Oculus Rift VR Headsets - Page 9 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 3Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #241 of 344 Old 03-25-2014, 03:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,674
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

The issue of having your lunch eaten is very real.  It's one of the reasons that small companies tend to make the exit strategy of being one day purchased the only strategy.

...[snip]...

My prediction using binoculars from far away: they get purchased or die relatively soon.

 

 

 

>cough< .... well that ought to do it!  Yikes.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #242 of 344 Old 03-25-2014, 03:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 254
The VR dream is dead. frown.gif
Osirus23 likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #243 of 344 Old 03-25-2014, 05:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
How is this not a good thing? The negativity around the Facebook acquisition seems silly to me.
barrelbelly and loader963 like this.
Airion is offline  
post #244 of 344 Old 03-25-2014, 06:10 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

How is this not a good thing? The negativity around the Facebook acquisition seems silly to me.

I completely agree with you. And my reasons were expressed over in the HTPC Area as follows:

Great comments! My own take is positive. As was said above. Zuckerberg brings a ton of resources, market potential and alliances to the table. And I agree with him that VR could become the dominant social media technology in the future. For games...videophone communication...family interaction...personalized movie watching...etc...I definitely see the fit. I'm just not sure about the pace of play. I assume that the current group will stay laser focused on PC & Mobile Gaming imperative for 2014-2015. But I bet developers are ecstatic about the capacity of building breakthrough social media elements right into the center of future VR games. PC gaming could become extremely rich because of this.

And they can port right over to PS4/Morpheus on a more limited basis for consoles! That is good. And right up Zuckerberg's wheelhouse of interests. His participation could drive the market very fast toward "YOUNG". And that is how major trends are birthed. Just like it did with his FaceBook platform. IMO VR is going to be a very social driven experience anyway. The fact that the premier Social Media guru in the world bought this company out, before the initial consumer version even launched speaks huge volumes to me. Mistake...no way IMO. Opportunistic?...yeah...with a huge exclamation point. That guy wouldn't have touched it if he didn't see gigantic upside. And the fact he is projecting user markets north of 1 billion is why he quickly took out the stage one investors. Obviously someone major (Apple? Microsoft? Google? NVidia? Intel?) was about to pounce for everyone concerned to ignite this activity. Overall I am super impressed. This allows the development team to cash up early big time! And cash out down the road when they go stage 3 or 4. I bet Palmer Lucky, Iribe, Carmack are already on paper Billionaires, based on future valued potential of their preferred stock options and cash. And a lot of other key players have huge incentives to make it a winner. As long as they stay very disciplined on the technical side and launch market focused...this spells home run to me.

But I have to ask tgm1024 this...Did you have insider info or what?! eek.gifbiggrin.gif Huge right guess on early buyout. And for $2 Billion nonetheless. How's that for earn up. Convert a $200 million investment to $2 Billion in one year on the basis of "Dev Kits". The insider game and buzz on what these "heavy hitters" see must be off the charts positive. Oculus Rift is now a very big company. One that can command scale up opportunity anywhere. This thing is ready to role out. I can't wait for E3 announcements. Maybe anticipation of this announcement is why Sony jumped out front last week. Microsoft may be SOL with XBox!
barrelbelly is offline  
post #245 of 344 Old 03-25-2014, 06:18 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

The VR dream is dead. frown.gif

C'mon Chron! Don't throw in the towel on this stuff. This is nothing but the VR pre-launch and just look how fast value, opportunity and scale are shaping up. And it is huge. It could very well m,ean that the power players of the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's decade are getting kicked off the stage for the new blood. VR just took real birth over the past 3 weeks. And its shaping up to be quite a ride.
barrelbelly is offline  
post #246 of 344 Old 03-25-2014, 06:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Indeed. People are calling it dead, before they even released a consumer product, and at the moment when it gained huge momentum. People are just jumping to and believing their worst Facebook fears.
barrelbelly likes this.
Airion is offline  
post #247 of 344 Old 03-25-2014, 06:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Osirus23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Notch just announced on Twitter that the OR version of Minecraft has been cancelled because of the acquisition.
Osirus23 is offline  
post #248 of 344 Old 03-25-2014, 06:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Oculus doesn't need Notch. He's just being emotional, reactionary anyway.

Check out what Palmer Luckey has been saying: http://www.reddit.com/user/palmerluckey Hopefully he will put some people at ease.
chriscic and barrelbelly like this.
Airion is offline  
post #249 of 344 Old 03-25-2014, 06:55 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post

Notch just announced on Twitter that the OR version of Minecraft has been cancelled because of the acquisition.

I bet this was really a budget issue being shaped as a reaction. And I bet we see Minecraft on Oculus Rift and PS4 Morpheus in 2015. When Valve, Origen, EA, Bioware says they're pissed...then I'll jump over there with you Osirus. But right now that means nothing except to Notch..
Airion likes this.
barrelbelly is offline  
post #250 of 344 Old 03-25-2014, 07:22 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 234
I think everyone needs to take a deep exhale...and think about the genius of how this announcement plays out in the pre-launch marketplace for VR and Oculus Rift. Zuckerberg is literally a Rock Star celebrity in the Entertainment Media and Tech Media worlds. He is one of The Daily Show tech Darlings. What he does becomes the buzz in so many places that is generationally relevant with young consumers. He just took Oculus Rift to full "Bright" in terms of buzz for so many audiences. Much more so than Sony's announcement with Morpheus. Look for him soon on the Daily Show, Oscars, Emmy;s and all over media, hawking OR during it's initial PC and Mobile launch. Young people and Kids will get it! Geeks will get it. We older tech nerds already get it.Even though many of us just wanted it exclusively on our own private PC terms. But trust me...when the VR games and HD movies start to roll we'll get it without blinking. Especially since our kids will think it's so cool, with all of the social media integration. Like I said before...looks like Microsoft is shaping up to be the big loser in Next Generation now so far.
barrelbelly is offline  
post #251 of 344 Old 03-25-2014, 07:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
brwsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 687
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

I think everyone needs to take a deep exhale...

Puff puff pass
catonic likes this.

I need a new money tree, this ones's starting to smell bad.
brwsaw is offline  
post #252 of 344 Old 03-25-2014, 11:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 67
On the conspiracy theory side, the OR story of making a lot of noise of how it progresses with product development without announcing specific product launch
could be just a bait to attract buy-out. Very successful strategy of making tons of money on promises.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #253 of 344 Old 03-26-2014, 03:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,349
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Liked: 601
Facebook seemed to talk a lot about non-gaming apps, yet it's pretty clear Oculus has done nothing to develop non-gaming apps to this point.

Also, Zuckerberg talked about "making eye contact" which appears to be one of the things the Rift fundamentally is incapable of allowing since you can't be wearing it and make eye contact with someone in a virtual space... That's sort of definitionally impossible unless (a) there's a camera inside the mask for just looking at your eyes (b) the rest of you is rendered pretty credibly around your eyes. None of this seems plausible in the 10-year timeframe -- if ever, really. We'd need tech on the level of what they had in Caprica and that seemed to use goggles, but the implication was a much deeper link into the brain because it wasn't even especially immersive visually. Honestly, the company that develops such a thing will not be the company that perfects visual VR.

My point is this: I don't really think this was a fully-baked idea.

That said, I think having unlimited resources to develop Oculus Rift is good for Oculus Rift. I think it's weird that a social network that primarily runs on smartphones wants to develop a technology that fundamentally involves strapping a head-mounted display on in your living room and we're really going to see the gigantic gap between virtual reality and augmented reality emerge here... The absolutely anti-social social device vs. the semi-social social device is going to be profound as some version of Google Glass hits the market at about the same time as some version of the OR does and the two are basically used in almost entirely unrelated ways.

I don't love this deal for Facebook, but I'm not sure why it's bad for Oculus, since it appears Facebook has no real intention of mucking with Oculus. It hasn't mucked with Instagram, which dovetails closely with Facebook. How it would even muck with Oculus, which doesn't, is unclear.
barrelbelly likes this.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #254 of 344 Old 03-26-2014, 05:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 67
^Maybe Zuck envisions social media in virtual space, avatars and other creature socializing in ways unthinkable in Facebook biggrin.gif.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #255 of 344 Old 03-26-2014, 05:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,674
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

^Maybe Zuck envisions social media in virtual space, avatars and other creature socializing in ways unthinkable in Facebook biggrin.gif.

 

It's been pretty clear for a while now that Facebook has been very much concerned with the "what next" problem.  Aside from pitiful changes to their UI that more often than not just pisses off legions of people, they've been really stuck about how to move to another game changer.  And make no mistake: if you don't continue to grow, you run a serious risk of becoming a stale technology in an otherwise moving landscape.

 

They've already grown to absurd degrees within the direction and scope they originally carved out.  Not even Google could make a dent in it <---pay attention to that!  What MZ needed desperately was to grow laterally.  They even attempted a schizophrenic entrance to the phone arena.  We're not going to see OR become a facebook addon for facebook apps.  We're not going to see OR be a facebook device.  We're going to see OR left alone to be OR as a technology leverageable by facebook UI/apps etc., but a full blown product in its own right.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #256 of 344 Old 03-26-2014, 06:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,674
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

But I have to ask tgm1024 this...Did you have insider info or what?! eek.gifbiggrin.gif Huge right guess on early buyout. And for $2 Billion nonetheless.

 

That it's $2 Billion is because it's MZ and he seems to like to buy things for too much money...I honestly believe he has a "Because I can" complex: (think Instagram for $1 Billion and WhatsApp for $19 Billion).

 

As far as the me having insider info chuckle, nope.  But it's a common pattern, and the only strategy available to small companies in the vast majority of situations like this.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #257 of 344 Old 03-26-2014, 09:11 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

^Maybe Zuck envisions social media in virtual space, avatars and other creature socializing in ways unthinkable in Facebook biggrin.gif.

Interesting...but that is exactly what he said to analysts. My only caveat with this deal is that I agree with everyone who question if FaceBook was the right partner for Oculus Rift. From a Financial standpoint it was a perfect fit. From a corporate culture standpoint...again a perfect fit. Zuck and the gang are completely hands off in style and practice. So the OR gang can pursue their scientific strategies and alliances in relative peace. The stage gets much less stable when we get to branding strategies. I quote an article in NY Times today:

"According to a person involved in the deal who was not allowed to speak publicly because he was not authorized by either company, Facebook eventually plans to redesign the Oculus hardware and rebrand it with a Facebook interface and logo."

That could cause an internal factional war. And Zuck better think long and hard before trying that. A lot of people do not like FaceBook. I'm one of those. I've never even used it. Because to me it was too open and intrusive. The rest of my family (wife...kids...Grandkids love it. But with that said, I know this also can be made to work. So 2 out of 3 in the synergy arena isn't bad. I do know this from a branding standpoint. Having a big pair of goggles on your face labeled "FaceBook" would not be cool to anybody except Zuckerberg. So he better retreat from that bad idea fast. Or no one will buy it. Just stick with Oculus Rift and let developers brand social media in their games off of the FaceBook technical spine anyway they choose. That's the win-win.

I still believe Apple was the right Buy out partner for Oculus Rift. And that could still happen somewhere down the road. But this arrangement could also work. It's just more risky. I'll be much more interested to hear what the real big Oculus Rift players have to say, when they inevitably wade in. By that I mean Valve, EA, Origen, Bioware et al. That will tell the whole story. Simply because that is where the stories will come from.
barrelbelly is offline  
post #258 of 344 Old 03-26-2014, 11:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Also, Zuckerberg talked about "making eye contact" which appears to be one of the things the Rift fundamentally is incapable of allowing since you can't be wearing it and make eye contact with someone in a virtual space... That's sort of definitionally impossible unless (a) there's a camera inside the mask for just looking at your eyes (b) the rest of you is rendered pretty credibly around your eyes. None of this seems plausible in the 10-year timeframe -- if ever, really.
This is already possible today. Sony have eye-tracking technologies which are used for selecting the focus point in their cameras, and they just recently showed off a PlayStation demo using a similar concept. (tracking your eye position to move the camera in the game) I have heard some very positive impressions about that eye-tracking demo. It would not be implausible to implement that tech in a VR headset.

And I'm sure Facebook would love to have a camera pointed at your face all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

That said, I think having unlimited resources to develop Oculus Rift is good for Oculus Rift.
Yes, in all seriousness, this will give them the resources to make the rift a much better product. However, I refuse to give Facebook any money (or information) so that kills the rift as a product for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I don't love this deal for Facebook, but I'm not sure why it's bad for Oculus, since it appears Facebook has no real intention of mucking with Oculus. It hasn't mucked with Instagram, which dovetails closely with Facebook. How it would even muck with Oculus, which doesn't, is unclear.
Well that's what they're saying now at least. We'll see whether that changes in a few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

I still believe Apple was the right Buy out partner for Oculus Rift.
I don't see how it fits with anything Apple is doing.
Osirus23 likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #259 of 344 Old 03-26-2014, 06:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 234
@ Chronoptomist who said:

"I don't see how it fits with anything Apple is doing."

Apple has patents on VR devices that it filed extensions for with the US patent office in 2012 or 2013. While I have not researched the nature of their patents...They obviously have more than a casual interest in the VR category. From VR computing (ala Minority Report) to New VR retail experiences to Virtual entertainment...I think they fit. And they brought a lot to OR table IMO.
barrelbelly is offline  
post #260 of 344 Old 03-26-2014, 11:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,349
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Liked: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

This is already possible today. Sony have eye-tracking technologies which are used for selecting the focus point in their cameras, and they just recently showed off a PlayStation demo using a similar concept. (tracking your eye position to move the camera in the game) I have heard some very positive impressions about that eye-tracking demo. It would not be implausible to implement that tech in a VR headset.

No. It's not possible today. Put an OR on. Now, I'll put mine on. How in God's name do you expect to make eye contact with me? There is no way a camera can be pointed at my face when I have an OR on. Nor can you have one. The very requirement for us to both end "V space" ends any chance of us making eye contact. It would be avatar-to-avatar contact, which is already going to feel very fake.

Eye tracking and eye contact could not be further removed.
Quote:
And I'm sure Facebook would love to have a camera pointed at your face all the time.

Yep, too bad when you're wearing a scuba mask with an opaque front you don't look like you.
Quote:
Yes, in all seriousness, this will give them the resources to make the rift a much better product. However, I refuse to give Facebook any money (or information) so that kills the rift as a product for me.
Well that's what they're saying now at least. We'll see whether that changes in a few years.

Well, you and probably 2-5% of people feel this way. Maybe it's a few more than that. And it's unfortunate. I mean that sincerely. I doubt Facebook will ever earn your trust.
Quote:
I don't see how it fits with anything Apple is doing.

Nor do I. Honestly, an augmented-reality product from Apple (think a less terrible version of Google Glass down the road maybe) fits in some ways. I'm not sure how a gaming / place-centered tech really does. Of course, if Apple starts buying stuff on the Facebook/Google model: Own it, let it grow on its own, eventually begin folding it in, Apple would become as good an acquirer as those guys and maybe better... I mean, the hate for Apple is less about privacy violations and more about irrational dislike for its business model, which would really not apply if it just when to buy-and-not-bother.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #261 of 344 Old 03-27-2014, 12:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

No. It's not possible today. Put an OR on. Now, I'll put mine on. How in God's name do you expect to make eye contact with me? There is no way a camera can be pointed at my face when I have an OR on. Nor can you have one. The very requirement for us to both end "V space" ends any chance of us making eye contact. It would be avatar-to-avatar contact, which is already going to feel very fake.
Sorry, I thought you meant "making eye contact" in the virtual world (eye tracking) not in real life.
You're correct that you can't do VR with a transparent headset so it's not possible to do that.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #262 of 344 Old 03-27-2014, 06:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,674
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

No. It's not possible today. Put an OR on. Now, I'll put mine on. How in God's name do you expect to make eye contact with me? There is no way a camera can be pointed at my face when I have an OR on. Nor can you have one. The very requirement for us to both end "V space" ends any chance of us making eye contact. It would be avatar-to-avatar contact, which is already going to feel very fake.
Sorry, I thought you meant "making eye contact" in the virtual world (eye tracking) not in real life.
You're correct that you can't do VR with a transparent headset so it's not possible to do that.

 

You can't even do fake eye contact properly.  You can get it so that the faces look like they're facing each other, but actual eye to eye is currently impossible.

 

Have you ever spoken to someone that was focused on something slightly off of your eyes?  It's immediately noticeable.  And where your face is drawn will not likely draw the eyes dead on.

 

Now talk to someone and look down a few inches the way we often do in conversation...we'll often keep the head positioned but move the eyes to look upward.

 

No, real eye-to-eye contact that actually feels even remotely like eye-to-eye contact requires the VR sensor to know precisely where the eyes themselves are directed.

 

One hokey exception to this: If they actually modify the eyes of the face you're looking at to point to you.  If the eyes are drawn in that ill-advised fashion, then their eyes could potentially "lock" on the camera (your eyes).  But then they'll never move off of you.  The person would look like a complete psycho, especially as he moves his head.  It'll never look right unless they know where your eyes are really directed.

rogo likes this.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #263 of 344 Old 03-27-2014, 06:12 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

Apple has patents on VR devices that it filed extensions for with the US patent office in 2012 or 2013. While I have not researched the nature of their patents...They obviously have more than a casual interest in the VR category. From VR computing (ala Minority Report) to New VR retail experiences to Virtual entertainment...I think they fit. And they brought a lot to OR table IMO.

Evidently it's Apple's progress in VR that put off Oculus. Palmer Luckey said on Reddit http://www.reddit.com/user/palmerluckey:

"Why would we want to sell to someone like MS or Apple? So they can tear the company apart and use the pieces to build out their own vision of virtual reality, one that fits whatever current strategy they have? Not a chance."

It looks like Oculus chose Facebook exactly because they have no business in VR, meaning they could remain independent. "Not a good fit for VR" was in fact just what they were looking for.
barrelbelly likes this.
Airion is offline  
post #264 of 344 Old 03-27-2014, 07:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, real eye-to-eye contact that actually feels even remotely like eye-to-eye contact requires the VR sensor to know precisely where the eyes themselves are directed.
Which can be done today. The current Oculus hardware doesn't include it, but Sony just had a demo of eye tracking in games at GDC:


Not the best video, but I've heard from people that used this and they said it was very good.
Sony also have similar eye-tracking tech in their SLR cameras which let you set the focus point based on where you are looking - and that's something which is small enough to fit in a camera viewfinder.

It's definitely feasible that such technology could be put inside a VR headset.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #265 of 344 Old 03-27-2014, 07:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,674
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, real eye-to-eye contact that actually feels even remotely like eye-to-eye contact requires the VR sensor to know precisely where the eyes themselves are directed.
Which can be done today. The current Oculus hardware doesn't include it, but Sony just had a demo of eye tracking in games at GDC:


Not the best video, but I've heard from people that used this and they said it was very good.
Sony also have similar eye-tracking tech in their SLR cameras which let you set the focus point based on where you are looking - and that's something which is small enough to fit in a camera viewfinder.

It's definitely feasible that such technology could be put inside a VR headset.

 

I'm just saying it cannot be done without actually sensing the eyes....which is what I thought you were asserting.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #266 of 344 Old 03-27-2014, 01:40 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Evidently it's Apple's progress in VR that put off Oculus. Palmer Luckey said on Reddit http://www.reddit.com/user/palmerluckey:

"Why would we want to sell to someone like MS or Apple? So they can tear the company apart and use the pieces to build out their own vision of virtual reality, one that fits whatever current strategy they have? Not a chance."

It looks like Oculus chose Facebook exactly because they have no business in VR, meaning they could remain independent. "Not a good fit for VR" was in fact just what they were looking for.

Know what? You're dead on right! And so are those young Oculus Rift Gurus IMO. They made the very best decision to help them keep their commitments to consumers and VR enthusiasts in the shortest possible period of time. Yet allow them the freedom of control. With a very high potential to earn up themselves in the future. The entire decision was about capturing manufacturing clout in Asia for rapid rollout, Linking with the pre-eminent Social media force on the planet...especially since that will be such a huge component of the total VR experience in every single industry and product segment. And maintaining control of their agenda while using someone else's money. The more I think about this, the more perfect it becomes. And I am not selling myself. Because I don't care fro FaceBook at all. But it's not because of animus about Zuckerberg. It's about the platform itself. But that's off topic. I think when everyone really calms down on this they will see how Microsoft, Apple, Sony, or a few other companies likely bidding fro control of them would have totally screwed them up. I was guardedly excited about this after hearing the news of the buy out. Now I am ecstatic! These guys have some very big dinosaurs on their heels today. VR will blaze its own path with new young blood. Albeit with older money!
barrelbelly is offline  
post #267 of 344 Old 03-27-2014, 04:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,349
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Liked: 601
TGM/Chron, it's all interesting stuff.

That said, I think Zuck really mis-spoke on the conference call. We're 10+ years away from credible avatars + eye tracking making it look like two of us with OR headsets on are looking at each other and feeling like that's remotely natural.

That's not a knock on OR. I think you all know I'm pretty freaking bullish on the technology. I just don't see it as a social technology at all as it's currently conceived except for bringing us to the same virtual space. And that's an important kind of social, because, well, any of you who have played MMOs know how cool even that can be, right?

But while there'll be some magic in being in a virtual space with someone in Taiwan while we both wear a Rift headset, it's going to be different than the magic of just opening Facetime and seeing them, looking back at you. For a long, long time.
barrelbelly likes this.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #268 of 344 Old 03-27-2014, 05:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
barrelbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 234
The following articles are the best balanced and informative ones I have seen. IGN and other game sites are just irrelevant Fanboy sewer surfing IMO. The last 2 articles relate to Valve. Upon reflection and past moves made over the last 3 months by OR and Valve, I think they were on board with this all along. IMO Valve just want VR and Oculus Rift to happen ASAP. Because it is customized to their strategies for Future Games Software...Steam OS...Retail....and PC hardware/Steambox evolution. I think this deal gives Valve everything they want without them having to invest hard dollars for Oculus Rift's scale up. I would bet they got some pretty big exclusive deals imbedded in that buy out, along with royalty futures for all of that patent collaboration and people seeding.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2112181/what-facebooks-oculus-rift-buy-means-for-pc-gamers.html

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/27/oculus-rift-facebook-video-games/?section=money_topstories

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-03-11-oculus-rift-recruits-valves-vr-project-lead-as-chief-architect

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/174661-valve-announces-steamvr-an-oculus-rift-mode-for-steam
barrelbelly is offline  
post #269 of 344 Old 04-01-2014, 12:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Well it's certainly possible to discuss the pros and cons of different technologies without having seen them or spent a lot of time with them, but irkuck seems focused on posting positive news about the Glyph (not a VR headset) and negative comments on the Rift (something he sees as competing with the Glyph) in this topic.

Well, I admit I saw only the previous version of OR and my impressions about visuals were light years from the hype. I am also of the opinion that VR visuals must be perfect, otherwise devices won't be accepted. Reportedly, the current version of OR has much improved visuals but still not perfect, i.e. it is still problematic from the acceptance point. I mentioned here that even with very high pixel density a major problem with getting perfect VR visuals is visibility of display surface. From this point of view Glyph principle is revolutionary, there is no display surface - this is like real world projecting to the eye. Reports about Glyph visuals PQ were always positive, I have not found anything on the negative side. One negative mentioned was limited FOV but this is not relevant from the point of PQ. I believe Glyph will beat Sony in the same device class, Glyph with 1080 micromirror chip for each eye could have the same FOV as OR and beat it on PQ. So my reporting can not be said biased, my only bias is that I invested into Glyph fascinated by its principle cool.gif.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #270 of 344 Old 04-02-2014, 02:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Well, I admit I saw only the previous version of OR and my impressions about visuals were light years from the hype. I am also of the opinion that VR visuals must be perfect, otherwise devices won't be accepted. Reportedly, the current version of OR has much improved visuals but still not perfect, i.e. it is still problematic from the acceptance point.
All that has been shown has been development kits, not consumer hardware. The original devkit was very low resolution - something that anyone using an Oculus should have been very aware of. DK2 significantly increases the resolution to 1080p and moves from LCD to OLED.
The consumer version should be using a panel with at least 2560x1440 resolution on its release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Reports about Glyph visuals PQ were always positive, I have not found anything on the negative side. One negative mentioned was limited FOV but this is not relevant from the point of PQ.
Field of view is directly related to image quality. The higher your field of view, the larger surface area each individual pixel covers. A low FoV device like the Glyph (45°?) is going to have a much higher pixel density than something with 110° FoV
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

I believe Glyph will beat Sony in the same device class
Sony's Morpheus is a VR headset like the Oculus Rift. Glyph is a personal 3D viewer. They are not in the same device class.

The Glyph is in the same class of products as Sony's old HMZ headsets - which are also personal 3D viewers with a 45° FoV, rather than VR headsets.
Chronoptimist is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Oculus Rift Developers Kit

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off