Use it in context. I know reading is hard, but try.
I know I know because its AR suddenly and magically or by remote control the laws of physics do not apply even though the need of a camera is exactly the same between the two technologies.
So you're saying that you have latency with your RL hands. gotchya.
VR: I need a camera to watch hand movement
AR: I need a camera to watch hand movement
The company GoPro doesnt have a magic portal in which if the needs of a camera is AR then suddenly the device can be smaller, faster and more powerful then if it was needed for other things
The challenges of physics and light apply to both technologies
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Use it in context. I know reading is hard, but try.
I know I know because its AR suddenly and magically or by remote control the laws of physics do not apply even though the need of a camera is exactly the same between the two technologies.
So you're saying that you have latency with your RL hands. gotchya.
VR: I need a camera to watch hand movement
AR: I need a camera to watch hand movement
The company GoPro doesnt have a magic portal in which if the needs of a camera is AR then suddenly the device can be smaller, faster and more powerful then if it was needed for other things
The challenges of physics and light apply to both technologies
Yes, they apply, but in VR you have to create the image of your hands, you have to create the image of everything.
You don't have to do that in AR, you just have to detect it. See a difference? I do.
Does it take more processing power to use a camera to take a video of your surroundings, then display it to a screen and then detect your hand motion, then overlay an image?
Or does it take more processing power to use a camera to detect your surroundings, overlay an image, and detect your motions in regards to that image?
Which is less to process?
Oh an a side note, as far as light distortion, Light distortion in VR is worse than Light distortion in AR, simply because in AR you're not confined to poor pixelation and contrast quality LOLOL. Screen contrast and light quality is much different than your real eyesight.
The CURRENT camera in the VR headset is not of the same quality as the one in the AR headset.
If you took the camera out of the AR headset and installed it in the VR headset, the hand-tracking capability of the AR headset would now be possible via the VR headset. You'd also have to transfer the image processing software, of course.
There's just no compelling reason to do it, because it's pointless trying to turn one device into another. They serve different purposes.
I understand what you're saying, but what I'm saying is, it isn't about the camera.
You don't need the camera to see the world around you for AR... YOU DO for VR.
Thats what I'm saying.
So, for example Spotty, if you open the camera app on your phone and walk around holding it in front of your face, would you be confident walking around the city like that? What issues would you encounter?
The camera in the Hololens has nothing to do with real world interaction ONLY with virtual interaction.
OK, were making progress here.
It seems we can agree that hand-tracking capability is not inherently superior in AR devices for reasons unknown.
As for image rendering latency, that will definitely be reduced in the case of an AR device. That's because the AR-generated part of what you see only fills a small part of your field of vision. The less you need to render, the quicker it can be done.
If the AR device had to generate everything in your field of vision, it would be doing exactly what a pass-thru camera in a VR headset does. The rendering delay would be just as noticeable as it is when rendered inside a VR headset.
The CURRENT camera in the VR headset is not of the same quality as the one in the AR headset.
If you took the camera out of the AR headset and installed it in the VR headset, the hand-tracking capability of the AR headset would now be possible via the VR headset. You'd also have to transfer the image processing software, of course.
There's just no compelling reason to do it, because it's pointless trying to turn one device into another. They serve different purposes.
I understand what you're saying, but what I'm saying is, it isn't about the camera.
You don't need the camera to see the world around you for AR... YOU DO for VR.
Thats what I'm saying.
So, for example Spotty, if you open the camera app on your phone and walk around holding it in front of your face, would you be confident walking around the city like that? What issues would you encounter?
The camera in the Hololens has nothing to do with real world interaction ONLY with virtual interaction.
OK, were making progress here.
It seems we can agree that hand-tracking capability is not inherently superior in AR devices for reasons unknown.
As for image rendering latency, that will definitely be reduced in the case of an AR device. That's because the AR-generated part of what you see only fills a small part of your field of vision. The less you need to render, the quicker it can be done.
If the AR device had to generate everything in your field of vision, it would be doing exactly what a pass-thru camera in a VR headset does. The rendering delay would be just as noticeable as it is when rendered inside a VR headset.
To that I agree, but thats what I've been trying to say. For example, if you have AR hardware run VR applications, you're looking at the same issues you would with a VR system.
The difference is between the screen quality, and the lower latency in regards to, well, just about everything despite the requirements of the hardware to keep up for AR.
The only thing I said in terms of AR being superior in hand tracking capability is because, today, it is in a functional state. That isn't saying that VR couldn't do it, but if VR would do it, you're recreating everything. Pretty much latency, pixellation and contrast from looking at a screen vs RL is something you can't really fix when you're running AR applications in VR.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly the first time around.
Anyway.... With the early Glass prototype being a unmitigated disaster due to a moron leading the project and Hololens still being more pixidust than actual product.
AR remains what it is named for, a way to overlay information on the real world. Heck just look at the screenshots from P:GO... Ugly as arse... cool but ugly.
HoloLens once it actually becomes a real consumer product (it will not.. but it will most likely spawn a smaller, slower and dumber version) might be good enough that we are talking a proper HUD and environment integration. But i still think we are some time from it being able to weave real and digital together, it will still mostly be overlay stuff. Now you could do a nifty upgrade it the laser tag idea and make a FPS with those puppies and i am sure you at some point will have consumer units that will aid in the same way that aviation HUD´s do today. Ofc the sky have a shit ton less stuff to keep track of =P
But... AR will never be VR and VR will never be AR. (and by never i am looking at current hardware development and it´s trajectory) since they fill different needs. After all why strap a VR headset on to get a AR experience (even if they reduced in size/weight by 60% it is still to big and heavy) and why cram so much power in to a AR device when it does not need it.
I guess we at some point will see some hybrid units, but at that point AR will be a set of lenses. =P
To that I agree, but thats what I've been trying to say. For example, if you have AR hardware run VR applications, you're looking at the same issues you would with a VR system.
The difference is between the screen quality, and the lower latency in regards to, well, just about everything despite the requirements of the hardware to keep up for AR.
The only thing I said in terms of AR being superior in hand tracking capability is because, today, it is in a functional state. That isn't saying that VR couldn't do it, but if VR would do it, you're recreating everything. Pretty much latency, pixellation and contrast from looking at a screen vs RL is something you can't really fix when you're running AR applications in VR.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly the first time around.
overhead projector into space without a direct backscreen to project on to however in a micro enviroment.
vs.
making an image using cell phone technology on a OLED monitor
the latter is technically easier and requires less power
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
To that I agree, but thats what I've been trying to say. For example, if you have AR hardware run VR applications, you're looking at the same issues you would with a VR system.
The difference is between the screen quality, and the lower latency in regards to, well, just about everything despite the requirements of the hardware to keep up for AR.
The only thing I said in terms of AR being superior in hand tracking capability is because, today, it is in a functional state. That isn't saying that VR couldn't do it, but if VR would do it, you're recreating everything. Pretty much latency, pixellation and contrast from looking at a screen vs RL is something you can't really fix when you're running AR applications in VR.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly the first time around.
overhead projector into space without a direct backscreen to project on to however in a micro enviroment.
vs.
making an image using cell phone technology on a OLED monitor
the latter is technically easier and requires less power
If it didn't count as being a kind of upvote I would LOL you. You do realize that it isn't a projector at all......
To that I agree, but thats what I've been trying to say. For example, if you have AR hardware run VR applications, you're looking at the same issues you would with a VR system.
The difference is between the screen quality, and the lower latency in regards to, well, just about everything despite the requirements of the hardware to keep up for AR.
The only thing I said in terms of AR being superior in hand tracking capability is because, today, it is in a functional state. That isn't saying that VR couldn't do it, but if VR would do it, you're recreating everything. Pretty much latency, pixellation and contrast from looking at a screen vs RL is something you can't really fix when you're running AR applications in VR.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly the first time around.
overhead projector into space without a direct backscreen to project on to however in a micro enviroment.
vs.
making an image using cell phone technology on a OLED monitor
the latter is technically easier and requires less power
If it didn't count as being a kind of upvote I would LOL you. You do realize that it isn't a projector at all......
oh damn I am really into those upvotes.
so what is it then? an image produced over a translucent screen? yeah that is just as bad and requires more 'power' for the lack of a better word to create the same compelling image as it does on a 'true black' screen. Why do you think 'true black' is so popular? you think the image would be better if it was projected on a translucent monitor with natural light coming in? think again.
so again.
same physics same problems of light more difficult challenges
no magical quantum portal
to get the same quality of image an AR solution is going to need the same computing power and really more because of natural light
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
To that I agree, but thats what I've been trying to say. For example, if you have AR hardware run VR applications, you're looking at the same issues you would with a VR system.
The difference is between the screen quality, and the lower latency in regards to, well, just about everything despite the requirements of the hardware to keep up for AR.
The only thing I said in terms of AR being superior in hand tracking capability is because, today, it is in a functional state. That isn't saying that VR couldn't do it, but if VR would do it, you're recreating everything. Pretty much latency, pixellation and contrast from looking at a screen vs RL is something you can't really fix when you're running AR applications in VR.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly the first time around.
overhead projector into space without a direct backscreen to project on to however in a micro enviroment.
vs.
making an image using cell phone technology on a OLED monitor
the latter is technically easier and requires less power
If it didn't count as being a kind of upvote I would LOL you. You do realize that it isn't a projector at all......
oh damn I am really into those upvotes.
so what is it then? an image produced over a translucent screen? yeah that is just as bad and requires more 'power' for the lack of a better word to create the same compelling image as it does on a 'true black' screen. Why do you think 'true black' is so popular? you think the image would be better if it was projected on a translucent monitor with natural light coming in? think again.
so again.
same physics same problems of light more difficult challenges
no magical quantum portal
to get the same quality of image an AR solution is going to need the same computing power and really more because of natural light
No... it very much so doesn't need the same computing power.. have you seen the specs for hololens?
You seem to pretend that light is a major issue ... it isn't.. images precede light, that's why Magic Leap looks so solid.
You're trying to obfuscate the point... the point is.. every single pixel has to be created in every instance.. always for VR.
The entire point is fairly moot... the purpose of getting into the discussion of light is because we were arguing about the point that VR systems apparently can do AR better... but they can't. Even with the best camera money can buy it will still be second rate when you're stuck pixelating the real world.
"VR does hand gestures better" you said.
Have fun with your Xbox One Controller. That's exactly what you'll be using.
You think AR is an overhead projector actually putting the images out in your field of view apparently.
It actually puts the images inside the eyeline of the lens. It's far less cumbersome even with a system that is self contained while VR requires an entire computer just so people don't throw up.
You said VR will be more popular for gamers
Pokemon Go, an AR game has more popularity in it's short time than both the Vive and Rift have had since ...ever. Not to mention it's made roughly 14 Million dollars in a single week across all platforms.
Your best defense seems to be "BUT I DON'T LIKE IT SO YOU'RE WRONG" it doesn't change what the actualities are.
To that I agree, but thats what I've been trying to say. For example, if you have AR hardware run VR applications, you're looking at the same issues you would with a VR system.
The difference is between the screen quality, and the lower latency in regards to, well, just about everything despite the requirements of the hardware to keep up for AR.
The only thing I said in terms of AR being superior in hand tracking capability is because, today, it is in a functional state. That isn't saying that VR couldn't do it, but if VR would do it, you're recreating everything. Pretty much latency, pixellation and contrast from looking at a screen vs RL is something you can't really fix when you're running AR applications in VR.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly the first time around.
overhead projector into space without a direct backscreen to project on to however in a micro enviroment.
vs.
making an image using cell phone technology on a OLED monitor
the latter is technically easier and requires less power
If it didn't count as being a kind of upvote I would LOL you. You do realize that it isn't a projector at all......
oh damn I am really into those upvotes.
so what is it then? an image produced over a translucent screen? yeah that is just as bad and requires more 'power' for the lack of a better word to create the same compelling image as it does on a 'true black' screen. Why do you think 'true black' is so popular? you think the image would be better if it was projected on a translucent monitor with natural light coming in? think again.
so again.
same physics same problems of light more difficult challenges
no magical quantum portal
to get the same quality of image an AR solution is going to need the same computing power and really more because of natural light
No... it very much so doesn't need the same computing power.. have you seen the specs for hololens?
have you seen the quality of the hololense as in the actual quality?
its for shit and compared to VR quality its even MORE for shit.
VR could produce the same shitty quality image with far less computer power if it wanted to
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
To that I agree, but thats what I've been trying to say. For example, if you have AR hardware run VR applications, you're looking at the same issues you would with a VR system.
The difference is between the screen quality, and the lower latency in regards to, well, just about everything despite the requirements of the hardware to keep up for AR.
The only thing I said in terms of AR being superior in hand tracking capability is because, today, it is in a functional state. That isn't saying that VR couldn't do it, but if VR would do it, you're recreating everything. Pretty much latency, pixellation and contrast from looking at a screen vs RL is something you can't really fix when you're running AR applications in VR.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly the first time around.
overhead projector into space without a direct backscreen to project on to however in a micro enviroment.
vs.
making an image using cell phone technology on a OLED monitor
the latter is technically easier and requires less power
If it didn't count as being a kind of upvote I would LOL you. You do realize that it isn't a projector at all......
oh damn I am really into those upvotes.
so what is it then? an image produced over a translucent screen? yeah that is just as bad and requires more 'power' for the lack of a better word to create the same compelling image as it does on a 'true black' screen. Why do you think 'true black' is so popular? you think the image would be better if it was projected on a translucent monitor with natural light coming in? think again.
so again.
same physics same problems of light more difficult challenges
no magical quantum portal
to get the same quality of image an AR solution is going to need the same computing power and really more because of natural light
No... it very much so doesn't need the same computing power.. have you seen the specs for hololens?
have you seen the quality of the hololense as in the actual quality?
its for shit and compared to VR quality its even MORE for shit.
VR could produce the same shitty quality image with far less computer power if it wanted to
No. It couldn't. It would still need an entire computer hooked up to it LOL
To that I agree, but thats what I've been trying to say. For example, if you have AR hardware run VR applications, you're looking at the same issues you would with a VR system.
The difference is between the screen quality, and the lower latency in regards to, well, just about everything despite the requirements of the hardware to keep up for AR.
The only thing I said in terms of AR being superior in hand tracking capability is because, today, it is in a functional state. That isn't saying that VR couldn't do it, but if VR would do it, you're recreating everything. Pretty much latency, pixellation and contrast from looking at a screen vs RL is something you can't really fix when you're running AR applications in VR.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly the first time around.
overhead projector into space without a direct backscreen to project on to however in a micro enviroment.
vs.
making an image using cell phone technology on a OLED monitor
the latter is technically easier and requires less power
If it didn't count as being a kind of upvote I would LOL you. You do realize that it isn't a projector at all......
oh damn I am really into those upvotes.
so what is it then? an image produced over a translucent screen? yeah that is just as bad and requires more 'power' for the lack of a better word to create the same compelling image as it does on a 'true black' screen. Why do you think 'true black' is so popular? you think the image would be better if it was projected on a translucent monitor with natural light coming in? think again.
so again.
same physics same problems of light more difficult challenges
no magical quantum portal
to get the same quality of image an AR solution is going to need the same computing power and really more because of natural light
No... it very much so doesn't need the same computing power.. have you seen the specs for hololens?
have you seen the quality of the hololense as in the actual quality?
its for shit and compared to VR quality its even MORE for shit.
VR could produce the same shitty quality image with far less computer power if it wanted to
No. It couldn't. It would still need an entire computer hooked up to it LOL
for the same quality of image no it would not. It could be done pretty much exactly the same way hololense is doing it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
To that I agree, but thats what I've been trying to say. For example, if you have AR hardware run VR applications, you're looking at the same issues you would with a VR system.
The difference is between the screen quality, and the lower latency in regards to, well, just about everything despite the requirements of the hardware to keep up for AR.
The only thing I said in terms of AR being superior in hand tracking capability is because, today, it is in a functional state. That isn't saying that VR couldn't do it, but if VR would do it, you're recreating everything. Pretty much latency, pixellation and contrast from looking at a screen vs RL is something you can't really fix when you're running AR applications in VR.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly the first time around.
overhead projector into space without a direct backscreen to project on to however in a micro enviroment.
vs.
making an image using cell phone technology on a OLED monitor
the latter is technically easier and requires less power
If it didn't count as being a kind of upvote I would LOL you. You do realize that it isn't a projector at all......
oh damn I am really into those upvotes.
so what is it then? an image produced over a translucent screen? yeah that is just as bad and requires more 'power' for the lack of a better word to create the same compelling image as it does on a 'true black' screen. Why do you think 'true black' is so popular? you think the image would be better if it was projected on a translucent monitor with natural light coming in? think again.
so again.
same physics same problems of light more difficult challenges
no magical quantum portal
to get the same quality of image an AR solution is going to need the same computing power and really more because of natural light
No... it very much so doesn't need the same computing power.. have you seen the specs for hololens?
have you seen the quality of the hololense as in the actual quality?
its for shit and compared to VR quality its even MORE for shit.
VR could produce the same shitty quality image with far less computer power if it wanted to
No. It couldn't. It would still need an entire computer hooked up to it LOL
for the same quality of image no it would not. It could be done pretty much exactly the same way hololense is doing it
You're making things up Sean. There's no system right now that would have the capability that isn't attached to a PC LOL. I know you said you were getting your Rift today, but that doesn't mean you should forever live in a fantasy world.
To that I agree, but thats what I've been trying to say. For example, if you have AR hardware run VR applications, you're looking at the same issues you would with a VR system.
The difference is between the screen quality, and the lower latency in regards to, well, just about everything despite the requirements of the hardware to keep up for AR.
The only thing I said in terms of AR being superior in hand tracking capability is because, today, it is in a functional state. That isn't saying that VR couldn't do it, but if VR would do it, you're recreating everything. Pretty much latency, pixellation and contrast from looking at a screen vs RL is something you can't really fix when you're running AR applications in VR.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly the first time around.
overhead projector into space without a direct backscreen to project on to however in a micro enviroment.
vs.
making an image using cell phone technology on a OLED monitor
the latter is technically easier and requires less power
If it didn't count as being a kind of upvote I would LOL you. You do realize that it isn't a projector at all......
oh damn I am really into those upvotes.
so what is it then? an image produced over a translucent screen? yeah that is just as bad and requires more 'power' for the lack of a better word to create the same compelling image as it does on a 'true black' screen. Why do you think 'true black' is so popular? you think the image would be better if it was projected on a translucent monitor with natural light coming in? think again.
so again.
same physics same problems of light more difficult challenges
no magical quantum portal
to get the same quality of image an AR solution is going to need the same computing power and really more because of natural light
No... it very much so doesn't need the same computing power.. have you seen the specs for hololens?
have you seen the quality of the hololense as in the actual quality?
its for shit and compared to VR quality its even MORE for shit.
VR could produce the same shitty quality image with far less computer power if it wanted to
No. It couldn't. It would still need an entire computer hooked up to it LOL
for the same quality of image no it would not. It could be done pretty much exactly the same way hololense is doing it
You're making things up Sean. There's no system right now that would have the capability that isn't attached to a PC LOL. I know you said you were getting your Rift today, but that doesn't mean you should forever live in a fantasy world.
again it COULD be designed as such if they wanted to Gimp the game player, gimp the graphics and make not work 100% of the time which is exactly what Hololense is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
To that I agree, but thats what I've been trying to say. For example, if you have AR hardware run VR applications, you're looking at the same issues you would with a VR system.
The difference is between the screen quality, and the lower latency in regards to, well, just about everything despite the requirements of the hardware to keep up for AR.
The only thing I said in terms of AR being superior in hand tracking capability is because, today, it is in a functional state. That isn't saying that VR couldn't do it, but if VR would do it, you're recreating everything. Pretty much latency, pixellation and contrast from looking at a screen vs RL is something you can't really fix when you're running AR applications in VR.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly the first time around.
overhead projector into space without a direct backscreen to project on to however in a micro enviroment.
vs.
making an image using cell phone technology on a OLED monitor
the latter is technically easier and requires less power
If it didn't count as being a kind of upvote I would LOL you. You do realize that it isn't a projector at all......
oh damn I am really into those upvotes.
so what is it then? an image produced over a translucent screen? yeah that is just as bad and requires more 'power' for the lack of a better word to create the same compelling image as it does on a 'true black' screen. Why do you think 'true black' is so popular? you think the image would be better if it was projected on a translucent monitor with natural light coming in? think again.
so again.
same physics same problems of light more difficult challenges
no magical quantum portal
to get the same quality of image an AR solution is going to need the same computing power and really more because of natural light
No... it very much so doesn't need the same computing power.. have you seen the specs for hololens?
have you seen the quality of the hololense as in the actual quality?
its for shit and compared to VR quality its even MORE for shit.
VR could produce the same shitty quality image with far less computer power if it wanted to
No. It couldn't. It would still need an entire computer hooked up to it LOL
for the same quality of image no it would not. It could be done pretty much exactly the same way hololense is doing it
You're making things up Sean. There's no system right now that would have the capability that isn't attached to a PC LOL. I know you said you were getting your Rift today, but that doesn't mean you should forever live in a fantasy world.
again it COULD be designed as such if they wanted to Gimp the game player, gimp the graphics and make not work 100% of the time which is exactly what Hololense is.
LOL "b.. b... but it could be designed that way!" haha sure and AR could be designed to run VR applications... but then of course, they'd be niche and have low sales where AR has already hit mainstream in the form of an app.
again it COULD be designed as such if they wanted to Gimp the game player, gimp the graphics and make not work 100% of the time which is exactly what Hololense is.
LOL "b.. b... but it could be designed that way!" haha sure and AR could be designed to run VR applications... but then of course, they'd be niche and have low sales where AR has already hit mainstream in the form of an app.
you seem to think that there is some computing portal in which all the laws of physics and light do not apply if its AR.
You have not yet been able to explain WHY and HOW the difference existing in AR that can be related to TECHNOLGY
why do I need less computer power? because of reasons.... is basically the only answer you have been able to come up with
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
again it COULD be designed as such if they wanted to Gimp the game player, gimp the graphics and make not work 100% of the time which is exactly what Hololense is.
LOL "b.. b... but it could be designed that way!" haha sure and AR could be designed to run VR applications... but then of course, they'd be niche and have low sales where AR has already hit mainstream in the form of an app.
you seem to think that there is some computing portal in which all the laws of physics and light do not apply if its AR.
You have not yet been able to explain WHY and HOW the difference existing in AR that can be related to TECHNOLGY
why do I need less computer power? because of reasons.... is basically the only answer you have been able to come up with
That was essentially YOUR answer. "It uses less computing power if it wants to because they could make VR do what AR does" When you know for a fact that you're going to hook your Rift up to your PC to do it. Those are the minimum specs. Thats it. That's realistic. That is what it is. What were the specs of google glass? What are the specs of Hololens? What are the Specs of MagicLeap?
Just like how...
"VR does hand tracking better because it does." even though none of the sets currently use handtracking... you just "know" it does because *said in stupid voice* "if they wanted to do it they could do it." .. LOL it's a joke. Live in the real world, with what people are currently doing. Don't just make stuff up because you think it could work.
This is the definition of Sean trying way too hard to be "right".
And on a side note, I explained quite a few times how AR differs in several situations to VR.. all you said was "I don't know a lot about computers but...." and then came up with a ridiculous answer.. then later equated AR to an overhead projector..... it's ridiculous.
That was essentially YOUR answer. "It uses less computing power if it wants to because they could make VR do what AR does" When you know for a fact that you're going to hook your Rift up to your PC to do it. Those are the minimum specs. Thats it. That's realistic. That is what it is. What were the specs of google glass? What are the specs of Hololens? What are the Specs of MagicLeap?
Just like how...
"VR does hand tracking better because it does." even though none of the sets currently use handtracking... you just "know" it does because *said in stupid voice* "if they wanted to do it they could do it." .. LOL it's a joke. Live in the real world, with what people are currently doing. Don't just make stuff up because you think it could work.
This is the definition of Sean trying way too hard to be "right".
And on a side note, I explained quite a few times how AR differs in several situations to VR.. all you said was "I don't know a lot about computers but...." and then came up with a ridiculous answer.. then later equated AR to an overhead projector..... it's ridiculous.
you make some clever points and some of them are correct however. The question I am waiting for is:
what about AR technically and specific makes it different in a way that less computer power is required?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
That was essentially YOUR answer. "It uses less computing power if it wants to because they could make VR do what AR does" When you know for a fact that you're going to hook your Rift up to your PC to do it. Those are the minimum specs. Thats it. That's realistic. That is what it is. What were the specs of google glass? What are the specs of Hololens? What are the Specs of MagicLeap?
Just like how...
"VR does hand tracking better because it does." even though none of the sets currently use handtracking... you just "know" it does because *said in stupid voice* "if they wanted to do it they could do it." .. LOL it's a joke. Live in the real world, with what people are currently doing. Don't just make stuff up because you think it could work.
This is the definition of Sean trying way too hard to be "right".
And on a side note, I explained quite a few times how AR differs in several situations to VR.. all you said was "I don't know a lot about computers but...." and then came up with a ridiculous answer.. then later equated AR to an overhead projector..... it's ridiculous.
you make some clever points and some of them are correct however. The question I am waiting for is:
what about AR technically and specific makes it different in a way that less computer power is required?
Because less computing power IS required, hence why it uses lower specs. Also, you're not recreating every single pixel in any situation.
That was essentially YOUR answer. "It uses less computing power if it wants to because they could make VR do what AR does" When you know for a fact that you're going to hook your Rift up to your PC to do it. Those are the minimum specs. Thats it. That's realistic. That is what it is. What were the specs of google glass? What are the specs of Hololens? What are the Specs of MagicLeap?
Just like how...
"VR does hand tracking better because it does." even though none of the sets currently use handtracking... you just "know" it does because *said in stupid voice* "if they wanted to do it they could do it." .. LOL it's a joke. Live in the real world, with what people are currently doing. Don't just make stuff up because you think it could work.
This is the definition of Sean trying way too hard to be "right".
And on a side note, I explained quite a few times how AR differs in several situations to VR.. all you said was "I don't know a lot about computers but...." and then came up with a ridiculous answer.. then later equated AR to an overhead projector..... it's ridiculous.
you make some clever points and some of them are correct however. The question I am waiting for is:
what about AR technically and specific makes it different in a way that less computer power is required?
Because less computing power IS required, hence why it uses lower specs. Also, you're not recreating every single pixel in any situation.
1. your first sentence is silly and not what I am looking for. I can not stress specifics enough.
2. your second sentence is more in line with what I am asking for so I will address it.
In AR you have less pixels to generate HOWEVER, 1. you have more natural light to combat so the light signal needs to be stronger 2. you have more computing power required because the image has to associate its location to an unknown enviroment that is highly dynamic. Is the user looking at a table? it is a wall? is it a column? is it his hand?
In VR the per pixel rendering requires LESS power per pixel than in the AR. So although AR has less pixels to render it has more power and more computing power to deal with.
This is why AR solutions thus far from a gaming stand point look and interact like a big pile of shit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
That was essentially YOUR answer. "It uses less computing power if it wants to because they could make VR do what AR does" When you know for a fact that you're going to hook your Rift up to your PC to do it. Those are the minimum specs. Thats it. That's realistic. That is what it is. What were the specs of google glass? What are the specs of Hololens? What are the Specs of MagicLeap?
Just like how...
"VR does hand tracking better because it does." even though none of the sets currently use handtracking... you just "know" it does because *said in stupid voice* "if they wanted to do it they could do it." .. LOL it's a joke. Live in the real world, with what people are currently doing. Don't just make stuff up because you think it could work.
This is the definition of Sean trying way too hard to be "right".
And on a side note, I explained quite a few times how AR differs in several situations to VR.. all you said was "I don't know a lot about computers but...." and then came up with a ridiculous answer.. then later equated AR to an overhead projector..... it's ridiculous.
you make some clever points and some of them are correct however. The question I am waiting for is:
what about AR technically and specific makes it different in a way that less computer power is required?
Because less computing power IS required, hence why it uses lower specs. Also, you're not recreating every single pixel in any situation.
1. your first sentence is silly and not what I am looking for. I can not stress specifics enough.
2. your second sentence is more in line with what I am asking for so I will address it.
In AR you have less pixels to generate HOWEVER, 1. you have more natural light to combat so the light signal needs to be stronger 2. you have more computing power required because the image has to associate its location to an unknown enviroment that is highly dynamic. Is the user looking at a table? it is a wall? is it a column? is it his hand?
In VR the per pixel rendering requires LESS power per pixel than in the AR. So although AR has less pixels to render it has more power and more computing power to deal with.
This is why AR solutions thus far from a gaming stand point look and interact like a big pile of shit
....the "light signal" needs to be stronger based on what? Where are you getting this information from?
Where are you getting any of this information from actually? You decided to omit something that is actually relevant... which is the actual hardware it is running on.
You NEED a minimum of 60FPS for VR, not because 30 FPS is unplayable.. it's because with VR you have a much greater chance of sickness. You technically don't require such limiter in AR.
Images are transposed into the lens, this is irrespective of light pollution. Depending on the headset you're even talking about, if Hololens is in direct sunlight.. it doesn't "make light signals stronger". While the image is still visible, it looks much less solid and more holographic, it doesn't change how "strong the light signals" are.
It would be pointless to "make light stronger" from a set rather than filter the light coming into the lens... we've had filters for decades, they're called sunglasses. You have clear light filters too.
To understand how the differences work, all you need to do is pay attention to what is happening in AR videos.
....the "light signal" needs to be stronger based on what? Where are you getting this information from?
Where are you getting any of this information from actually? You decided to omit something that is actually relevant... which is the actual hardware it is running on.
You NEED a minimum of 60FPS for VR, not because 30 FPS is unplayable.. it's because with VR you have a much greater chance of sickness. You technically don't require such limiter in AR.
Images are transposed into the lens, this is irrespective of light pollution. Depending on the headset you're even talking about, if Hololens is in direct sunlight.. it doesn't "make light signals stronger". While the image is still visible, it looks much less solid and more holographic, it doesn't change how "strong the light signals" are.
It would be pointless to "make light stronger" from a set rather than filter the light coming into the lens... we've had filters for decades, they're called sunglasses. You have clear light filters too.
To understand how the differences work, all you need to do is pay attention to what is happening in AR videos.
1. if you take your cell phone outside right now is it easier to read or harder to read? if you take a tv outside is it easier to see or harder to see? if you take a projector outside is it easier to see or harder to see? why do movie theaters turn down the lights when a film starts? Did you know that projectors made or outdoors have a higher lumen rating? do you know why?
2. 60fps problem exists in AR too. Its just that AR is not using 6 degrees of freedom as much or to the accuracy of VR is as well as the fact that nobody as of yet has talked about motoion sickness in AR due to low frames but I have no doubt that its a thing that is AR survives will come up in discussions
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
....the "light signal" needs to be stronger based on what? Where are you getting this information from?
Where are you getting any of this information from actually? You decided to omit something that is actually relevant... which is the actual hardware it is running on.
You NEED a minimum of 60FPS for VR, not because 30 FPS is unplayable.. it's because with VR you have a much greater chance of sickness. You technically don't require such limiter in AR.
Images are transposed into the lens, this is irrespective of light pollution. Depending on the headset you're even talking about, if Hololens is in direct sunlight.. it doesn't "make light signals stronger". While the image is still visible, it looks much less solid and more holographic, it doesn't change how "strong the light signals" are.
It would be pointless to "make light stronger" from a set rather than filter the light coming into the lens... we've had filters for decades, they're called sunglasses. You have clear light filters too.
To understand how the differences work, all you need to do is pay attention to what is happening in AR videos.
1. if you take your cell phone outside right now is it easier to read or harder to read? if you take a tv outside is it easier to see or harder to see? if you take a projector outside is it easier to see or harder to see? why do movie theaters turn down the lights when a film starts? Did you know that projectors made or outdoors have a higher lumen rating? do you know why?
2. 60fps problem exists in AR too. Its just that AR is not using 6 degrees of freedom as much or to the accuracy of VR is as well as the fact that nobody as of yet has talked about motoion sickness in AR due to low frames but I have no doubt that its a thing that is AR survives will come up in discussions
1) Obfuscation. This isn't a projector, which you seem not to understand. This isn't a cell phone.. do you know why cell phones require changes in lighting? It has all to do with glare related to the screen. They have Antireflective screen protectors that are meant to combat this so you can see your screens outside. How is this different? Well for one, you're talking about an image held at arms length, not something being created in your direct eyeline. You're also talking about an Image that comes from a Screen, to Glass, then passing through a foot or two of light pollution before it hits your eye.
In AR devices you have these images within centimeters from your eye, with no glass reflecting the light from the outside. Any light pollution comes from behind. At worst it will wash out the image, but the image does not require adjustment, in order to do that, you would increase backlighting, which you can't really have in an AR device.
2) You have all degrees of freedom in AR... you aren't constrained on where you need to look, you can look anywhere with no cables. You won't notice a lot of motion sickness because people don't have to adapt to subpar out of body experiences, when they are interacting in the real world at real time. If there is a framerate drop you won't suddenly feel sick or disoriented, your world does not slow, just a particular image in your field of view does.
Pokemon Go is a good reference here. When you're looking at the images and they jump around or you're swiveling to look for them, you don't feel sick despite it running at 30 or so FPS.
That's not to say there won't be games that freak people out. For example, you could put a "window" on the floor in hololens of a steep drop and it might still disorient people, but that is entirely up to the user, and it has nothing to do with framerates.
....the "light signal" needs to be stronger based on what? Where are you getting this information from?
Where are you getting any of this information from actually? You decided to omit something that is actually relevant... which is the actual hardware it is running on.
You NEED a minimum of 60FPS for VR, not because 30 FPS is unplayable.. it's because with VR you have a much greater chance of sickness. You technically don't require such limiter in AR.
Images are transposed into the lens, this is irrespective of light pollution. Depending on the headset you're even talking about, if Hololens is in direct sunlight.. it doesn't "make light signals stronger". While the image is still visible, it looks much less solid and more holographic, it doesn't change how "strong the light signals" are.
It would be pointless to "make light stronger" from a set rather than filter the light coming into the lens... we've had filters for decades, they're called sunglasses. You have clear light filters too.
To understand how the differences work, all you need to do is pay attention to what is happening in AR videos.
1. if you take your cell phone outside right now is it easier to read or harder to read? if you take a tv outside is it easier to see or harder to see? if you take a projector outside is it easier to see or harder to see? why do movie theaters turn down the lights when a film starts? Did you know that projectors made or outdoors have a higher lumen rating? do you know why?
2. 60fps problem exists in AR too. Its just that AR is not using 6 degrees of freedom as much or to the accuracy of VR is as well as the fact that nobody as of yet has talked about motoion sickness in AR due to low frames but I have no doubt that its a thing that is AR survives will come up in discussions
How the heck are you going to see the HUD in the motorcycle helmet that you want Sean?
Comments
AR: I need a camera to watch hand movement
The company GoPro doesnt have a magic portal in which if the needs of a camera is AR then suddenly the device can be smaller, faster and more powerful then if it was needed for other things
The challenges of physics and light apply to both technologies
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You don't have to do that in AR, you just have to detect it. See a difference? I do.
Does it take more processing power to use a camera to take a video of your surroundings, then display it to a screen and then detect your hand motion, then overlay an image?
Or does it take more processing power to use a camera to detect your surroundings, overlay an image, and detect your motions in regards to that image?
Which is less to process?
Oh an a side note, as far as light distortion, Light distortion in VR is worse than Light distortion in AR, simply because in AR you're not confined to poor pixelation and contrast quality LOLOL. Screen contrast and light quality is much different than your real eyesight.
It seems we can agree that hand-tracking capability is not inherently superior in AR devices for reasons unknown.
As for image rendering latency, that will definitely be reduced in the case of an AR device. That's because the AR-generated part of what you see only fills a small part of your field of vision. The less you need to render, the quicker it can be done.
If the AR device had to generate everything in your field of vision, it would be doing exactly what a pass-thru camera in a VR headset does. The rendering delay would be just as noticeable as it is when rendered inside a VR headset.
The difference is between the screen quality, and the lower latency in regards to, well, just about everything despite the requirements of the hardware to keep up for AR.
The only thing I said in terms of AR being superior in hand tracking capability is because, today, it is in a functional state. That isn't saying that VR couldn't do it, but if VR would do it, you're recreating everything. Pretty much latency, pixellation and contrast from looking at a screen vs RL is something you can't really fix when you're running AR applications in VR.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly the first time around.
AR remains what it is named for, a way to overlay information on the real world. Heck just look at the screenshots from P:GO... Ugly as arse... cool but ugly.
HoloLens once it actually becomes a real consumer product (it will not.. but it will most likely spawn a smaller, slower and dumber version) might be good enough that we are talking a proper HUD and environment integration. But i still think we are some time from it being able to weave real and digital together, it will still mostly be overlay stuff. Now you could do a nifty upgrade it the laser tag idea and make a FPS with those puppies and i am sure you at some point will have consumer units that will aid in the same way that aviation HUD´s do today. Ofc the sky have a shit ton less stuff to keep track of =P
But... AR will never be VR and VR will never be AR. (and by never i am looking at current hardware development and it´s trajectory) since they fill different needs. After all why strap a VR headset on to get a AR experience (even if they reduced in size/weight by 60% it is still to big and heavy) and why cram so much power in to a AR device when it does not need it.
I guess we at some point will see some hybrid units, but at that point AR will be a set of lenses. =P
This have been a good conversation
vs.
making an image using cell phone technology on a OLED monitor
the latter is technically easier and requires less power
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Virtual Retinal Display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2921432/laser-in-fujitsu-smartglasses-fires-images-right-into-retina.html
THAT is the distant future.
With VRD, the AR and VR devices potentially become one. The tech is not there yet, but it will get there.
The next step will probably be to have a small receiver implanted into the bone of your skull, which will link directly to your optic nerve...
so what is it then? an image produced over a translucent screen? yeah that is just as bad and requires more 'power' for the lack of a better word to create the same compelling image as it does on a 'true black' screen. Why do you think 'true black' is so popular? you think the image would be better if it was projected on a translucent monitor with natural light coming in? think again.
so again.
same physics
same problems of light
more difficult challenges
no magical quantum portal
to get the same quality of image an AR solution is going to need the same computing power and really more because of natural light
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You seem to pretend that light is a major issue ... it isn't.. images precede light, that's why Magic Leap looks so solid.
You're trying to obfuscate the point... the point is.. every single pixel has to be created in every instance.. always for VR.
The entire point is fairly moot... the purpose of getting into the discussion of light is because we were arguing about the point that VR systems apparently can do AR better... but they can't. Even with the best camera money can buy it will still be second rate when you're stuck pixelating the real world.
"VR does hand gestures better" you said.
Have fun with your Xbox One Controller. That's exactly what you'll be using.
You think AR is an overhead projector actually putting the images out in your field of view apparently.
It actually puts the images inside the eyeline of the lens. It's far less cumbersome even with a system that is self contained while VR requires an entire computer just so people don't throw up.
You said VR will be more popular for gamers
Pokemon Go, an AR game has more popularity in it's short time than both the Vive and Rift have had since ...ever. Not to mention it's made roughly 14 Million dollars in a single week across all platforms.
Your best defense seems to be "BUT I DON'T LIKE IT SO YOU'RE WRONG" it doesn't change what the actualities are.
its for shit
and compared to VR quality its even MORE for shit.
VR could produce the same shitty quality image with far less computer power if it wanted to
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You have not yet been able to explain WHY and HOW the difference existing in AR that can be related to TECHNOLGY
why do I need less computer power? because of reasons.... is basically the only answer you have been able to come up with
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Just like how...
"VR does hand tracking better because it does." even though none of the sets currently use handtracking... you just "know" it does because *said in stupid voice* "if they wanted to do it they could do it." .. LOL it's a joke. Live in the real world, with what people are currently doing. Don't just make stuff up because you think it could work.
This is the definition of Sean trying way too hard to be "right".
And on a side note, I explained quite a few times how AR differs in several situations to VR.. all you said was "I don't know a lot about computers but...." and then came up with a ridiculous answer.. then later equated AR to an overhead projector..... it's ridiculous.
The question I am waiting for is:
what about AR technically and specific makes it different in a way that less computer power is required?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. your second sentence is more in line with what I am asking for so I will address it.
In AR you have less pixels to generate HOWEVER, 1. you have more natural light to combat so the light signal needs to be stronger 2. you have more computing power required because the image has to associate its location to an unknown enviroment that is highly dynamic. Is the user looking at a table? it is a wall? is it a column? is it his hand? In VR the per pixel rendering requires LESS power per pixel than in the AR. So although AR has less pixels to render it has more power and more computing power to deal with. This is why AR solutions thus far from a gaming stand point look and interact like a big pile of shit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Where are you getting any of this information from actually? You decided to omit something that is actually relevant... which is the actual hardware it is running on.
You NEED a minimum of 60FPS for VR, not because 30 FPS is unplayable.. it's because with VR you have a much greater chance of sickness. You technically don't require such limiter in AR.
Images are transposed into the lens, this is irrespective of light pollution. Depending on the headset you're even talking about, if Hololens is in direct sunlight.. it doesn't "make light signals stronger". While the image is still visible, it looks much less solid and more holographic, it doesn't change how "strong the light signals" are.
It would be pointless to "make light stronger" from a set rather than filter the light coming into the lens... we've had filters for decades, they're called sunglasses. You have clear light filters too.
To understand how the differences work, all you need to do is pay attention to what is happening in AR videos.
2. 60fps problem exists in AR too. Its just that AR is not using 6 degrees of freedom as much or to the accuracy of VR is as well as the fact that nobody as of yet has talked about motoion sickness in AR due to low frames but I have no doubt that its a thing that is AR survives will come up in discussions
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In AR devices you have these images within centimeters from your eye, with no glass reflecting the light from the outside. Any light pollution comes from behind. At worst it will wash out the image, but the image does not require adjustment, in order to do that, you would increase backlighting, which you can't really have in an AR device.
2) You have all degrees of freedom in AR... you aren't constrained on where you need to look, you can look anywhere with no cables. You won't notice a lot of motion sickness because people don't have to adapt to subpar out of body experiences, when they are interacting in the real world at real time. If there is a framerate drop you won't suddenly feel sick or disoriented, your world does not slow, just a particular image in your field of view does.
Pokemon Go is a good reference here. When you're looking at the images and they jump around or you're swiveling to look for them, you don't feel sick despite it running at 30 or so FPS.
That's not to say there won't be games that freak people out. For example, you could put a "window" on the floor in hololens of a steep drop and it might still disorient people, but that is entirely up to the user, and it has nothing to do with framerates.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee