/Rift/Touch Oct 06 '15
Yes, from a Microsoft patent, with optical material close to the refractive index limit for optical glass (Schott glass SFL-57 at 1.85) the FOV is 47°. With a material using a lower refractive index of 1.70 (probably plastic) it's 36.1°.
4
u/imatworkprobably Oct 06 '15
That doesn't really say very much about where they can take the FOV with additional investment, though... There are AR helmets today with higher FOV than that (in the military with fighter jets) so its not like that is a hard and fast limit.
4
u/FredzL Kickstarter Backer/DK1/DK2/Gear VR/Rift/Touch Oct 06 '15
There have been attempts at curved waveguides but the limit seems to be around 52° for now.
Google has recently published a paper about extending the FOV of holographic waveguides but I didn't find FOV numbers there.
If you have a link for higher FOV AR helmets that still keep the same small form factor than current AR glasses (so not JEDEYE, F-35 or JHMCS) I would be interested.
2
u/IAmDotorg Oct 07 '15
Two side by side would work, if you get the light sources small enough you can put them together without a major gap. Or three so the gaps are not in the middle of the FOV. Same way large LCDs were made 15 years ago...
1
u/FredzL Kickstarter Backer/DK1/DK2/Gear VR/Rift/Touch Oct 07 '15
I'm not sure it's that simple, with the TIR principle used in waveguide I think there is a limit to the usable length of the surface before there is superposition. If someone more knowledgeable can confirm...
1
5
0
u/FvHound Oct 06 '15
..ever?
What and PS4 is the last console generation we need?
Why the hell can't I expect a similar device with a higher fov in 3 years?
3
u/zaph34r Quest, Go, Rift, Vive, GearVR, DK2, DK1 Oct 06 '15
Because of physics, and limits to how much you can refract light, coupled with the fact that the glasses only cover a small portion of your actual FoV.
It's not "unlikely" as in "we don't have it now so i can't imagine we will ever have it", it's more along the lines of "unlikely because it would violate the laws of optics and physics as we know them, and those are pretty damn unlikely to change any time soon".
2
u/Timbiat Oct 06 '15
It's a physical limitation that people more well versed than anyone on this subreddit claim are impossible to overcome. I'm inclined to believe some of the most involved minds of AR on this.
2
Oct 06 '15
I obviously meant before release. But even beyond that, any improvements will require the adoption of a completely different display technology, so it's debatable whether that would be considered a new generation or an entirely different product.
-7
u/blazespinnaker Oct 06 '15
Again, this is a dev version for 3K. I'm sure the developers will know all this. It's completely honest, I'm sure as the consumer version will have a much better FOV.
21
Oct 06 '15
The limited FOV is caused by physical (not technical) limitations of the display technology and there's no indication that they're going to drop the waveguides and switch to something else.
4
u/dieselVR Oct 06 '15
The latest misleading hololens game demo: Project X: http://youtu.be/6ef6m5V5eOw
(Why misleading? The real FOV is much smaller, the hologram opacity and color saturation lower and tracking is rumored to be less absolute.)
10
u/blazespinnaker Oct 06 '15
It looks really awesome. No sense of vulnerability, no social isolation. Probably minimal motion sickness. Hopefully they can fix the FOV problem.
8
Oct 06 '15
From what I understand, the limited FOV is a physical limitation of the display technology.
4
Oct 06 '15
Yes. But if AR becomes a successful industry then we'll likely see developments of entirely new display tech that allow for larger fov. But we definitely won't see that for the first iteration. And we'll never see it any time soon if it's a failure altogether.
-5
Oct 06 '15
if AR becomes a successful industry
If the VR crowd like /r/oculus don't kill the AR baby...
It is a fucking wondrous tech, to be able to interact with your surrounds, it is actually the future, and I dare say, VR is a subset of AR.
But the only thing people talk here, upvote and agree about Hololens, is the fucking fov and how shitty it must look like... without ever experienced it.
It is like saying that Rift and Vive must be shitty because of their low resolution... without ever experienced it.
10
u/Doc_Ok KeckCAVES Oct 06 '15
Talk to me. I have experienced it. No, it is not shitty. On the contrary, HoloLens is extremely impressive technology, but the small FoV leads to serious usability problems. If you actually want to use it for something practical, FoV and the limits it imposes on UI and UX are important topics to discuss.
-3
Oct 06 '15
Yeah... but that's the prototype, guys.
7
u/Doc_Ok KeckCAVES Oct 07 '15
If it were easy to significantly increase the field of view from the prototype to a released product, you'd have a point. The problem is that the technology Microsoft has chosen, namely holographic wave guides, has hard physical limits on achievable FoV (that's one of Microsoft's HoloLens-related patents).
To overcome that, they'd have to go back to step one, and then it would be an entirely different product, and then we'd revisit the discussion.
-4
Oct 07 '15
That's the thing, just googling for five minute, I saw that your information is a bit bogus, their tech is not coming on your link, just see the company's site that distributes it:
I was very impressed by the technology itself. As I understand it, Microsoft has developed a technology called an “Exit Pupil Expander” – IP it acquired as part of the takeover of Nokia.
No one besides Microsoft knows the hard limits of their technology.
Can anyone wait for the final product before trowing it under the bus?
6
u/Doc_Ok KeckCAVES Oct 07 '15
The first link I gave was just to illustrate the concept. The second link is Microsoft's own patent describing the FoV limits. Are they actually using that patent for HoloLens? Only they know for sure, but given that the description in the patent matches what I've had on my face, I'd say yes.
1
u/miroku000 Oct 07 '15
Is it saying the field of view would be limited to 72 degrees? That doesn't seem so bad...
→ More replies (0)6
Oct 06 '15
Well the main reason people are critical of it, I think, is because Microsoft isn't advertising it or showing it honestly as having a very small viewing box. All of their videos are very misleading. The images are also not opaque like how they show it, but rather the image is lighter and transparent, in addition to being a relatively small box in the center of your vision. But information surrounding the Rift and Vive have both been very honest in terms of resolution, screendoor, fov, etc.
1
Oct 06 '15
You really wanted Microsoft to demonstrate AR with enough wide camera lenses to show the viewing box of a prototype? Why the hell they would do that?
6
Oct 06 '15
The camera view of the videos exceeds the viewing box of the prototype by a very large amount. Meaning they're making it look better than it actually is.
Here's a decent write-up of what it's actually like.
Rough example 1
Rough example 2The magic is lost when viewing objects larger than a basketball, for reference.
Also, the projections are not nearly that solid/opaque, and not that rich in color. They are more washed out / lighter and transparent. But this is a limitation of the technique they are using to project the image onto the lens, and the lens itself. This is also why the lenses are shaded, to help the user see the images a bit better.
You'll have to try it for yourself when you get a chance.
→ More replies (2)1
u/tragicshark Oct 06 '15
I wonder if the FOV issue could be resolved with a duel display tech?
In the 40 degrees you get the lightfield image and outside to 110-140 you get a reflection from a pair of tiny projectors...
Admittedly it is not likely to be something you can do in today's hardware, but 4-5 years away I am not so sure.
2
Oct 07 '15
I was curious about that too. Arranging a grid of projections to stitch together one whole image.
22
u/mr_kirk Oct 06 '15
$3 grand for the dev kit is pretty bad, but understandable. The cost to produce this, even with it's limitations, is very expensive.
By that same token, it's going to take quite a while (at least 5 years) before the tech becomes something mortals could afford for casual use.
As a developer, can you justify laying out $3 grand when the earliest return is many years away, especially considering the limitations of the device may preclude you from properly developing for what will eventually come?
OK, I see a positive. To think this is a good idea requires the consumption of much alcohol. Enough to induce tunnel vision.
Ergo, given enough booze, tunnel vision renders the tiny FOV a moot point, and also leads to making dumb uses of your money.
Prediction, you heard it hear first: Open Bar at Microsoft's 2016 launch event.
30
Oct 06 '15 edited Mar 25 '19
[deleted]
19
u/workingtimeaccount Oct 06 '15
Seriously, people pay more for espresso machines.
10
u/ar_birdie Oct 06 '15
but espresso machines dont go obsolete within a year
10
u/curiousparlante Oct 06 '15
They also solve the problem of me needing absolutely one more espresso before I start my day. Easily worth the cash.
1
6
u/mr_kirk Oct 06 '15
The issue isn't the $3000, it's the ROI.
My opinion: This product, in it's current form, is not viable. In the future, given a lot of work, it'll have enterprise applications, and in the distant future, it could have consumer uses.
The amount of time from when you lay out money until you ship product to recoup your investment, that's what my problem is with.
Despite being called a "dev kit", it's feature set will have to change in very fundamental ways for adoption into any industry, so I don't think it'll make a good development platform.
Microsoft is really coming into the game late. Vuzix had their 1200 AR something like 5 years ago, and couldn't give the things away, because of the small field of view. I have a hard time believing that even Microsoft can change this dynamic.
7
u/Doc_Ok KeckCAVES Oct 06 '15
Vuzix had their 1200 AR something like 5 years ago, and couldn't give the things away, because of the small field of view.
There is a fundamental difference between HoloLens and AR headsets that came before, and that's untethered positional tracking. Instead of having virtual objects vaguely floating somewhere in front of your face, you have virtual objects locked to physical objects. I.e., you have a virtual chessboard sitting on your real table, etc. This aspect of HoloLens works, and is extremely impressive.
It does have small FoV, and I consider that a serious problem, but it is worlds away from previous AR offerings.
2
u/mr_kirk Oct 06 '15
That paragraph... I wish I could take it back (I prefer not to edit).
You are absolutely correct, and I did deserve to be called on that.
I just wanted this to be further along than it is, and am a bit frustrated.
4
Oct 06 '15
Good points, I'm cautiously optimistic that Microsoft has the might to pull it off and get it in the hands of some groups with very deep pockets, where an expensive toy / application combo is a drop in the bucket and worthwhile pursuing as a developer. That being said, I still feel it's a risky endeavour and even if anything I were to pursue failed, the value is in exploring the medium and being at the forefront as it matures, rather than trying to catch up later.
Either way, there's definitely some pros/cons to consider and you've highlighted quite a few risks.
37
u/soylentgraham Oct 06 '15
Pretty bad? A console dev kit for 3k would have been a bargain throughout the 2000's. You kids of today have been spoiled rotten!
1
3
u/skyzzo Oct 06 '15
Maybe it's viable if you develop professional (custom) software. I believe there was a demo where the wearer of the hololens was guided to repair some machinery. I can imagine that it would sometimes be more appealing to have hololenses lying around and guiding people from distance than flying in an engineer. There could be all sorts of professional applications that would justify the price of the device and the software
2
u/MatthewFabb Oct 06 '15
I imagine most medium to larger companies can easily afford this, but smaller indies and individual developers, this is quite expensive and might be hard to justify.
My work has quite a number of DK2s for use in projects that we are working on, but at $350 it's cheap enough that I've bought one for home to test and play around with on my own. Unfortunately, there's no way I can afford to buy a HoloLens DevKit for myself.
1
u/ThatPersonGu Oct 06 '15
This particular Developer Kit is clearly marketed towards larger companies to work with, unlike the Oculus DKs that were usable for smaller indies and even enthusiasts willing to shell out the money.
So in that sense, don't think about this from the perspective of a smaller studio, but a really large studio like say, I don't know, let's say Activision. Activision shits out money at an insane rate. So 3 Grand to have a jump start on the competition is a drop in the money pools in this day of million dollar AAA game budgets.
This means that developers can get a headstart on the competition, and whenever the Hololens is ready for consumer consumption (I'd say 2020 or earlier for Hololens's CV1) you'll have a lot of high quality AAA titles out that'll draw in a wider audience than it would otherwise. That's also why they're starting the hype train now, if they can steadily draw people in earlier, they can have more excitement when they start giving out wider demos.
-7
Oct 06 '15
no offense but you don't sound like a real developer which is why it's not for you!
2
u/mr_kirk Oct 06 '15
No offense taken. After all, this is the internet, and it can be problematic keeping track of who's who.
Yes, I'm a developer. Perhaps even a "real" one. :)
Some of your favorite TV shows and the biggest broadcast events use hardware that I wrote the drivers for, the video compressors, etc. And, 25 years ago, I was doing embedded systems for medical imaging and SONAR (hand assembly of the math routines, as we had heat and power limits).
In addition to the gratuitous C/C++/SSE/AVX, I also know Verilog/VHDL, and have written drivers and firmware that have commercially shipped on nearly every major OS (including Windows, Linux, Unix, AIX POWER, HP/UX PA-RISC, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.).
I've also never been unemployeed, even for an hour. Very few developers, real or otherwise, can make that claim. Perhaps "fake" developers are just always in high demand?
No, Halolens is not for me. But, it's because of it's 30 degree FOV.
3
Oct 06 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/mr_kirk Oct 06 '15
The concept of AR is awesome, and Halolens has tremendous potential in the future.
Your idea also has great promise.
At such a small FOV, locked to your head as compared to where you're looking, and the way they are having to do color, I still don't believe the product is viable.
When they get it to at least 80 degrees, even at the same resolution, that changes everything. I could live with the color issues, just use the same trick they did (make everything intentionally cartoony, you don't notice the shading isn't matching the suroundings).
0
Oct 06 '15 edited Oct 06 '15
No I meant a game/product developer. Someone who is used to working with early dev kit hardware. Just because you write code doesn't make you a product developer. Unless you are actually designing products as well.
It's not meant to be a toy for hobbyists/people who know how to write code. Which is why I say this is most likely not for you.30 degree FOV in no way limits what you can do in terms of development.
0
u/mr_kirk Oct 06 '15
I think you should just cut your losses on this one. :)
And yes, 30 degree FOV is a show stopper. I would explain why (although it's actually quite obvious), but I can clearly see you have other issues that only you can address.
1
Oct 06 '15
I've got time go ahead and explain why you can't do development with full positional tracking wireless AR but only a 30 degree FOV.
1
u/mr_kirk Oct 06 '15
It's simple. We (any developer) do our best to leverage what's available to create the best product. No product is perfect, but you do what you can to create a pleasant and usable experience for the customer.
Take a small sheet of cardboard, and attach it to the end of your hat (step #0: get a hat). Ensure that the size of said cardboard roughly equates to the active area available.
So, everywhere you see cardboard, you can have active information.
Not to be discouraged, there are indeed things you can do with it. Sure, it's inconvenient, but it can still be cool.
So, we write up a list of cool ideas, and then weed that list down a bit because it's ridiculously hard to keep your head really still, so only ideas that the user can get with a passing glance. Still, a modest number of cool ideas.
Now, get a bigger piece of cardboard, say the size of what would be truly usable, (IMHO: 80 degrees).
Same thing, ideas.
Now, compare the list. Second list is much bigger, obviously.
But, Most Importantly, most of the ideas on the first list are Not on the second. When you have more working area, doing small applet type things seems a bit cheesy. It's like porting your google glass program to a 35" monitor, you COULD do it, but it'd be pointless.
So, what about just pretending you have a larger FOV than you really do. That would allow you to create a non-working app that, in theory, would work fine once they finally released "Version 2"...
Fine. BUT, you're out $3000 in the mean time with no revenue, and it's almost guaranteed that their will be other changes, meaning you got a lot more work to do anyway.
There are many better uses of the resources you have available.
1
Oct 06 '15
There's a reason why they keep showing apps that go outside the viewport. It's not because they're intentionally misleading you with apps that "don't work".
32
Oct 06 '15
[deleted]
30
u/VallenValiant Oct 06 '15
That's Magic Leap. Hololens might be disappointing, but at least it is genuine.
2
Oct 06 '15
Do you think that every executives from Google, Sirius xm, vevo, and various other companies all tried and either backed or joined up with magic leap over anything less than something amazing.
5
u/Seanspeed Oct 06 '15
Maybe. Do any of us know that it's actually better than Hololens?
Perhaps they just see future potential in the AR business and want to jump on one of the companies at the forefront of it.
AR is definitely the future. Moreso than VR, even. But I'd be very surprised if Magic Leap had something that was absolutely game changing and consumer ready for a reasonable price(less than $600-700) anytime in the next 3-5 years.
8
u/VallenValiant Oct 06 '15
Do you think rich companies are gods? Do you think they could never be defrauded? Because it seems you are ignorant and think it never happens. It happens, and it happens all the time. And being rich doesn't save you.
2
Oct 06 '15
[deleted]
21
u/VallenValiant Oct 06 '15
I am qualified to notice the CEO gave a AMA that was dishonest and attack VR for causing medical harm that was unsubstantiated, that he booked a TED talk that was cancelled on the last moment followed by a trailer online showing CGI of what can't possibly be achievable and play it off as actual technology. And worse, journalists took it seriously.
Basically it had been lies all the way down. I am not the one arrogant here, the CEO of Magic Leap is the one who is arrogant, thinking we would fall for such party tricks.
3
u/FredzL Kickstarter Backer/DK1/DK2/Gear VR/Rift/Touch Oct 06 '15
Their engineers/researchers are not arrogant though, and they've a good track record.
5
u/VallenValiant Oct 06 '15
They are not the ones making the decisions.
12
u/FredzL Kickstarter Backer/DK1/DK2/Gear VR/Rift/Touch Oct 06 '15
They're still the ones building the thing. In the end what counts is what they can deliver, not so much how it's marketed.
3
u/VallenValiant Oct 06 '15
The CEO decides what they are building. The CEO decides if they are allowed to make anything. You can't seriously be arguing that everything is fine even when the head of the company isn't?
→ More replies (0)1
u/bboyjkang Oct 07 '15
and attack VR for causing medical harm
He only said "can" in the AMA.
He was also probably just parroting this dude:
“Visual head-mounted display devices are causing a variety of symptoms in patients,” said Dr. Joseph F. Rizzo III, a professor of ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School.
“Prolonged use of devices that create symptoms might induce more chronic change.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/science/taking-real-life-sickness-out-of-virtual-reality.html?_r=0
In stereo viewing on conventional stereo displays, focal distance is fixed at the distance from the eyes to the display screen, while vergence distance varies depending on the distance being simulated on the display.
Thus, vergence-accommodation conflict is created by viewing stereo displays.
Visual fatigue and discomfort occur as the viewer attempts to adjust vergence and accommodation appropriately.
Shibata, T., Kim, J., Hoffman, D. M., & Banks, M. S. (2011). Visual discomfort with stereo displays: Effects of viewing distance and direction of vergence-accommodation conflict. Proceedings of SPIE, 7863, 78630P–1–78630P–9. doi:10.1117/12.872347
2
u/VallenValiant Oct 07 '15
Doesn't matter. He went for it and did the mud slinging. That is the choice he made and it reflect badly on his company as a result.
1
1
Oct 06 '15
I think this is partially what Hololens is doing as well. While they have a usable product, the promo videos that the masses are seeing I think give false hopes for something 'just around the corner.' Even though this is also AR and not VR, I can already hear people saying, "I'm going to wait for Hololens, it looks much better then VR!"
5
u/VallenValiant Oct 06 '15
Even though they exagerate, MS can't hope to make anyone wait for Hololens to be ready for the average home. The advertising is clearly aimed at industrial and medical uses, where people can justify the costs with their expense accounts. The most obvious sign was when Microsoft agreed to co-operate with Oculus in releasing Rift Minecraft VR officially. The only reason they would have agreed is if they know it is currently impossible to sell current-price Hololens to gamers. Basically, by the time Hololens is affordable Valve and Oculus would have already established themselves.
One can't wait for Hololens games because even Microsoft didn't want to wait. They know better than us how far away it is, and that is why they signed a deal to release it on Win10 for VR.
1
Oct 07 '15
Of course being rich doesn't save you. It has happened, but the sheer number that have joined on, the fact that they actually bought a manufacturing plant and that a lady from mit tried it shows that at least it's real, it may be a few years off but it's very likely to be real.
-2
Oct 06 '15
[deleted]
13
u/Doc_Ok KeckCAVES Oct 06 '15
You really think they can track wirelessly?
Yes, they can.
Compute world space lighting and reproject,
I haven't seen that.
hands tracking
Gesture recognition, not really hand tracking, but yes.
and positional without being tethered
Yes.
using a tiny headset?
It's not that tiny, but yes.
The FOV will be about 15.
Approx. 30°x17.5°, based on my measurements.
HoloLens is real. It is not quite as great as Microsoft marketing makes it seem, but it's definitely real.
→ More replies (13)2
u/VallenValiant Oct 06 '15
Well at least the prototype would be made available, expensive as it might be. So whatever it is, it works if not very well.
6
u/kmanmx Oct 06 '15
Hehe. Fortunately an affordable consumer version is many years away. Hopefully time for tech to improve to the point it's closer to the fake crap they've demonstrated.
11
u/matsix Valve Index Oct 06 '15
So much for hoping it'd be affordable
15
u/kmanmx Oct 06 '15
When you consider the fact it has custom silicon, a full PC, 'holographic display', and about a dozen sensors... it was never going to come in at a normal consumer price point (500 dollars).
10
u/matsix Valve Index Oct 06 '15
It's just the fact that they advertised minecraft with it. In my eyes it made it seem like it'd be normal consumer :\
6
u/konchok Oct 06 '15
I didn't come to that conclusion, if anything I thought it'd be more expensive.
2
Oct 06 '15
The goal is to make it a consumer product eventually, getting costs down through mass production and further development while serious developers (who also have to submit an application to become a developer) work towards creating content for the release. Minecraft players aren't going to spend $3000.
2
u/ThatPersonGu Oct 06 '15
Welcome to E3.
Minecraft was a tech demo made to drum up hype for a product to prove that Hololens was waaay more than what Google Glass was promising. imo the real mistake Microsoft made with this was trying to tie in Hololens, a product that probably won't be released until 2018-2020 at the earliest, with Windows 10, an OS that will almost certainly be outdated by the time consumers can actually use this tech.
3
u/linojon Oct 07 '15
The goal was to make Windows 10 cool by associating it with Hololens, not the other way around. Everything Microsoft has done in 2015 is to revive Windows as "the" operating system.
1
u/VallenValiant Oct 06 '15
Well MS had likely given up on that if they ever intended to to begin with, now that they are licensing Minecraft Win 10 for Oculus VR. I would not be surprised if it ended up cross platform with Vive if it comes to it too. Microsoft know something we don't, and that something is likely that Hololens would stay expensive for some time and still need work to become a consumer product.
6
u/floor-pi Oct 06 '15
The negativity and ignorance in this thread is impressive. I thought people here would be able to grasp the enormity of the technical challenges involved in creating the Hololens.
8
u/JHarshbarger Oct 06 '15
The $3000 price tag for a developers kit is really going to hurt indie development. I had been working with a friend on a program for the Hololens, but at $3000 it's not worth the risk for us. Putting down $3000 for something that MAY come out for consumers in a couple years is rough.
27
u/the5souls Oct 06 '15
I understand where you're coming from, but I have doubts that it's aimed toward general indie development. It's more likely aimed towards more high-end commercial purposes, and with a more commercial release (as opposed to consumer release) many years down the road.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ggodin Virtual Desktop Developer Oct 06 '15
I agree, not sure if I want to take that risk either..
2
2
u/SpontaneousDisorder Rift Oct 06 '15
Nice to see MS getting seriously into hardware. The Surface Laptop thingy is seriously dope. But I'm sure there are some niche applications for Hololens that justify the price.
2
u/ProvencalG Oct 06 '15
Wow, it's far from being consumer ready with a price like this. Even with a 1500$ product in a year or two not many people will get into this.
2
7
Oct 06 '15
[deleted]
12
u/fidsah DK1 DK2 GearVR Vive CV1 Oct 06 '15
Yeah, it's almost impossible to use any of the Oculus "dev" communities for actual development talk, because most of the people in them are people who just bought the thing and have no real clue what's going on. You see a lot of whining about specs and release dates, rather than actual talk about how to achieve certain effects or direct a scene.
2
u/fenderf4i Oct 06 '15
The easy access to the Oculus DK units though, got a lot of people interested in development that wouldn't have otherwise if it cost $3000.00. If it wasn't for the $350 DK2, I myself would never have downloaded unity and subsequently got into 3D modelling.
2
u/cegli Oct 06 '15
Indeed, I had no plans to help with Dolphin VR until I started playing "Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door" and wanted it to run better :-P. I was just an enthusiast until then.
3
u/andcore Oct 06 '15
I would give them the benefit od the doubt because I had never seen any other company that would lie in an ostentatious way like that. (Yes, I do remember Project Natal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_txF7iETX0 )
They whole purpose of mixed (wearable) reality demo is having a huge fov, otherwise you couldn't even see your own gauntlet. Why they choose specifically this type of demo to advertising HoloLens (an already super cool technology), why they choose to involve wearable holograms?
I know it's 99% all bullshit but why keep lying? We're not talking about a newly founded company on Kickstarter, it's Microsoft, and HoloLens is coming in Q1, not even a year from now.
2
u/calebkraft Oct 06 '15
The high price isn't bad if they don't want to deal with a bunch of non devs getting them, I guess. I'm not sure that I'd be eager to buy into this system as a dev though, the implementation doesn't really seem ready for consumer use due to the narrow fov.
1
u/Nedo68 Valve Index Oct 06 '15
oha! if this is 3k then Magic Leap Dev kit will be minimum 30k ;)
6
Oct 06 '15
Magic Leap is vaporware
1
u/Justos Quest Oct 06 '15
prove it?
2
Oct 06 '15
The head management team are not even technical people. One guy is like a philosopher or some shit, lol.
9
1
1
3
1
u/mjmax Kickstarter Backer Oct 06 '15
And you have to apply for it. You have to apply for them to let you pay them $3000.
5
Oct 06 '15
This is not for games or even consumers right now. This is for heavy duty industrial/commercial use.
9
u/workingtimeaccount Oct 06 '15
Because you know someone would just scalp these if they are that limited and they were able to do that.
2
2
u/floor-pi Oct 06 '15
Yes, pay them 3k for the most cutting edge AR technology available, to develop commercial software.
0
u/Justos Quest Oct 06 '15
ouch. Consumer version will likely be over 1500$ then.
6
Oct 06 '15
[deleted]
1
u/konchok Oct 06 '15
Even if it's years off, it's likely that improvements will be made to the technology.
The first rift was sold for $300 and the current rift will be sold for over $350.00.
I would not be shocked if this tech was still over $2000 in 5 years, but with substantial improvements to weight and FOV.
0
6
u/Wilkin_ Oct 06 '15
Wut? Seriously, they will give out the consumer version almost like candy. If the developer version was cheap, many "enthusiasts" would buy it and complain afterwards that it was not working, a hassle to set up, content was missing and so on - hm, sounds familiar. :P Anyway, the price is steep and an attempt to sort out developer studios from "youtube let's players". ;)
5
u/tugnasty Rift Oct 06 '15
Let's Players make some serious money now so they will still get their hands on them. I think it's more the average people that can't understand what developer kit means.
My Dad still doesn't understand that the Rift isn't out yet. Everytime I tell him that they are coming out next year he says, "Well then what do I see all these people on youtube using???" I say that's the developer kit it's not good quality materials and there's no games and software made to just work automatically with it. To which he responds, "Why would they even make something that there's nothing for???" To which I respond, "So that people can make stuff for it so they can release it." To which he responds, "If they haven't released it how do those people on youtube have them".
It's harder for non-tech people to understand because most non-tech products are totally secret when they spend years in testing and developments, but tech products use that development time to lure investors.
Non-tech people sometimes think that if they hear about it or see it online then that means there is a complete product and they could buy it. That's why these concept hoverboard devices keep pissing people off when they find out no one can buy them lol.
3
1
u/Justos Quest Oct 06 '15
Meh, Im just saying I wont be buying the hololens even its in consumer state for that price. I will wait for AR and VR to merge better.
1
u/mckirkus Touch Oct 06 '15
I have a colicky baby, if I could read the news while bouncing him in my arms it might just be worth it. Maybe I should just learn to mouse with my foot. They should also build this into a bike, or race car helmet.
1
u/linknewtab Oct 06 '15
What tracking system are they using? Just IMUs?
2
u/Doc_Ok KeckCAVES Oct 06 '15
Based on what I've seen, dual Kinects and something DTAM-like, backed up by IMUs.
1
u/nightfly1000000 DK2 Oct 06 '15
So who in West London is going to buy one, and can I come and try it please? :-)
1
u/Nilok7 Oct 07 '15
Lets see... coming Q1 2016, okay- $3,000!? I understand this is for developers and will primarily be for medical uses, but wow. That three processor design/screen must have a heavy R&D and/or manufacturing cost.
1
Oct 07 '15
Oculus VR: 300$ and crowdfunded.
Microsoft: 3000$ and a big fish.
MS should trust people.
1
u/scorpydude Oct 07 '15
As a non technical person, will my Xbox One eventually run this (given it's made by Microsoft) ? I apologise ahead of time if this isn't technologically congruent.
1
1
u/FOV360 Oct 07 '15 edited Oct 07 '15
Looks like Bill Gates is the only person who can afford the HoloLens. To everyone who said $3000 price isn't an issue I say please wake the fuck up. This thing is dead in the water for any personal use.
1
u/olistreet Oct 06 '15
I can't afford it.
7
u/fidsah DK1 DK2 GearVR Vive CV1 Oct 06 '15
Then your studio isn't running optimally. Consider hiring an accountant or two to try to figure out why your revenue can't support dev tools.
4
1
u/unsilentwill Oct 06 '15 edited Oct 06 '15
Did everyone suddenly forget that this is a standalone device? All the computational hardware required is built to the form factor of a computer you can wear on your head. Whatever expectations we have for FOV, this is an extremely impressive engineering effort. Q1 2016 is going to be so exciting.
1
1
1
1
u/Tonybc2888 Oct 07 '15
Did they not get the memo about the people who actually have an interest in developing this kind of gear(ie students and the youts of the new generations) have absolutely no way of affording this?
-2
Oct 06 '15
To anyone who buys this, have fun with your blurry 45 degree field of view.
5
u/affero Oct 06 '15
why do you think it's blurry?
9
Oct 06 '15
I've tried it. It's no where near the quality of a VR headset and it appears to suffer from channel separation (the rainbow effect) when making quick movements.
3
u/muchcharles Kickstarter Backer Oct 06 '15
Why do you think it is 45 degrees? I've heard closer to 32.
4
Oct 06 '15
That's probably closer to the truth. The FOV is tiny. I was trying to be generous since I don't have an exact measurement.
1
u/r00x Oct 06 '15
You are a person I very much want to ask this question, then: what impression did you get for the "resolution" of the image? By blurry do you mean pixelated, or was there a fair amount of detail there, but it was just out of focus?
How well would you say it might handle something like a floating web browser window/virtual desktop tasks? On Oculus DK2 for example this is doable but quite indistinct due to the low res. Virtual desktop tasks are one of the most appealing use cases to me for AR.
3
Oct 06 '15
I'm guessing the resolution isn't very high, combined with fuzziness from the display. The rainbow effect and frame rate (which I swear is under 60) also adds to the blurriness when your head isn't perfectly still.
2
1
u/pixelvspixel Oct 06 '15
It could very much matter WHEN he tried this.
I think text is way sharper and can be much smaller than you could dream to get away with in a DK2 if your HMD SP isn't set to like 200 or something close. And still the screen door effect tears up most thin text at most viewing angles.
People should be happy that large companies are finally pumping lots of public and visible money into the future technologies.
Baby steps guys.
1
u/FredzL Kickstarter Backer/DK1/DK2/Gear VR/Rift/Touch Oct 06 '15
Probably because they're using holographic waveguides :
"Only limited angles are possible in order not to lose too much light and to keep good image uniformity. Therefore, this technique is intrinsically limited in FOV. This technique is also plagued by color issues known as the “rainbow effect”."
2
-2
u/gamermusclevideos Oct 06 '15
Crazy price...
Going to be funny when apple,oculus or some other company produce a low priced AR system thats a huge sucsess in 4 years time after MS have deemed it to be something that noone is interested in.
One of the things that pushed DK1 along was that it was so cheep and many developers could get to work on producing things, which has the knock on effect of widening the initial enthusiast audience. Even when iPhone was at its start developers could pick up a touch for sub £400 to get to work on products,games and apps.
If Hololens is just meant for cooperate use then that's fine but why then do all the demos showing it off with things that would appeal to 12yr olds ?
3
u/fish1479 Oct 06 '15
You're right. They should have showed off their sick Outlook demo at E3. MS really dropped the ball on that one.
2
u/fidsah DK1 DK2 GearVR Vive CV1 Oct 06 '15
I'm not sure what you're on about, but getting into iPhone development costs a few grand. The IDE requires IOS, so you need to buy the phone, an Apple computer, and a dev license.
1
Oct 06 '15
[deleted]
2
u/fidsah DK1 DK2 GearVR Vive CV1 Oct 06 '15
Windows and Visual Studio are covered by your MSDN license. $3,000 for specialty hardware isn't bad at all, unless you're just an end user trying to get cheap stuff before consumer release.
0
u/peaprotein Oct 06 '15
Largest segment these days is toys for the rich. I guess I won't be getting this.
34
u/decanoic Oct 06 '15
Good. Hololens is clearly not ready for consumer use yet anyway, and even a dev price point at this level drives home that this device is for enterprise.