Support NeoGAF

[HORRORSHØW]

The next thing people will criticize is how stupid people will look walking around wearing it. Like Google Glass times 10.

it's true, though:

that looks stupid as fuck. hopefully form and function will see continued improvements in future iterations.

 

[fallen_dawn]

So once the FOV is fixed...I wonder what people will shit on next about it...im just glad that it seems that everything else worked. The other tech in it is what had me worried. No wires, no phone or pc to connect tether to, voice recognition, opacity, etc...E3 is gonna interesting. I know that they wont have new model by then... its a month , but I do expect more news about the updates to the tech by the end of the year. Still exciting tech.

Is it so bad that people complain about something that is undoubtedly a problem? If the problem is transient, good. It can be fixed and people can move on. What people don't link is being presented with target images which reality can't yet meet. If the problem is easy to fix, it should be fixed before being presented. If it is not fixed before being presented, the product should be presented with a disclaimer.

I don't see what your deal is with people being upset about a legitimate problem.

 

[Pathfinder]

Is it so bad that people complain about something that is undoubtedly a problem? If the problem is transient, good. It can be fixed and people can move on. What people don't link is being presented with target images which reality can't yet meet. If the problem is easy to fix, it should be fixed before being presented. If it is not fixed before being presented, the product should be presented with a disclaimer.

I don't see what your deal is with people being upset about a legitimate problem.

Do people really still need to be told that pre-production hardware and software might not be indicative of the final released product?

One would think that would be a given by now. This is 2015, after all.

 

[Pie and Beans]

So once the FOV is fixed...

The FOV is never going to be fixed to what half the people in this topic think it being "fixed" will entail in this form factor. The very nature of AR projection onto a surface in front of the viewers eyes has a hard limit in size of what can be achieved.

So all the hopeful "Well when ____" people are misunderstanding the very nature of whats different about the AR approach to the VR one.

 

[Raist]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with "future vision" videos. It shows they have high aspirations for the technology. It got me very excited about it.

But I'm not expecting the first hardware iteration to do everything in the video. I'm conditioned to expect this sort of showy performance from Microsoft, it's what they do. They like painting a pretty picture. They've been like this as far as I can remember.

Keeping one's expectations in check is necessary when dealing with new product ideas from Microsoft. But I'm not cynical enough to flat out call them liars because their first hardware design is a tad immature and doesn't immediately match their vision word-for-word.

Technology is a process, it's not instant, nor is a technology company going to hit a home run each time. For me, they get lots of points for simply trying to do something different, especially when plenty of other companies aren't doing anything special at all.

Right. Still waiting on the new and improved Kinect to do anything close to their "product vision" videos from 6 years ago.

At the end of the day it's extremely misleading. Especially the demos. Because at no point during these they tell you "FoV is a bit rubbish right now". No, they show you an entire room filled with "holograms" and tell you "and this is what Hololens does".

 

[jem0208]

The FOV is never going to be fixed to what half the people in this topic think it being "fixed" will entail in this form factor. The very nature of AR projection onto a surface in front of the viewers eyes has a hard limit in size of what can be achieved.

So all the hopeful "Well when ____" people are misunderstanding the very nature of whats different about the AR approach to the VR one.

I know it's been said before, however they had a larger FoV with the first prototype that people could try out.

 

[Guy LeDouche]

it's true, though:

that looks stupid as fuck. hopefully form and function will see continued improvements in future iterations.

To be fair, they mostly look dumb because it looks like they are milking holographic prostates

 

[lednerg]

THEY'RE NOT HOLOGRAMS!!!!!

This is a hologram:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDRTghGZ7XU

What hololens does is AUGMENTED REALITY.

It is augmented reality, but the HoloLens is also a light field display, so it's accurate to say it makes holograms. Your eyes will be able to focus on the objects differently depending on how far away they are. You could close one eye and still get a 3D effect due to this. This is different from something like the Oculus Rift or 3DS, where your eyes can only focus on one fixed plane in front of your eyes and the 3D effect is achieved solely via convergence.

 

[nynt9]

I know it's been said before, however they had a larger FoV with the first prototype that people could try out.

That was in a different form factor. Which the post you're addressing addresses - the FOV can't be fixed in this form factor.

It is augmented reality, but the HoloLens is also a light field display, so it's accurate to say it makes holograms. Your eyes will be able to focus on the objects differently depending on how far away they are. You could close one eye and still get a 3D effect due to this. This is different from something like the Oculus Rift or 3DS, where your eyes can only focus on one fixed plane in front of your eyes and the 3D effect is achieved solely via convergence.

This is just hilarious. You can't get a 3D effect if you close one eye. A single eye does not give you 3D vision. Humans achieve 3D vision through stereoscopy, or what you call "convergence" of two eyes. You already seem to know this. So what are you even talking about?

 

[Pie and Beans]

I know it's been said before, however they had a larger FoV with the first prototype that people could try out.

Yes, and even then at that same January prototype showing, it was still a box in the centre of your view but maybe like the equivalent of a 45" TV to the now 42" TV at the other side of the room sized rectangle. For unwieldy crazy uncomfortable kits, they could get away with the sort of things like press the screen far closer to your eye than a consumer kit could get away with for usability as well.

Any of the videos showing horizon filling holograms and 360 views are absolute fantasy and probably won't be achieved until technology is beaming directly onto your retinas.

That rectangle viewing box cutting off the holograms abruptly at its edges is always going to be there, and the longer MS decides not to illustrate it, the harsher the pushback is going to be.

 

[jem0208]

That was in a different form factor. Which the post you're addressing addresses - the FOV can't be fixed in this form factor.

How did the display/headpiece itself differ?

I understand that you were wired up, however the actual piece attached to your head allowed for a larger FoV. What's stopping them from using that system in the future? Assuming that prototype was actually different and that it wasn't just a power issue.

 

[HORRORSHØW]

To be fair, they mostly look dumb because it looks like they are milking holographic prostates

lmao. true true.

 

[lednerg]

This is just hilarious. You can't get a 3D effect if you close one eye. A single eye does not give you 3D vision. Humans achieve 3D vision through stereoscopy, or what you call "convergence" of two eyes. You already seem to know this. So what are you even talking about?

Close one eye, put your hand in front of your face and look at it . Notice how everything beyond it is blurry. That's what I'm talking about. A light field display accounts for how your eyes focus.

Here's an Nvidia employee explaining light field displays. He made a prototype of one out of off the shelf parts. It's not see-through like the HoloLens, but it demonstrates the same principle.

 

[nynt9]

Close one eye and look at your keyboard. Notice how everything beyond it is blurry. That's what I'm talking about. A light field display accounts for how your eyes focus.

That's not 3D vision. It's focus. It's a factor of the lens of your eye/camera. Correcting for that is not "3D vision" aka stereoscopic vision. 3D vision is defined by having two eyes. Your statement just makes no sense. If I close one eye I do not have 3D vision. What you call 3D vision, which the proper name for is "stereopsis", is defined by binocular vision. You're talking about depth cues, which give the perception of 3D-ness, but saying you have 3D vision with a single eye is just blatantly false.

 

[JaggedSac]

Anyone happen to know how they're mapping the environment? Are they? What about tracking the headset itself?

Stereo Kinects on the visor.

 

[lednerg]

That's not 3D vision. It's focus. It's a factor of the lens of your eye/camera. Correcting for that is not "3D vision" aka stereoscopic vision. 3D vision is defined by having two eyes. Your statement just makes no sense. If I close one eye I do not have 3D vision. What you call 3D vision, which the proper name for is "stereopsis", is defined by binocular vision. You're talking about depth cues, which give the perception of 3D-ness, but saying you have 3D vision with a single eye is just blatantly false.

Of course it's not the entire 3D effect, but it is a vital part of it - one that has been ignored by available VR goggles, 3DTV sets, and so on. That's all I'm talking about. One could still receive depth cues from the display with one eye closed. It wouldn't be great, but you could at least tell if something was 6 inches away vs 20 feet away.

 

[BleedOrange]

The FOV is never going to be fixed to what half the people in this topic think it being "fixed" will entail in this form factor. The very nature of AR projection onto a surface in front of the viewers eyes has a hard limit in size of what can be achieved.

So all the hopeful "Well when ____" people are misunderstanding the very nature of whats different about the AR approach to the VR one.

What? What is the limiting factor here. As far as I can discern they're currently only bouncing light onto the focal area in the center of your eye. I don't see any reason why in time it couldn't be improved.

I'm curious as to what hard limit you're referring to.

 

[nynt9]

Of course it's not the entire 3D effect, but it is a vital part of it - one that has been ignored by available VR goggles, 3DTV sets, and so on. That's all I'm talking about. One could still receive depth cues from the display with one eye closed. It wouldn't be great, but you could at least tell if something was 6 inches away vs 20 feet away.

Have you used any of the available VR headsets? Your eyes still fake-focus on virtual images on the screen at a virtual focal distance, so you're wrong. It's like focusing when looking at objects through a mirror that is very close to your face.

 

[lednerg]

Have you used any of the available VR headsets? Your eyes still fake-focus on virtual images on the screen at a virtual focal distance, so you're wrong. It's like focusing when looking at objects through a mirror that is very close to your face.

In VR goggles, your eyes' lenses can only focus on the display itself, otherwise the entire scene becomes blurry. Light field displays don't work like that. Look at the video I posted above from the Nvidia guy.

 

[Pie and Beans]

What? What is the limiting factor here. As far as I can discern they're currently only bouncing light onto the focal area in the center of your eye. I don't see any reason why in time it couldn't be improved.

I'm curious as to what hard limit you're referring to.

Thats like a "magic!!" explanation version of what theyre actually doing. From earlier on:

With AR, you've got a projection in front of your eye, but because its matching up to the transparent rest of the world around you in front and on that surface, it can't play the fun lens distortion game that VR does to fill your view with 110-120 degrees, rather you're looking at 40 degrees. MS is like 40 by 23, Magic Leap say they have 40x40. Human eye is 160.

Due to the distances of things from your eyes, the space even available inbetween them for 2 displays and so on, there is a hard limit on how big a viewing window you've got. Thats the reality of it, and I personally can't see it being beaten until its magic contact lenses/incredibly advanced eye-tracking/rendering/beaming and so on which is decade later tech.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

The people saying that Microsoft is made up of a bunch of liars who overhype garbage and try to fool the uninitiated: Yes, that's exactly what they tried to do with hype-building "future vision demos." But that's what they all do.

And to those willing to swallow anything Microsoft releases: The fact that everyone does it or that they use the fine print "future vision whatever" doesn't make it right, no matter who's doing it. It's building hype on a product that won't exist for Christ knows how long. It's shady and needs to be stopped. By any company guilty of it.

 

[Pathfinder]

The people saying that Microsoft is made up of a bunch of liars who overhype garbage and try to fool the uninitiated: Yes, that's exactly what they tried to do with hype-building "future vision demos." But that's what they all do.

And to those willing to swallow anything Microsoft releases: The fact that everyone does it or that they use the fine print "future vision whatever" doesn't make it right, no matter who's doing it. It's building hype on a product that won't exist for Christ knows how long. It's shady and needs to be stopped. By any company guilty of it.

So companies like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should not start talking about any future products until they're ready for release?

That's going to kill a lot of threads.

 

[Three]

So companies like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should not start talking about any future products until they're ready for release?

That's going to kill a lot of threads.

Nobody said don't talk about your future products. They just said be more honest about the current state of your products and make it clear if something is a goal rather than a current state.

 

[Blitzblotz]

The only people who think the industry is becoming incompetent are the ones who have absolutely no idea how new technology is created and how much time, blood, sweat, and tears go into its creation.

The amount of people here who expect new tech to be perfect in its first implementation is absolutely mind-boggling. It's like these people just expect these big tech companies to snap their fingers and, boom, new tech is birthed.

It doesn't work that way.

Oh, you'd be surprised to know that some people who post here have worked in the industry since, hmm... since it started. Isn't that amazing, sir.

 

[Pie and Beans]

So companies like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should not start talking about any future products until they're ready for release?

That's going to kill a lot of threads.

There's a large gulf inbetween "maybe the final resolution and framerate will be higher if we can tweak it!" to "lets misrepresent the physical reality of perspective and projection technology!"

I guess the irony is, Sony's full dive underwater goggles were a joke for April Fools as they weren't obviously possible, while Microsoft is pretending their "future visions" are by not addressing the elephants in the room.

 

[Pathfinder]

Nobody said don't talk about your future products. They just said be more honest about the current state of your products and make it clear if something is a goal rather than a current state.

If every company was honest about the current state of their future products, there would be a lot more disappointment in the industry.

I like seeing a product's potential more than I like seeing a work-in-progress. I'm more in favor of people learning to adjust their expectations when it comes to companies who have been known to take certain liberties during their presentations.

 

[NoPiece]

So companies like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should not start talking about any future products until they're ready for release?

That's going to kill a lot of threads.

Future is great, fake is terrible.

Whether it was Sony's fake Killzone video, or the Alien Colonial Marines, or any of the recent "downgrades" from preview footage (e.g., Watchdogs, Dark Souls 2), it is a dishonest practice that is too common and too accepted in the game industry.

 

[Blitzblotz]

Its not a question of incompetence in R&D. Making anything hardware is hard, especially entirely new paradigms and steps into a new world of tech. What you ARE seeing more and more of however is the result of decades of no accountability and corporate structures that have devolved into what outsiders view as spine-chilling madness.

When you have the money to just buy Minecraft and whatever else, are there repercussions at all to playing fast and loose with the truth because its "the vision of the future"? What do numbers mean anyway, we can just go back to One or skip to 10. With a billion dollar marketing campaign, people will come around to no used games, right?



What you are seeing is Microsoft racing to a party 6-8 years early with adult pants around their ankles because the VR supershow is just about to begin and they chose the AR road. Techs nowhere near ready beyond demo amusements, but theyre gonna try and force it anyway because Mother Brain doesnt want to be pants'd like with smartphones and tablets again. "We can just... gloss over the FOV thing and occlusion stuff on that first go around right?" "No such thing as bad press!" "WOLF! WOLF! THERES A WOLF!"

They had it right when it was presented in January. They went and fucked it up. The only reason to defend that is if you are damage control.

 

[Three]

If every company was honest about the current state of their future products, there would be a lot more disappointment in the industry.

I like seeing a product's potential more than I like seeing a work-in-progress. I'm more in favor of people learning to adjust their expectations when it comes to companies who have been known to take certain liberties during their presentations.

Sorry, what? That's the most bizarre thing I've heard. It's the exact opposite. There would be far less disappointment and far better discussion about overcoming honest shortcomings.

 

[Pathfinder]

Sorry, what? That's the most bizarre thing I've heard. It's the exact opposite. There would be far less disappointment and far better discussion about overcoming honest shortcomings.

Right, because that's one thing the Internet is good at: Constructive criticism.

 

[Blitzblotz]

What the fuck is this stupidity?

Are products not allowed to evolve anymore? Does anyone remember the first HDTVs that only displayed in 720p and were 7-inch thick monstrosities? Remember when the original iPhone couldn't record video or even copy and paste? Comments like these are dripping with ignorance and selective memory when it comes to the very iterative history of electronics.

When has this ever not been the case, ever in the history of new technologies? "HD" started becoming the buzzword as early as the mid to late 90's at events like these. With any new tech that became a mainstay in the arena, the first consumer iteration has always been an unaffordable premature, cumbersome embarrassment of a product compared to the iterations that would follow. I don't see anything occurring differently here.

It's fun to have the chance to call other people stupid when you've probably been called that your whole life. Poor child. I'll let you have that one since I feel sorry for you. Now go back and see how the order in which this Hololens was presented... first, working as demonstrated with a good fov, then the bait and switch. You're not a bit bothered by this? You haven't noticed this behaivior in the industry becoming more common?

 

[Pie and Beans]

I see the January HoloLens has been raised to mythical 'good FOV' status all because of Paul Thurrott (ugh, briefly assigned the TMNT lies to him, but he's said a lot of curious MS stuff in the past which makes sense based on his standing).

"Why can't the final HoloLens just be a sheet of glass that you press your eyeball directly against? Fucking techie idiots getting it wrong!"

 

[Three]

Right, because that's one thing the Internet is good at: Constructive criticism.

This has nothing to do with the internet but since you've steered it in this direction, do you believe the internet is better at putting up with bullshit instead? Do you think it is forgiving? Where is that Gabe Newell quote

'Don't ever, ever try to lie to the internet - because they will catch you. They will de-construct your spin. They will remember everything you ever say for eternity.'- Gabe Newell

 

[Neuromancer]

I see the January HoloLens has been raised to mythical 'good FOV' status all because of fucking Paul "Rocksteady is totally making a TMNT game!!" Thurrott.

"Why can't the final HoloLens just be a sheet of glass that you press your eyeball directly against? Fucking techie idiots getting it wrong!"

Wrong Paul, that was Paul Gale. Son of a bitch cost me $50.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Wrong Paul, that was Paul Gale. Son of a bitch cost me $50.

This is why all Pauls are bad. Never trust a Paul.

 

[Who]

I'm probably in the minority but AR excites me more than VR... Hopefully MS can deliver.

 

[StudioTan]

I see the January HoloLens has been raised to mythical 'good FOV' status all because of Paul Thurrott (ugh, briefly assigned the TMNT lies to him, but he's said a lot of curious MS stuff in the past which makes sense based on his standing).

"Why can't the final HoloLens just be a sheet of glass that you press your eyeball directly against? Fucking techie idiots getting it wrong!"

I read a lot of reports from the media from January and the FoV was barely mentioned, if it was basically the same as they have now then I'm sure many people would have brought it up.

Where are you getting your info that it was basically the same in January?

 

[HORRORSHØW]

I'm probably in the minority but AR excites me more than VR... Hopefully MS can deliver.

i'm excited for both. i'm such a geek for this type of stuff. but right now it seems VR is more market-ready. i'll be there when AR is ready, though.

 

[Dash Kappei]

You mean I can't bring Tupac into my living room now?

Kinda, only Onepac fits in

 

[Pie and Beans]

I read a lot of reports from the media from January and the FoV was barely mentioned, if it was basically the same as they have now then I'm sure many people would have brought it up.

Where are you getting your info that it was basically the same in January?

http://www.reddit.com/r/HoloLens/comments/2tiun8/psa_field_of_view_of_hololens/

A lot of places were putting out pump pieces because thats what the MS fake-o-vision of course instigated (and it IS impressive tech aside from the unreality theyre trying to push so, preview hype was understandable), but digging you found the reality of the sort of sized rectangle viewing window you'd be getting. iPad at arms length was the middle ground of peoples comparisons.

EDIT: I think in January the FOV was 40 x 22, then currently its 30 x 18.

 

[StudioTan]

http://www.reddit.com/r/HoloLens/comments/2tiun8/psa_field_of_view_of_hololens/

A lot of places were putting out pump pieces because thats what the MS fake-o-vision of course instigated (and it IS impressive tech aside from the unreality theyre trying to push so, preview hype was understandable), but digging you found the reality of the sort of sized rectangle viewing window you'd be getting. iPad at arms length was the middle ground of peoples comparisons.

Almost all of those claim a bigger FoV than what people have been talking about with the current version. We've known the FoV didn't take up your entire view.

A 15" laptop from 1 foot away is bigger than currently where people were claiming a sheet of paper at arms length. Even an iPad and half arms length is much bigger. In the latest article from Gizmodo is claims the current FoV is like holding your phone 1 foot from your face.

That's a big difference.

The Eurogamer quote from that link said "HoloLens' image doesn't occupy my entire field of view, but it takes up the lion's share of it with my peripheral vision grounding me to reality."

In ArsTechnica Peter wrote:

"And it's not just me; I talked to other journalists who'd been at the January preview, and they had the same experience. The January prototypes didn't fill your entire field of view. The edges of the "screen" were visible. But they weren't this tight. I could look around a bit and still see the holograms. This time around, I couldn't."

So clearly there was a difference in those units.

EDIT: Just saw your edit - 30 x 18 to 40 x 22 is a 62% increase.

 

[Poodlestrike]

That was in a different form factor. Which the post you're addressing addresses - the FOV can't be fixed in this form factor.



This is just hilarious. You can't get a 3D effect if you close one eye. A single eye does not give you 3D vision. Humans achieve 3D vision through stereoscopy, or what you call "convergence" of two eyes. You already seem to know this. So what are you even talking about?

This is false. Stereoscopic vision is only one way we handle depth perception. There are monocular cues.

 

[Pathfinder]

This has nothing to do with the internet but since you've steered it in this direction, do you believe the internet is better at putting up with bullshit instead? Do you think it is forgiving? Where is that Gabe Newell quote

'Don't ever, ever try to lie to the internet - because they will catch you. They will de-construct your spin. They will remember everything you ever say for eternity.'- Gabe Newell

This has everything to do with the Internet. Its where the majority of people form and share their opinions. It's where products are announced, where news is spread, where rumors are started, and it's where memes are born.

Granted, Microsoft would have fared better with a "Proof of Concept" note somewhere in the HoloLens video. Probably would have saved themselves a bit of a headache. However, if they would have initially shown a video of exactly what HoloLens hardware was capable of at that time, there would have been a lot less fanfare surrounding it. People would have been a lot less interested, and there would likely have been a lot more people asking why they are bothering than people offering genuine and honest constructive criticism about how to make the product better.

 

[Maintenance]

Damn, who would've thought that a product Microsoft revealed wouldn't work the same way it was demoed.

 

[serversurfer]

Granted, Microsoft would have fared better with a "Proof of Concept" note somewhere in the HoloLens video.

More like "Concept of Proof."

I think what you're looking for is something like, "Dramatization: Not representative of actual product."

 

[fallen_dawn]

Do people really still need to be told that pre-production hardware and software might not be indicative of the final released product?

One would think that would be a given by now. This is 2015, after all.

My point was that it should be indicative of what the final product will be, or else it's completely disingenuous. Even if a large number of companies present products in a similar way, it is not an excuse.

Granted, Microsoft would have fared better with a "Proof of Concept" note somewhere in the HoloLens video. Probably would have saved themselves a bit of a headache. However, if they would have initially shown a video of exactly what HoloLens hardware was capable of at that time, there would have been a lot less fanfare surrounding it. People would have been a lot less interested...

In my eyes, showing things off as a concept, as long as it is noted and that the concept is reasonable, is fine. Personally, I'ld much rather have a product that performs much better at launch than what was promised. I understand companies can't necessarily operate like that though, if they want to build hype prior to launch.

I feel as if this whole FOV is not a huge deal, and would have been completely avoided if it were in some way acknowledged (was it acknowledged? I haven't been keeping up fully with this thread).

 

[nynt9]

This is false. Stereoscopic vision is only one way we handle depth perception. There are monocular cues.

Depth perception and 3D vision (stereo vision) are not the same thing, see: the aperture problem

 

[Froli]

Found this on Reddit.

The video shows the limit of the FOV and the solution.
Pinlight Displays: Wide Field of View Augmented Reality Eyeglasses

Andrew Maimone the Lead Author will get his PHD this year and will be joining Microsoft research. Seems promising

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Microsoft.

Already.

Demo'ed.

The tech.

With wider FOV.

In January.

Only difference is that there were shoulder mounted processing units and wires.

For build 2015 they said theyd brought hundreds of now untethered, self contained head units for more people to be able to try out.

In January, getting the tech into a mobile platform was the challenge.

At Build, they successfully got the tech working as a self contained mobile platform, but now need to simply work to raise the FOV to levels The Verge know is actually possible because they saw it with their own eyes in January....

Its brand new tech. Brand new tech goes through many iterations. Sometimes the next iteration brings new challenges. Doesn't mean its impossible to improve on or that their proof of concept demo was a "lie".


ITT: Brand new tech isn't finalized and perfect within six months of first ever public prototype. Tech never changes or improves....especially tech in development.....

 

[cakefoo]

Are you ignoring all the people who tried it and says it works? How is it decades away? That's ridiculous.

Seeing how it works during stage demos doesn't convince me that people will feel as empowered as they seem in the promo videos. I've seen it happen with Kinect, and I feel like it's happening again with Hololens.