Talk about Head Mounted Displays (HMDs), augmented reality, wearable computing, controller hardware, haptic feedback, motion tracking, and related topics here!
Yes that's precisely the problem, and it's exactly the same for S3D support at the moment. The commitment shouldn't come from constructors but from developers, because they are actually the ones that are delivering content. And considering the feable efforts made by developers for S3D (only _15_ 3D Vision Ready games out of several thousands), I don't really envision a bright future for VR gaming support in a forseable future.
The only way you do this is to convince publishers or possibly certain key developers that it's worthwhile.
NVidia travel around to various developers and demonstrates 3D vision, but to most it's just a gimmick and not worth the additional work on the graphics engine or the additional testing.
S3D will get there in games because it's virtually a 0 cost option to add it to TV's and either Sony or MS will decide it's important enough to push as a key feature.
Once devs have to deal with it on consoles, support on the PC will happen.
VR is a much harder proposition, to get that immersive experience you need a wide FOV and games written to exploit it. Unfortunately to get market acceptance it appears you also need a compact design and the right price point. Diffraction based optics might get us there but I have still yet to even hear of a demonstrated small form factor HMD with a decent FOV, and that includes research projects.
FWIW I also think VR will be forever be marginalized behind AR going forwards.
@Bishop51 - I'm not sure that I agree that VR gaming will be as significant as you do. If there's one thing the Wii and Kinect (and hell even Angry Birds) teaches us, its that there is a massive market for approachable gaming. I have a hard time seeing how VR gaming could be "casual" with current technology.
However, I do agree that the gaming community is missing the mark right now. The graphics presentation is entirely adequate now and has been for a decade. Every time I see one of those side-by-side comparisons of in-game DX9 versus DX11 or XBox360 versus PC I am left perplexed. So there's some extra lens flares, or surface texture, or some particle effects, or antialiasing - and you see all these idiots pissing their pants about how mind-blowing it is ?? WTF! Am I missing something? How does a 5% improvement in visual accuracy translate to a significantly better gaming experience? It doesn't in my opinion - and I don't think it matters much to anyone else which is why there has been little pressure for the next iteration of console hardware. Only the hardcore gamers get emotionally invested in visual fidelity - like a gear-head constantly rebuilding their engine so they can get an extra 5mph. But the problem is that graphics is in a state of diminishing returns. Interfaces is where all the big changes are possible now. What they need to do is move the hardcore gamers away from visual fidelity (the only metric they have known so far) and move them onto novel interfaces and immersiveness. I would take the graphics from 15 years ago if I could interact with it in an enveloping VR environment.
Okta wrote:I think you can forget head tracking. The only tracking your might get is an add on that sits on top maybe for the ps3 but doubtful anything from sony for the pc because the scope of use isn't clear enough.
The PS3 allready supports headtracking (kind-of) through the eye-toy camera on GT5. Although it wouldn't compare to 120hz 6DOF, certainly a version of the software could be written specifically to support the HMZ1 without too much extra effort. Even a 30hz 2DOF could be enough to get the mass market interested in head tracking
Bishop51 wrote:VR may not reach EVERY demographic of gamer (initially) but it will be an absolute watershed moment, earning more greenbacks than anything that came before it once someone does it properly. Preaching to the choir here I know but we all know the truth of it.
Could have been copy-pasted from a PR blurb of the nineties. And unfortunately it's not more true now than it was back then.
Nonetheless, it will inevitably prove true eventually. We're still not there yet, but we will be. Virtual reality will alter humanity more than all previous technological developments combined, because it will allow us to leave this universe for another universe in which the laws of physics can be ignored. Seamless, perfected VR will free us from all physical limitations and make magic real. We'll be living Inception in our lifetimes.
Bishop51 wrote:Its not just the hardware, its the commitment to the software platform that utilizes it.
Yes that's precisely the problem, and it's exactly the same for S3D support at the moment. The commitment shouldn't come from constructors but from developers, because they are actually the ones that are delivering content. And considering the feable efforts made by developers for S3D (only _15_ 3D Vision Ready games out of several thousands), I don't really envision a bright future for VR gaming support in a forseable future.
The two go hand-in-hand. You need a company to really make a commitment to a concept for it to work. It's not likely to happen on the PC because its such a generic device so we're talking about consoles more than likely. You have to do what Nintendo did and draw a line in the sand and say "This is how the platform operates and we're going to develop software specifically for it and demand that others do as well." I think if Nintendo had just offered the Wiimote as an optional extension then it would have failed, but they committed to it and put it front and center as the primary way to interact with their console. Microsoft seems to be taking that approach with the Kinect - leveraging not just the XBox but Windows 8 around the device as well. You would need a Nintendo or an Apple to really push an HMD device and software for it to take hold. Unfortunately I think Sony is too timid to make a gamble like that. Just look how pedestrian and incremental the Vita is.
Fredz wrote:Considering the big flop VR made in the mid-90's and how Sony invested at this period (Glasstron anyone ?), I'm not surprised that they are not overly enthusiastic about it and that they come at it again only very timidely. Nobody is able to tell what's the future for VR, that's probably why Sony is currently only doing some incremental steps to test the market.
&
Fredz wrote:The hardware of both Sony and Microsoft is clearly not up to the task for current VR expectations, it's basically 2006 technology when speaking in PC generations. They aren't even able to deliver on current displays in 2D or 3D, almost all games are capped at 720p @ 30fps. VR at this resolution/framerate is clearly a downturn compared to what current 2D or 3D displays are capable of (1080p @ 60fps). That'll change with their new generation of consoles, but they're not there yet.
&
Fredz wrote:Could have been copy-pasted from a PR blurb of the nineties. And unfortunately it's not more true now than it was back then.
Its important to remember that what consumers see on store shelves today is essentially 10 year old hardware which is on its way out. 360, PS3 & Wii are absolutely ancient if you look at them from engineering inception to the consumer market. Just like the shady Lockheed Martin's shady SkunkWorks arm, internal development on these things is often 10 to 20 years ahead of what you see on the shelf.
You can't compare entering today's VR market with the false start of the 90's because there's more to technologically latch onto than mere idealism. The ambition of the 90's VR movement was stunted by the technology and that simply isn't the case anymore. All the requisite pieces for a fully immersive VR experience are now available (just ask Palmertech). What is missing is the vision to treat these disparate systems in the EXACT same way you would when launching a Wii or a Kinect. You're designing hardware to break a paradigm and to introduce a new way of engaging the participant. It may not be the full-on experience that everyone dreams about but I have zero doubt something very close already exists.
You say to me "well this or that isn't possible because they can't do it to this standard" and I say to you that they probably already have but the suits who control the money aren't willing to destroy their precious TV-centric console market...YET! There is GIGANTIC money in the current TV/console market and if anything is holding up more robust advancements in VR its that singular industry. But these systems are aging rapidly and the company brave enough to break that mold and to exploit both augmented reality and full VR will take the prize but they can't do it half halfheartedly. Nintendo almost took the plunge with their AR-"ish" system coming out soon but I think they really dropped the ball with the oddness of the system (trying to be a VR or AR system without being either).
I firmly believe one of the big 4 are already making those motions. Sony certainly stands a chance there but I think everyone has their eyes on the prize. There's also a lot of cloak & dagger associated with next gen hardware and I think Sony showing their hand this early will prompt further innovation and competition from one of the big boys.
VR can, and will at some point, take over. In the near future, however, AR will boom. This is mostly a reaction to the impending ubiquitous use of VR, sort of like a last hurrah for meat-space. So AR is what will actually bring this technology into the mainstream, and be the Trojan horse for the true Virtual Reality. Keep in mind that I speak of VR in the most liberal of terms. I would consider talking on the telephone a use of VR, albeit limited to audio only. Hell, even hanging out on this forum we are technically meeting in "cyberspace". So all current networked forms of communications are really precursors to VR. And we are certainly getting more "plugged-in" every day. So VR, is going to get bigger and bigger, but it will be slowly and seemingly innocuous for many years are the technology progresses.
The big major break-through are probably going to come from the gaming industry, and the big names in that field. We have already seen huge strides made with the Nintendo Wii, and now the Kinect (and to a lesser degree) PS MOVE. Then you have something like the Nintendo 3DS, where practically every single game comes with stereo 3D support. There are probably close to 100 titles, either released or in development, for the platform. This is not something Nvidia was able to accomplish. Or even Sony or MS. But since Nintendo has a standard platform, and all users have the same capabilities, then developers have a reason to take the time to support it. This doesn't happen on the PC, as anyone can see with peripherals like the Razer Hydra which seems to get no love from developers. There have been all sorts of fun stuff released for the PC over the years, HMDs, data gloves, force-feedback devices, etc. and they never get any substantial support from the development community. It really needs to be a big company, providing the full package, and actively supporting it. This will likely happen at some point, probably not with the next-generation, but many the one after that. We will see.
I do agree that graphics are sort of at the point of diminishing returns. Already we can render man-made objects and scenes to an almost photo-real level, and organic objects reasonably well. But there is so much we could do with advanced interaction models with more fluid and immersive input and output peripherals. Certainly we could have cheap and accurate data-gloves by now, so in games we could interact with objects realistically and dynamically. Or way better game AI, like NPCs who you could speak with in natural language and hold simple conversations. All technologically feasible today, but there has not been any interest or investment put into this. So I think there is much to explore, even with current gen tech.
What I am hoping is that some VR researchers or hobbyists (maybe myself) can create some really compelling demos, that can inspire big studios to explore this more. I don't think a big player like Sony of Microsoft will jump on this unless someone can prove there is a market. Just look at how conservative Microsoft has been with stereo 3D. Someone like Nintendo may pull a crazy move, with like a full body haptic suit / portable game console. I could see that. Or maybe some other big company, like Samsung for example, may make a bold foray into the game industry with a VR-based console system. It could happen. But I still feel like we could push this forward by lighting the way.
I would bet Nintendo are most likely the only ones with the stones for a VR console. Maybe they have been looking at it for decades, maybe they are working on it right now. But the are a few factors to consider- it would have to be based around FPS, Racing and Flying type games so that limits the market. Then there is the implementation. How far do they go? HMD, wearable console with battery for 360 degree tracking? Independent head and gun tracking? Haptic gloves with in game presence and tracking? All of that is great, but expensive. Then there is the big issue we have been struggling with, movement.If they do all this other stuff we are left with broken VR because walking around with a little nunchuck joystick really kills the feel.
Maybe its too difficult to decide how for to go with a whole product line where the mix and price will have to be so perfect to catch on above the 'gimmick' trap.
"I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."
Notch on the FaceDisgrace buyout.
Okta wrote: But the are a few factors to consider- it would have to be based around FPS, Racing and Flying type games so that limits the market.
A genre that gets almost no VR consideration but would be absolutely fantastic and hugely popular is sports games. Think of the Madden series. It pretty much looks like watching football on television. Now imagine actually lining up behind center at the quarterback position in a huge virtual stadium with a roaring crowd. Looking left down the line, looking right, eyeing the defensive adjustments in the distance, taking the snap, scanning for the open receiver, and throwing the ball down field. That's a fundamentally new way of experiencing a sports game - akin to the shift from 2d platform shooter (or orthographic view) to FPS. I think it would be enormously compelling and would appeal to an audience that does not normally consider VR.
Additionally - sports might even be better suited to VR tech than FPS's because by nature sports games are usually physically bounded in some way. In a football game, you could limit the interaction to just the quarterback position where all the action largely occurs in a 15'x15' area. Basketball is similarly limited to a relatively small region around the goal. Tennis, volleyball, bowling, baseball...all good candidates. What's more, the technical requirements for these games are minimal with low poly counts and low detail necessary. Honestly even with current tech (Kinect/Move) plus a halfway decent HMD you could make compelling VR sports games right now.
(As a bonus: football players already use helmets which limits their FOV. Build a HMD into a football helmet and the low FOV actually improves the simulation!)
Edit: Hey Nintendo if you are listening - just like WiiSports was the killer app for the Wii, maybe VR-Sports could be the killer app for a VR console.
Nah not the pre order guy, was close to going through him till I read the details. This is a guy who has it in hand.
You're right it is crazy I just wouldn't be able to cope if it was an over all limited run and no version 2 showed up. I hope version 2 does, I'll just get that too.
brantlew wrote:
Honestly even with current tech (Kinect/Move) plus a halfway decent HMD you could make compelling VR sports games right now.
Edit: Hey Nintendo if you are listening - just like WiiSports was the killer app for the Wii, maybe VR-Sports could be the killer app for a VR console.
This is what I've been trying to get at. PS3, Wii, Kinect, pick your poison, they all have the fundamental infrastructure to support a competent HMD RIGHT NOW! This is why I believe that we may yet see a HMD or augmented reality based / or mixed device for the coming second wave of consoles. Nintendo is already doing AR with the "Wii U" and that will likely force Sony or Microsoft to compete. I guarantee that all of them have been testing full VR applications for awhile now but they're trying to transition it into a huge market dominated by the old TV/console paradigm. They are also fighting the conceptual battle to find their way around the stink of the flopped 90's VR inception.
Relaunching VR in 2012-15 isn't a technical issue, its a marketing issue.
I guarantee that all of them have been testing full VR applications for awhile now
I've worked for 2 of the 3 and I have to disappoint you.
The game groups are not particularly hardware driven and are very much focussed on what they can sell for a given price point.
I'm sure the corporate R&D groups do experiments, but not so much inside the game divisions.
The success of the HMZ-T1 might get some interest back on VR, and I know that Kinect has triggered some interest in AR, but practically I don't think you can put together a high quality HMD at a consumer price point.
ERP wrote:The success of the HMZ-T1 might get some interest back on VR, and I know that Kinect has triggered some interest in AR, but practically I don't think you can put together a high quality HMD at a consumer price point.
Open question: Forget OLED and HD resolutions. Surely a lower quality system could offer compelling gameplay if the content was designed well. Could you put together a low res (~800x450) / medium FOV (~45 degrees) HMD + game console + motion tracking at a consumer price point? Assume a design somewhere along the lines of PalmerTech's PR3 and a game console with graphics capabilities somewhere between Wii and XBox 360. Remember that the PS3 initially came out somewhere around $600 and consumers bought into that. It seems like a Nintendo or a Microsoft could pull that off? They might take a small loss on the hardware but that's expected these days.
I guarantee that all of them have been testing full VR applications for awhile now
I've worked for 2 of the 3 and I have to disappoint you.
The game groups are not particularly hardware driven and are very much focussed on what they can sell for a given price point.
I'm sure the corporate R&D groups do experiments, but not so much inside the game divisions.
The success of the HMZ-T1 might get some interest back on VR, and I know that Kinect has triggered some interest in AR, but practically I don't think you can put together a high quality HMD at a consumer price point.
But Nintendo is one the eve of launching the Wii U which is essentially an HMD you hold in front of you for games and AR applications. Are you seriously telling me that Sony & Microsoft haven't been banging around AR or VR hardware? I would find that extremely unlikely and hard to believe. The modern console market is VERY much driven by the hardware right now, so to say that the market is driven by the software seems like a very backwards statement to me.
Affordable HMD's are only one committed console system away. Which is to say, a substantial manufacturing commitment from a major player is all it takes and they'll even eat some of that cost if they see a long-term benefit.
Lets face it. Anything under about 70-80 FOV will not be considered real 'VR' by the average people who use it. These are people who have been brought up on Lawnmower Man etc and think VR is supposed to be immersive (as indeed it should be).
Without immersion, I see no way VR will take off. A 45 degree FOV is not immersive and people are not going to pay $ for that kind of experience. People expect to be IN the game, and with lower FOV HMD's, you're simply not, your just viewing a monitor that happens to be floating in front of your face.
Lower resolution (say 800x600) would be acceptable, but for a consumer VR appliance to take off, IMHO it needs a decent FOV.
THEN, you have the human factors to deal with, such as stand up or sit down, and the hassles attendant with each.
Therefore, I dont think I see a consumer VR system in the near future. A stand up system would place users in too much danger of walking into things (lawsuits) and a sit down system will be a bit too restrictive. Although, combined with a driving wheel etc it might indeed sell very well to racer types...
There is a distinction between the the console groups at Sony and MS and the larger companies.
Traditionally yes console makers have made a loss on hardware early in a life cycle, but it's becoming less attractive to manufacturers especially after the success of the Wii.
Without getting into to much into the economics of consoles the model is based on the cost of goods dropping faster than the price of the unit, not because of economies of scale but because of improvements in manufacturing process. It's the reason MS dropped the mechanical HD as standard from 360, because the cost doesn't scale down over the lifetime of the platform.
The fundamental cost issue with HMD's is going to be the optics and the packaging, everything else will drop in price over time, if there is a cheap easy to manufacture optics solution then I could see it happening, and I agree potentially it's enormously compelling. And if any one of them committed to it there would be software.
I wouldn't count the Wuu as a AR device, but that's semantics, and yes there is work that I know of at all the companies at least in the AR space, but that's different than a HMD.
When I don't see researchers (with relatively unlimited budgets) building wide FOV, compact HMD's I remain skeptical of there success in the entertainment space. There are potentially interesting technologies, that could make it feasible, but 10 years ago I was excited by retinal projection and I've yet to see anything substantive built on that technology.
Another possibility would be a big PC player like Valve partnering with a company to make some kind of $500-$1000 VR setup that plugs into existing computers. It would cost the same amount as a high end GPU, and they could easily modify their library of games to support it. They have the clout to get other PC developers to implement support, too.
I'm amazed that some company hasn't picked up the ball on a true plug and play console friendly VR/AR experience yet. It wasn't long ago that we had a couple of companies somehow raking in $200 (Australian) or more for a game with a few plastic instruments. I think that this should be proof enough that good marketing can make low end products a success. Now you can get, admittedly not top of the range HMDs for under $200, but I look at this as the same sort of trade off as the crappy instruments you get with the instrument games.
If there was a smart developer out there, I'm sure that they could team up with one of the HMD companies and create a successful HMD/VR game bundle for $200 (or there abouts). This would be a great way to get content out there, and make way for the premium HMDs (similar to the HMZ-T1, but with head tracking) that could use the games that come with the cheap HMDs, but give an even better experience.
I don't want to turn this into a PC vs console discussion, but looking at the sales figures of games, I believe that developers for the HMDs really need to target consoles and be totally plug and play to make progress. We already have (admittedly not perfect) the games rendering in stereoscopic 3d, now they need the games to be coded to interface with head tracking of an HMD and you could get a reasonably immersive experience for the mass market. All the technology is there, it just needs the pieces of the puzzle put together now.
A $200 bundle sounds nice on paper, but I think that would be very, very dangerous. The kind of compromises you have to make for that price point mean the hardware is not going to be very good, and disappointing the consumer audience with bad VR again might cripple interest like it has in the past.
Question for the optic guys: Can the optics for an HMD be simplified if stereoscopic vision is not supported? Would it also simplify the configuration/focus/game support etc..? I think a wide FOV and head tracking alone would be enough for an immersive experience. Maybe this is the way to create a mass market HMD?
brantlew wrote:Question for the optic guys: Can the optics for an HMD be simplified if stereoscopic vision is not supported? Would it also simplify the configuration/focus/game support etc..? I think a wide FOV and head tracking alone would be enough for an immersive experience. Maybe this is the way to create a mass market HMD?
I don't think so. Even with non-stereoscopic, you have the issue that you are trying to reduce the focal distance of the eyes by a magnitude of 100 times or more. If you are thinking of using a single screen, rather then two, then it gets even more difficult and need prisms or mirrors.
The optics can be simplified to a certain extent if you make a large HMD with the screen(s) further from your eyes like the welding mask one that someone here was making, but I don't see mass adoption of such a huge HMD.
The optics are not simplified, but the overall unit might cost less.
I am really excited with how things are going, though. Both Toshiba and Samsung have shown off WQXGA panels in tablet sizes, and Samsung's new mobile chipset they just announced supports resolutions up to, you guessed it, 2560x1600. All we need are some tablets in the 5" to 7" range with that screen, and we are set!
A $200 bundle etc will just put people OFF VR, not on. This sort of thing has been tried before (trimersion?) and I dont think its possible to do good VR on a low budget like that.
Unless the FOV is large, people will just be disappointed, and this will put VR back again. People are NOT going to pay for an experience that has no greater FOV than them playing on their flatscreen TV's.
Re high FOV from HMD's that are not massive, I don't really see this as being impossible. LEEP lenses etc can provide a FOV from 80-120 degrees. Sure they might not be eyeglasses type but I dont see that as being as important as the experience once worn.
I think brantlew has a point. You probably could significantly reduce the costs with a mono HMD. Thats 1/2 the optics, 1/2 the LCD cost, only 1 driver unit, etc. The LEEP guys reckon wide FOV is far more important for immersion than stereo, and this way you could sell the HMD to those who can't handle stereo.
Would be we possibly more likely to see VR take off again in an arcade/mall setting than for home use?
Arcades can provide the units to prevent people moving around in stand up games and also provide a higher quality (more expensive) experience. Problem there tho is the lack of traffic, and the human factors (cleaning etc) problems...
Really, we should just face the facts. VR is just not ready today for the mainstream. Its not cheap enough and its not even good enough to be at that point. It will one day, but that day is not tomorrow, and may be 5, 10, or many more years away. For now we should be happy that there is still and decent market for PC games and peripherals, and that we have things like stereo 3D drivers and the like. Realistically, we are going to have to wait it out and keep VR alive in the DIY scene as hobbyists. We can't just sit around and expect a Nintendo or Apple to magically come out with the finished product. Maybe that will happen, its even likely, but we are talking sometime within our life-time, not next year. But there is a lot to be explored in the mean-time, and with every passing month there are new developments that bring us closer to the dream.
But I agree with others, we can't go mainstream until the time is right. And we are just not there yet. The best thing right now is to do everything we can to make sure stereoscopic 3D is a huge success. Its really close to a tipping point and its a crucial stepping stone for the later success of VR. What I am saying is today's battle is making 3D a complete success, and a standard feature of all displays moving forward. We cannot lose this battle, or else the subsequent steps will never take place. One day at a time, guys. Our time will come.
why cannot the 'prism optics' be the standard as it results in greater FOV , ultra low weight and high portability as in case of emagin etc
emagin has been able to achieve fov 160 using the 'prism optics' - is this tech. patented with ultra expensive lenses ?
why Sony did not adopt this - i wonder ?
cannot imagine my joy if Sony were to incorporate 'prism optics' to boost fov to 120-160 and use their OLED-CF for superb image - i guess we have the perfect VR HMD in the making ?
ancjob wrote:why cannot the 'prism optics' be the standard as it results in greater FOV , ultra low weight and high portability as in case of emagin etc
emagin has been able to achieve fov 160 using the 'prism optics' - is this tech. patented with ultra expensive lenses ?
why Sony did not adopt this - i wonder ?
cannot imagine my joy if Sony were to incorporate 'prism optics' to boost fov to 120-160 and use their OLED-CF for superb image - i guess we have the perfect VR HMD in the making ?
There isn't really any advantage to prism based optics, other than it allowing you to mount the screen at 90 degrees to the eye, which can lead to more compact packaging.
Anything that uses refraction has basically the same set of issues.
ERP wrote:
There isn't really any advantage to prism based optics, other than it allowing you to mount the screen at 90 degrees to the eye, which can lead to more compact packaging.
Anything that uses refraction has basically the same set of issues.
but the FOV 'd be as high as 160 [ http://www.emagin.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ] keeping the HMD compact and lightweight....something which is impossible with conventional tech....of refraction....
Sony 'd not get the emagin to anter into contract for lens and optics......
i believe this prism optics is patented and lens being expensive hence not seen in any other HMD other than emagin and daeyang HMDs....
pierreye wrote:I'm so desperate to get a unit that I'm paying extra USD 200 from ebay to get one. Hopefully I can get it within a week.
pal - you 're being paranoid for sony HMD....i take it as headplay with HD non-reflective oleds , greater fov accepting HDMI with light blocking flaps provided....and Sony 'thing' is here to stay...so just have patience......patience and perseverance is a virtue.....
I have wait for ages for a good HMD and Sony HMD is the first one to tick most of my must have checkbox as a good HMD. Well, you only live once and I always believe earlier is better. I never save the best for last if I can afford. You never know what will happen tomorrow.
pierreye wrote:I have wait for ages for a good HMD and Sony HMD is the first one to tick most of my must have checkbox as a good HMD. Well, you only live once and I always believe earlier is better. I never save the best for last if I can afford. You never know what will happen tomorrow.
pal there are portable options like st1080 and cinemizer OLED and also epson HMD....2012 will see a lot of HMDs for consumers.....credit goes to Sony to have started the war of the HMDs for 'which is the best' - so far we had the vuzix making expensive sub-par toys now with Sony the challange is to beat Sony in it's 'HMD' game hence you have companies trying to outsmart Sony - so waiting is the virtue
ERP wrote:
There isn't really any advantage to prism based optics, other than it allowing you to mount the screen at 90 degrees to the eye, which can lead to more compact packaging.
Anything that uses refraction has basically the same set of issues.
but the FOV 'd be as high as 160 [ http://www.emagin.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ] keeping the HMD compact and lightweight....something which is impossible with conventional tech....of refraction....
Sony 'd not get the emagin to anter into contract for lens and optics......
i believe this prism optics is patented and lens being expensive hence not seen in any other HMD other than emagin and daeyang HMDs....
The folded light path using the internal reflection in the prism certainly reduces the space required, but not by a massive amount.
I don'r even understand where they are pulling the 160 degrees from, they state 39.5 degrees diagonally everywhere except the one place where they state "160 degrees in a stereo optic system" I don't even know what that means.
ancjob wrote:but the FOV 'd be as high as 160 [ http://www.emagin.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ] keeping the HMD compact and lightweight....something which is impossible with conventional tech....of refraction....
Emagin is being very misleading. They have not achieved a FOV of 160 degrees, they are using "field of view" to describe what every other company would call the "viewing angle" of the panels. As in, you can view the panel itself at an angle and still have it look good. 160 degree viewing angle is not very impressive, either, new OLEDs have angles of 178 or higher.
Prism optics are nifty, but they are not a magical technology. The reason the Emagin optics work so well is not because they are prism optics, it is because they are good optics in general. Welll designed conventional optics can work just as well! For example, I have a CyVisor, which uses reflective 800x600 panels, just like the Headplay. It weighs less than half the weight, though, and has a very large exit pupil, so it is not like looking through a "pinhole" at all! The reason the Headplay and Vuzix units are so much worse is because they are not using very high quality optics.
Prism based lenses have been used in other HMDs, too, notably the Olympus Eye-Trek line. But like good aspheric magnifiers, you can only make them so large using current optical molding technology. The Z800 prism lenses pushed it about as far as possible.
PalmerTech wrote:The reason the Emagin optics work so well is not because they are prism optics, it is because they are good optics in general. Welll designed conventional optics can work just as well!
Why are "good" optics so hard to manufacture? We're talking about glass purity and precision shaping right? Aren't these centuries old technologies? Why can they create such ultra pure and precise silicon crystal wafers for the electronics and not precision glass for the optics? Is it simply an economy of scales problem (no large fabs built for lens creation) or is it a fundamentally more challenging problem in some way?
pierreye wrote:I have wait for ages for a good HMD and Sony HMD is the first one to tick most of my must have checkbox as a good HMD. Well, you only live once and I always believe earlier is better. I never save the best for last if I can afford. You never know what will happen tomorrow.
pal there are portable options like st1080 and cinemizer OLED and also epson HMD....2012 will see a lot of HMDs for consumers.....credit goes to Sony to have started the war of the HMDs for 'which is the best' - so far we had the vuzix making expensive sub-par toys now with Sony the challange is to beat Sony in it's 'HMD' game hence you have companies trying to outsmart Sony - so waiting is the virtue
Indeed. The chain of events that led up to my demise in ordering the Sony HMD make a convincing case for fate as a tangible force in the universe. After so many years sitting on the sidelines and watching for something good, the resident motivation became a palpable rage as I turned from one of the first to know and pre-order to a castaway on the ocean of static which Sony nurtures lovingly...like a harpy slowly roasting it's young. Patience...through will or fate. Indeed.
PalmerTech wrote:The reason the Emagin optics work so well is not because they are prism optics, it is because they are good optics in general. Welll designed conventional optics can work just as well!
Why are "good" optics so hard to manufacture? We're talking about glass purity and precision shaping right? Aren't these centuries old technologies? Why can they create such ultra pure and precise silicon crystal wafers for the electronics and not precision glass for the optics? Is it simply an economy of scales problem (no large fabs built for lens creation) or is it a fundamentally more challenging problem in some way?
If you are using glass, then yes, you can create very precise, precision optics. Problem is, it costs a LOT to make precise glass optics; Look at decent telescope eyepieces, for example. They can cost upwards of $500! Plus, glass is heavy, which is a big deal in an HMD.
That means that using plastic (acrylic) lenses is the only realistic solution. Good acrylic lenses are not ground like glass, they are made using a mold. Problem is, molds are a bit unpredictable, especially in regards to cooling compression. Designing precision molds that compensate for these defects is expensive and takes a lot of skill/luck/attempts. Even worse, the larger the lens is, the more expensive the mold is!
The Sony optics are really, really good, probably the best I have seen in a consumer HMD. All the time they took to get it right shows.
