Support NeoGAF

[nynt9]

How is it fake. The camera just has a larger fov than the hololense headset. The guy is seeing that stuff just in a smaller window

The guy in the gif in the first page is acting like he's watching a movie on a huge screen up close and that is just not possible.

 

[Anton Sugar]

sorry guys. I'm just a bit salty that I called this out as too good to be true when it was initially revealed and got piled on.

What's too good to be true, though? The FOV is disappointingly limited, but the technology itself works. The limited FOV has been reported on and known since January, as well.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

How is it fake. The camera just has a larger fov than the hololense headset. The guy is seeing that stuff just in a smaller window

But what was staged about the demos?

The only thing "fake" about the demos appears to be the camera making it look like the person was surrounded by holograms while the actual user has a limited field of view of those holograms....which seems entirely reasonable?

Exactly and that is because the camera has a different FoV than the headset. And we knew about headset FoV being different since the first reveal.

 

[Bomber Bob]

SHOCKING

 

[AndyD]

Someone already stated in the Hololens thread in the OT that the FOV is essentially the size of a credit card held two inches from your face, so this info was already out there

That's not as small as I imagined after watching the video, but not as large as I would like for using this type of device. I understand it's a technical limitation, but I almost feel it needs to be fully immersive like VR headsets.

 

[qa_engineer]

I think its a step in the right direction for AR, but it definitely needs more time in the oven.

 

[Raist]

How is it fake. The camera just has a larger fov than the hololense headset. The guy is seeing that stuff just in a smaller window

The camera also has a metric shit ton additional gear tied to it, so who knows what's in there. In several instances it also looks quite clearly like what we see through the camera is not what the guy demo'ing it sees (e.g he's not looking anywhere near where the objects actually stand).

There's no technical reason why they can't show a FP view from the set the guy is wearing (they did it for about 5 seconds at the reveal). If they systematically decide to show a separate camera feed, there's probably a reason. I mean, it's rather bizarre to demo a piece of tech that is meant to be a FP experience with an entirely different 3rd person view.

 

[Divvy]

This is an incredibly slanted OP considering the content of the article and video.

The field of view is smaller than everyone would like, which every other outlet has commented on already, but the underlying concept presented works

 

[Nafai1123]

The FOV seems like a difficult hurdle to overcome. VR headsets do it using lenses in front of the display that widens the FOV, but you really can't do that with AR.

 

[Zaptruder]

It doesn't matter if you are looking at your legs or torso most of the time, however. Proprioception is what happens when you aren't looking at that body part.

You don't need skeletal tracking for avatar gesture, merely 3D scan. And, as a mocap utility, Kinect is terrible. It simply isn't the optimal solution. Something like forward kinematics like PrioVR is a much better solution.

I'm aware of what proprioception is. And it doesn't stop happening when you're looking at a body part.

The point is - your proprioception will be as fast as your body transmits it, because it is your body transmitting those signals. If you don't see the disjunct between the visual motion of your torso/legs, then it doesn't matter if there is some disjunct there.

And priovr is an inferior solution if you're going for a practical consumer friendly device - because as much as people don't want to strap a HMD to their heads, they really don't want to strap 8 devices to themselves to get into the virtual environment. Not on a regular basis anyway.

Having an external camera solution seems like a good fit as a supplementary device for VR - because you get 3D scanning, because you get video, and you get motion capture. It's something that could be included as part of a full VR consumer package. Kinda like a console + controllers.

 

[watership]

There is nothing nuts about calling out MS regarding fake staged demos even if the product is a year or two out.

The video still shows how the technology is being rendered, but as to the issue with the hololens, it's the current viewing size that is the problem. People are calling this whole thing fake, which is not true.

 

[Hale-XF11]

People are oddly defensive about unproven new technology, even when it's presented as something it's not. I happen to really appreciate that Verge reporter for doing her job and explaining everything as it really is.

 

[Sydle]

I think she could have been more specific to say the FOV is misleading from the demo videos. All the impressions have indicated that it functions as shown. Then again, she's got to get clicks and views.

Don't let me get in the way of the daily GAF dogpile on Xbox or Microsoft, but I would like to point out that if MS were wanting to hide something they wouldn't be letting so many people try the tech and write about it. The impressions have all been pretty similar, can't think of a single one that failed to mention the limited FOV as somewhat of a letdown.

 

[singhr1]

FOV issue is disappointing but remember this is still in development. Before its announcement we never thought this kind of tech was possible. Now it is just iterative because the tech is there.

Other impressions: "Hololens is no joke" http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/30/hololens-is-real/#.suksam:t9bO

The new hardware, which Microsoft also showcased during its Build developer conference keynote yesterday, feels very solid and the user experience (mostly) delivers on the company’s promises.

The early (and highly positive reviews) from Microsoft’s January event, where a few select members of the press got to try it, weren’t an exaggeration.

For the grand finale, we added a new object to the scene that would explode when one of the balls hit it — and which then revealed a cavernous world underneath the floor with a stream and animated birds. That was obviously the most impressive demo and really showed the potential of HoloLens. You could even drop the balls into that cavern and see them bounce 20 feet beneath your feet.

What did surprise me, though, was how little opacity there was to the holograms. I expected them to look somewhat transparent, with the background shining through. That really wasn’t the case, though. They looked really solid and there was almost no transparency.

 

[jem0208]

The camera also has a metric shit ton additional gear tied to it, so who knows what's in there. In several instances it also looks quite clearly like what we see through the camera is not what the guy demo'ing it sees (e.g he's not looking anywhere near where the objects actually stand).

There's no technical reason why they can't show a FP view from the set the guy is wearing (they did it for about 5 seconds at the reveal). If they systematically decide to show a separate camera feed, there's probably a reason. I mean, it's rather bizarre to demo a piece of tech that is meant to be a FP experience with an entirely different 3rd person view.

All of the hands on impressions have basically confirmed that what happened in the demos is in fact possible. The biggest issue is that the FoV is disappointing. Considering what they're trying to do that's extremely impressive as FoV is definitely something that can be improved.

 

[chadskin]

Here's The Verge's written impression:

But HoloLens only feels natural when you're not handling anything much bigger than a basketball. It produces a magic square the size of a large TV screen, and the moment something slips outside, it disappears. It's possible to imagine that a small object has just dipped out of sight, but for a larger one, you either have to step quite a ways back or content yourself with just seeing pieces of it in the center of your vision. It shatters the illusion, and it looks very little like the amazing whole-world illusions of Microsoft's videos. Even a heads-up display becomes less useful once your peripheral and near-peripheral vision is off-limits. And a couple of Microsoft's ideas clearly just seem meant for virtual, not augmented, reality. You could drop into a hidden world in the origami demo or look around a full-sized landscape in the architecture program, but it's hard to piece together what's going on through that little window, especially when you could be looking at the whole thing at once with an Oculus Rift.

People often imagine virtual and augmented reality fusing, but with HoloLens around, the two start seeming very distinct indeed. Its images are astonishingly good, on a level that VR's magnified screens will probably never match. It's smaller than any virtual reality device on the market, partly because it usually doesn't need to power an entire photo-realistic environment. Microsoft has put much more work into building things that people can use, not just things they can see. But it's hard to imagine how Microsoft (or anyone) could get the HoloLens projection system to support a field of view big enough that it can stop being distracting, let alone become immersive on a VR-like scale. As cool as HoloLens can be, it's firmly a product of today, not the future — at least not yet.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8527645/microsoft-hololens-build-2015-augmented-reality-headset

 

[hesido]

It's basically the equivalent of this:

I love that video. The guy has an input latency of about 100 milliseconds.

As for Hololens, maybe they'll be able to increase fov, because the major complaint was the FOV ruining it. Other than that, it seems to accomplish the environmental interactions pretty good, as far as she tells.

 

[Krejlooc]

The point is - your proprioception will be as fast as your body transmits it, because it is your body transmitting those signals. If you don't see the disjunct between the visual motion of your torso/legs, then it doesn't matter if there is some disjunct there.

The disconnect comes from whatever your tracking is doing with your arms and legs not matching what your proprioception is reporting. It's obvious and does not work as intended, nor will it ever because its inherently latent technology. It is processing on an already captured frame. It always occurs in the past.

And priovr is an inferior solution if you're going for a practical consumer friendly device - because as much as people don't want to strap a HMD to their heads, they really don't want to strap 8 devices to themselves to get into the virtual environment. Not on a regular basis anyway.

PrioVR is a superior solution for one simple reason: it works.

 

[Swass]

Getting some serious Kinect deja vu from hololens..

 

[samar11]

This thing wont be out for a while right?, so lets wait until its in the market before we make judgements.

 

[MrGerbils]

It's amusing to note when GAF decides they can trust The Verge or not.

Shocking, I know, but GAF is actually made up of thousands and thousands of people, not a single entity. Weird that sometimes one group of people in a place can feel one thing and then a different group of people feel another.

I think your instinct to try to simplify a huge collection of people when they happen to disagree with you is more revealing of your own biases than anything else.

 

[DieH@rd]

Lots of people at BUILD have mentioned the limited FOV, this video isn't breaking any new ground today.

Even Adi says, "it's like the best projector in the world".

The FOV will be improved over time, just like the Rift. You people...

Except, even first duct tape oculus models broke people mids with how awesome that tech was.

 

[miDnIghtEr20C]

Why is everybody claiming faked when it's obvious it's just the width of view that is toned down? Those holograms were still there doing what it was supposed to.

Put me on the team that thinks we've heard about this for a bit. It's still fun to hope and be excited for something really cool to use. It's just the start.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Why is everybody claiming faked when it's obvious it's just the width of view that is toned down? Those holograms were still there doing what it was supposed to.

Put me on the team that thinks we've heard about this for a bit. It's still fun to hope and be excited for something really cool to use. It's just the start.

Its all alive, and by all they mean just the fov

Verge gonna Verge

 

[Durante]

That's exactly what everyone who knows just a bit about how these things work has said since the initial reveal. Just the physical shape of the device alone already tells you that it can't cover a large FoV.

 

[Adachi]

Is anyone actually surprised by this? This just screams Kinect demo 2.0 to me.

I mean I'm sure that at some point MS is going to be able to release a Hololens that actually does this more or less as demonstrated there, but it's not going to be the first iteration (which they'll still sell and shamelessly advertise with videos like this), I'd look more at Hololens 2.0 or 3.0 for that.

 

[coldcrush]

It's basically the equivalent of this:

It's a real shame that they pull this kind of bullshit, has no body learned that every time you falsely inflate expectations the resulting backlash is really damaging.
I can see this being an amazing product with wide ranging benefits in so many areas eventually and the future of so much more than gaming but to make out like this is what the consumer will buy is pretty bad, and something that will possibly take a lot of counter spin to fix.

At least Oculus were upfront with their DK1 limitations and are still releasing developer kits until they have a product that lives up to the original pitch and hype...Unless I have missed something and MSFT are following suit.. but I got the impression the low FOV model will be at retail?

 

[Raist]

All of the hands on impressions have basically confirmed that what happened in the demos is in fact possible. The biggest issue is that the FoV is disappointing. Considering what they're trying to do that's extremely impressive as FoV is definitely something that can be improved.

If it's not on the same scale at all then it's not the same thing.
I don't see what's so impressive anyway, it's not like AR is some mindblowing stuff that no one has even seen before MS started doing it. And their demos are way too staged and the "hands-on" always rather secretive and many of them do mention that it's not quite like what's seen on stage.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Shocking, I know, but GAF is actually made up of thousands and thousands of people, not a single entity. Weird that sometimes one group of people in a place can feel one thing and then a different group of people feel another.

I think your instinct to try to simplify a huge collection of people when they happen to disagree with you is more revealing of your own biases than anything else.

I've never been a huge fan of The Verge, but just because an article comes from them doesn't mean I stamp a bias on it (except for Windows Phone articles, of course )

I stopped entering GAF topics about Verge articles because it got annoying to see how often they were dismissed with "lol Verge" "can The Verge be a banned site" "Verge'd". So yes, I found it amusing how many people on the first page were so quick to trust this obnoxiously negative topic title and article/video.

 

[kingwingin]

Wonder how many minecraft blocks fit in the fov

 

[big_z]

Basically what you see in the video is an approximation of what the guy sees but with the unused space cropped out. The tested guys brought up the fov issue as well so its not like the verge is alone here. It is the best ar possible now but its still new unfinished technology that will improve with time.
I honestly don't see why anyone on gaf really cares though. This is a business productivity technology right now not a gaming one. Maybe in time it will be aimed at us but right now its not.

 

[aspiegamer]

Yeah, so that big wall window enlargement. I sorta notice the guy doesn't even pinch for size, despite the fact that he places his fingers like he's intending/supposed to. Star Wars Kinect Demo indeed.

This has promise! But is easily 2-3 years down the line. Trying to leap multiple iterations ahead of what Google Glass (sorta) does is just too ambitious. Hopefully this doesn't entirely suffer long-term from the extremely early reveal, though sadly this is the MO for most Microsoft products.

 

[Keby]

I'm excited for this tech, but one thing I'm still not convinced about is how opaque the holograms look against reality. I'm not convinced by that one bit. I really want to try one since everyone says it works minus the FOV dissapointment

If someone can explain how they are pulling off the holograms being that opaque I'd love to know.

 

[Vital Tundra]

Strange to see these reactions. It will get better. The FOV isn't always going to be ****.

 

[NeOak]

Why is everybody claiming faked when it's obvious it's just the width of view that is toned down? Those holograms were still there doing what it was supposed to.

Put me on the team that thinks we've heard about this for a bit. It's still fun to hope and be excited for something really cool to use. It's just the start.

Because the MS hating on GAF is real. It's like people want to see it fail just because it is from MS.

Mind you, several people had pointed out 3 months ago about the FOV, but the iVerge writes about it: "OMFG HOLOLENS IS A LIE"

Nevermind that the tech works on the small FOV because shit, who would want a 40lb helmet to have a full FOV?

Had it been the Apple iHololens, the spiel from the iverge would have been instead a whole editorial from Nigel about how awesome it is despite the limited FoV.

 

[jaypah]

Getting some serious Kinect deja vu from hololens..

Because of the low FOV?

 

[jem0208]

If it's not on the same scale at all then it's not the same thing.
I don't see what's so impressive anyway, it's not like AR is some mindblowing stuff that no one has even seen before MS started doing it. And their demos are way too staged and the "hands-on" always rather secretive and many of them do mention that it's not quite like what's seen on stage.

They almost all say it's extremely impressive though.

 

[Archaix]

Because of the low FOV?

Because the stage demonstrations are all people playing pretend, not demonstrations.

They almost all say it's extremely impressive though.

And because every Kinect hands on demo said the same thing the first time it was shown behind closed doors.

 

[Anton Sugar]

I'm excited for this tech, but one thing I'm still not convinced about is how opaque the holograms look against reality. I'm not convinced by that one bit. I really want to try one since everyone says it works minus the FOV dissapointment

If someone can explain how they are pulling off the holograms being that opaque I'd love to know.

I have yet to read an impression that complains about the opacity. One mentioned that really strong light sources or glare can show slightly through the "holograms" but otherwise, it's pretty high fidelity.

Still don't know how it works, though.

Yeah, so that big wall window enlargement. I sorta notice the guy doesn't even pinch for size, despite the fact that he places his fingers like he's intending/supposed to. Star Wars Kinect Demo indeed.

No one is doubting that he wasn't performing those actions--given what hands-on impression have said (devs were actually able to create and use simple HoloLens apps at /build), resizing a window seems like a petty thing to fake.

What people are doubting is how much of the screen he could actually see. If he was that close, and the FOV is as limited as it is, he would only see a sliver of the TV.

Nevermind that no one would ever watch a TV that big from 3' feet away

 

[watership]

Because the stage demonstrations are all people playing pretend, not demonstrations.

And because every Kinect hands on demo said the same thing the first time it was shown behind closed doors.

The stage demos show a larger world, but when the user looks at an object in the field of view, it looks just as it does in the demo. You're acting like it's all faked. Which is disingenuous.

 

[Heigic]

Well actually the dev kits in January had a larger FOV : https://twitter.com/thurrott/status/594135752746774529

I'll just wait for V2.

 

[jaypah]

Because the stage demonstrations are all people playing pretend, not demonstrations.





And because every Kinect hands on demo said the same thing the first time it was shown behind closed doors.

Oh, i didn't know that. I just thought the stage demo was showing stuff that was really being caculated, just from a 3rd person view.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Oh, i didn't know that. I just thought the stage demo was showing stuff that was really being caculated, just from a 3rd person view.

Not sure where Archaix is getting his info, but that would be the first time I've heard that they were "playing pretend". Sounds like bullshit, IMO.

This is the same conference where multiple devs have gotten their hands on it and have done demos. I don't know why y'all think resizing a few holograms would need to be faked, when devs are playing with the HoloLens Minecraft, Skype, modeling, etc. apps at the same conference.

Well actually the dev kits in January had a larger FOV : https://twitter.com/thurrott/status/594135752746774529

I'll just wait for V2.

I'm never quick to trust Thurrott, but that sounds disappointing. It sounds like he commented on the FOV reduction and was told that's just how it is:

@ShawnWildermuth It was better with the prototype. Was told this was the way it is.

 

[visiblemode]

So it's basically Kinect all over again.

Yeah, exactly.

A shame, because it seems like the tech is great, but just needs time. Overselling it this early though, just a bad idea.

 

[Cimarron]

AR and VR are still a good 10 years away from being how we all imagine it. People need to come to terms with this.

I dunno. Have you tried VR lately? I some aspects it is still very rough but I have a Rift and an Elite and it is fantastic!

 

[Archaix]

The stage demos show a larger world, but when the user looks at an object in the field of view, it looks just as it does in the demo. You're acting like it's all faked. Which is disingenuous.

I'm acting like Microsoft has a corporate culture of always lying to the public until the last possible moment, which is completely accurate. They have to prove that there's reason you shouldn't be extremely skeptical of everything they say, and faking even parts of demos doesn't help.

 

[NeOak]

Oh, i didn't know that. I just thought the stage demo was showing stuff that was really being caculated, just from a 3rd person view.

It wasn't faked. The camera is connected to a PC for rendering vs Hololens with a who knows what SoC.

I'm acting like Microsoft has a corporate culture of always lying to the public until the last possible moment, which is completely accurate. They have to prove that there's reason you shouldn't be extremely skeptical of everything they say, and faking even parts of demos doesn't help.

You're acting just like your tag says.

The thing works within the FoV. Your hatred for MS won't let you see that.

 

[Zedox]

This thread is funny. The issue is field of view, nothing else. Everything else works as advertised. There are so many impressions already out that say it...but the killer to a product not even out is the field of view.

I'm disappointed in the field of view...but that's something that can be solved and once it is solved (an iteration or two)...what's the "bs" and "lol kinect" and "milo" and all the other stuff people are blasted about being "lied to" going to cry about?

The fact of the matter is that the technology works but the FOV is ass. That's like saying, hey the iPhone is cool but the battery is ass. Something can be improved upon.

This isn't dead tech before it comes people. Relax. I'm still disappointed though. But I still wanna dev on it.

 

[jaypah]

I'm acting like Microsoft has a corporate culture of always lying to the public until the last possible moment, which is completely accurate. They have to prove that there's reason you shouldn't be extremely skeptical of everything they say, and faking even parts of demos doesn't help.

Shit man, I thought you were serious. Didn't realize that was an opinion, I thought you had read it somewhere.

 

[Three]

Cherry picking one set of impressions vs. others is nuts.

How is it fake. The camera just has a larger fov than the hololense headset. The guy is seeing that stuff just in a smaller window

But what was staged about the demos?

The only thing "fake" about the demos appears to be the camera making it look like the person was surrounded by holograms while the actual user has a limited field of view of those holograms....which seems entirely reasonable?

The holograms would still be there if the user looked at them.

It's staged. The hololens units are a mockup and the on stage user has no interaction with the shown interface. A lot more than just the FOV is faked. You can see this with the gesture that is outside the hololens's FOV for gestures and a missed cue after the player follows him (Where he is meant to make it follow his hand, it does so before any interaction and then a late gesture that the headset on his head would not see). At one point you can even see the unit isn't on. It is a completely staged fake demo. Much like some the early kinects demos before it. Look at any impressions from Milo too.

The thing is it would have been rather easy to get a feed from the prototype. Think of why that isn't the case.

Badically do what Krejlooc suggested. Show the markerless tracking, show the true FOV, set peoples expectations incheck.