-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Verge: New Hololens impressions "demo videos are all basically a lie"
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
Isn't that kind of obvious though. The lense doesn't encompass the entire head set. Where as the camera would have the entire thing fitted with itThe FOV window example from Verge's video:
Microsoft needs to be very upfront with the obvious FOX shortcoming with their pitches. Explain what isn't optimal right now, and explain clearly how it will improve through iteration (which is obvious, but still worth explaining). Be as open as they possibly can about how this is an infant technology and how in several years it'll be leaps and bounds better.
Do this or else the ignorant public will regard all of AR as snakeoil. Microsoft is dangerously close to poisoning the well here. AR is too important for the public to become distrustful this early in it's lifetime.
Do this or else the ignorant public will regard all of AR as snakeoil. Microsoft is dangerously close to poisoning the well here. AR is too important for the public to become distrustful this early in it's lifetime.
Never forget: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qlHoxPioM
I'm still sour it didn't half turn out like it was presented in the videos
FinalStageBoss
Banned
So they lied in that video...shocking.
The Rift's FOV has shrank over time.
They can actually increase the FOV now, currently, but it'll make the cost prohibitive.
The big problem, at the moment, is the room visualization they are doing, which won't be that great in moment to moment situations outside of these demoes. That stuff is rapidly improving, but it's not there yet.
Something like Lighthouse could actually help leaps and bounds, actually. The goal and dream is something like visual slam or project tango embedded into the headset entirely, that work flawlessly. We aren't there yet.
I agree, people are jumping on this far too quickly.
It's still a way off and the massive amount of positive press it's been getting has me hopeful. Stuff like the FoV can be improved.
The "screen" field of view was a big turn off when I tried Google Glass. Seems like both products have the outside-facing-in design of representing the visible field with a piece of glass. But when you put it on having the screen float inside that and not engulf the whole thing is pretty disappointing. Hololens has the wraparound sunglasses look but seemingly there's no functional reason for it, maybe it prevents light glare from outside but that's about it.
Nightengale
Member
Like what Krej is saying, MS needs to set expectations for the ignorant public.
This isn't like the MS 'Office Future Vision' videos that they put out. For all intents and purposes, when people look up Hololens, people are seeing news articles about a real prototype existing, and when people look up videos of Hololens to see what it's about, the first videos will be all the faked ones with full FOV instead of the actual limited FOV.
This is where we will ultimately end up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFiE82Npbn4
This stuff will change the world.
maestrillo
Banned
That's really unexpected from microsoft
You can, if it's a really small Tupac.
People might jump on you for saying this, but I agree. Microsoft's strategy generally seems to be "release raw version of thing early, get negative impressions, then keep throwing money at iteration number 2/3 to make them successful and try to overcome negative public opinion". Surface took 3 iterations, Kinect is in its second iteration and still isn't universally loved, Windows Phone is still in its infancy etc. Generally the first iteration of a MS product isn't "good enough", and if they just waited to release a truly solid product at first they would have to fight off a lot less negative opinions for the second iteration.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
No, VR seems to be pretty damn close to what we want sans having graphics up to par with everything out at the moment.
Mermandala
Member
What they have right now is worth getting excited about. They don't need to hype it up beyond what it already is. I think promising the world with hololens will lead to unrealistic expectations which will disappoint people. For what it is, right now, it's pretty remarkable. It's only in the context of what it can be in the future that people think it isn't all that exciting.
Case in point, people have brought up kinect as a "lie" several times in this topic. Which is sad, because a consumer-grade 3D scan camera is an awesome technological achievement. And people hate it because microsoft promised it was a magical computer interface, instead of recognizing what it could (and should) be used for currently - triangulated 3D mesh scans.
I don't think AR will be what they are saying it will be for another decade and a half, personally. The main problem is how to virtualize the area around you instantly. That's a problem nobody has solved yet. We can come close, but not instantly, and not perfectly.
Exactly as I said before, you can not believe these video demonstrations or impressions taken from extremes of controlled conditions. Only public demonstrations that people can actually try for themselves as well as in settings separate of the strictest control environments, will be the only way to get realistic impressions.
It is still early days for them but this isn't sounding good at all for what is due relatively soon.
It is still early days for them but this isn't sounding good at all for what is due relatively soon.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
I get the enthusiasm, but having tried the current devices, I'm not convinced we are there yet.
Handy Fake
Member
Onepac.
Graphics Horse
Member
And there's the part where they give up on the market for years before another company picks the concept back up again and makes a success out of it.
I experienced the same surprise trying Gear VR for the first time. Was shocked at how small the field of view was compared to what I was expecting. Guess that's just a hard limit of the technology unfortunately.
Have you tried Vive or Crescent Bay? Also, technological determinism is silly, "the medium is the message" is bullshit. You can't judge technology without content. What specifically did you try?
SprachBrooks
Member
Never forget: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qlHoxPioM
I'm still sour it didn't half turn out like it was presented in the videos
I have never cringed so hard in my lif hahaha. Can't believe people believed that shit. 😂😂
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
That's a bummer. Over all impressions though from people that have used it has been very positive though, even though they state the narrow FOV.
Still excited to give it a go.
Still excited to give it a go.
Astral/H3X
Member
That sucks.... That said, if it's only the FOV that's borked... that's actually not TOO bad. It's disappointing to be sure, but I'd expect them to figure that out relatively soon actually.
Journey
Banned
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
I've tried Oculus and Morpheus. I am excited as anyone about the potential, and Im not saying there won't be any worthwhile experience in the next few years, but it is still very much fledgling technology.
yup. I think they touched on this when they first showed it, and when we saw backstage that the hands-on units were tethered to the ceiling, and the demos on the stage were either mockups or one-offs. All that is fine, we get that things need work. Likewise the camera - just say that it will look different through your own eyes etc.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
welcome to gaf gif? welcometogaf.gif
You do realize they marketed and sold it as a peripheral to a gaming console right? Gamers call it a lie because that is exactly what it was.
He meant, what did you try - game / demo-wise
Militaratus
Member
Microsoft is trying so hard to disappoint me, too bad for them I don't have any belief in them anymore apart from the Windows OS department.
That is some good journalism don't expect that from the verge. Basically it can work well but atm demos are basically BS in terms of presentation and FOV makes it limited.
How so??
How so??
Did she just treat that like a review unit? :lol
This could be a 16-24 months away from a commercial release and we get this video. It almost seems personal to her.
It blows me away how someone writing for a tech blog doesn't understand how iterative technology is. She's surely been around tech long enough to see something like the Oculus go through hardware revisions, right? Maybe not though.
Bizarre.
This could be a 16-24 months away from a commercial release and we get this video. It almost seems personal to her.
It blows me away how someone writing for a tech blog doesn't understand how iterative technology is. She's surely been around tech long enough to see something like the Oculus go through hardware revisions, right? Maybe not though.
Bizarre.
That doesn't answer my question. "Oculus" is a company, they have had 6 different iterated products. And Morpheus is hardly the pinnacle of VR tech.
And that doesn't address my comment about content. I am assuming you have only tried VR at tradeshows?
IsntChrisL
Member
Called it. Although this is admittedly worse than I thought Microsoft would deliver.
Risk Breaker
Member
Just like they lied with Kinect, I don't think anyone that knew MS and/or VR/AR would've believed anything else.
Someone should post those Kinect gigs from E3 conferences
Someone should post those Kinect gigs from E3 conferences