or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Oculus Rift VR Headsets
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oculus Rift VR Headsets - Page 7

post #181 of 286
The hmz worked for me to create the big screen feel but not right away. I first needed to mod the device to make it comfortable to wear. Then I had to watch it in complete darkness so as not to see anything around me. Maybe the biggest influence on my perceiving the image as large was the audio, either by having my home theater speakers take care of the audio or to use surround processing go to headphones. Also a transducer in my sofa helped as well.

Once I got used to wearing the device and allowed my mind to focus on the actual content did the magic occur. So I can understand why many couldn't ever be convinced of the illusion of a gigantic screen when just trying it for a little while under less than ideal circumstances. You don't realize how many other elements enter the picture that are taking you out of perceiving the image size.

I guess that's one huge benefit of OR in that it takes care of your entire FOV so you have nothing visibly to ruin the suspension.
post #182 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Yes.  I'm sorry, let me rephrase: YES!  ^What he said.  And you can make this point (both the general observation of some AVSers, and the precise example of 4K) over and over until you are blue in the fingertips and it still will remain ignored.

I have tried for years. And I'm ignored. C'est la vie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith808 View Post

I guess that's one huge benefit of OR in that it takes care of your entire FOV so you have nothing visibly to ruin the suspension.

Yup, the OR has to do this. It can never break your brain's knowledge of the fact you're in a room with goggles, but the deprivation really helps make the illusion seem real.
post #183 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I have tried for years. And I'm ignored. C'est la vie.
Yup, the OR has to do this. It can never break your brain's knowledge of the fact you're in a room with goggles, but the deprivation really helps make the illusion seem real.

Aiming high on the illusion is commendable but it is also the problem of OR. With expectations so running high people tend to say: it is fine but..The list of buts is growing every time: first there was insufficient res and screen doors of the display, then imperfections in motion tracking. Now you hear that it would be better if one would be keeping real gun when pointing and shooting while this gun would be rendered in the display. This may end up in the requirement for full body representation mapping actions to the display, like a sexy marriage of Kinect and OR. It looks like wearing OR and running around the room with fake machine gun while shouting and shooting is a brave new future around the corner biggrin.gif.
Edited by irkuck - 2/2/14 at 11:26pm
post #184 of 286
Let me know when you experience the Oculus Rift, irkuck, what you think.
post #185 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Let me know when you experience the Oculus Rift, irkuck, what you think.

Sure, but who knows maybe I'll have something to report earlier since becoming freshly minted starter of Glyph kickbirth, expecting Dec.'14 at latest biggrin.gif.
post #186 of 286
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Sure, but who knows maybe I'll have something to report earlier since becoming freshly minted starter of Glyph kickbirth, expecting Dec.'14 at latest biggrin.gif.

If you do...please start a "Glyph" thread. Since this one is really about Oculus Rift and the technologies relevant to VR. And your investment in Glyph seems to imply an "agenda". Which is fine. But ou have been critical of OR since the Opening pages. And that is fair game too and is encouraged. As long as no personal agenda is imparted. My take is this...you seem to ignore major progress OR has made and continues to make in all areas you're critical of. In fact they don't even consider some of the weaknesses you mention like head tracking as significant anymore. Plus they will continue to improve as technology itself improves. Some of that improvement may even derive from projects like Glyph. It's not about "expectations" being so high on OR as you suggest. It's about "buy-in" at this stage of their critical path. And as mentioned before. When the defense department is exploring deploying versions this technology in Colorado to pilot drones & other aircraft in life & Death missions...It has moved way beyond the primitive stage you are suggesting. Ditto with NASA and others. There are technology exchanges going on in multiple directions with Oculus Rift from lots of sources. The fact that OR has chosen VR videogames and movies (secondary) as their consumer critical path is challenging. But all of the problems are solvable. You seem to be just ignoring that their platform has already been deemed much more relevant than Glyph or anything like it. Fair game if we are just talking HDTV viewing. But your bias is showing through a wee bit in this discussion. Even though it is being adequately rebutted by others in the context of exactly what OR is trying to do.
post #187 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Sure, but who knows maybe I'll have something to report earlier since becoming freshly minted starter of Glyph kickbirth, expecting Dec.'14 at latest biggrin.gif.

These Kickstarter projects have a great tendency to slip way behind schedule.
post #188 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

If you do...please start a "Glyph" thread. Since this one is really about Oculus Rift and the technologies relevant to VR. And your investment in Glyph seems to imply an "agenda". Which is fine. But ou have been critical of OR since the Opening pages. And that is fair game too and is encouraged. As long as no personal agenda is imparted. My take is this...you seem to ignore major progress OR has made and continues to make in all areas you're critical of. In fact they don't even consider some of the weaknesses you mention like head tracking as significant anymore. Plus they will continue to improve as technology itself improves. Some of that improvement may even derive from projects like Glyph. It's not about "expectations" being so high on OR as you suggest. It's about "buy-in" at this stage of their critical path. And as mentioned before. When the defense department is exploring deploying versions this technology in Colorado to pilot drones & other aircraft in life & Death missions...It has moved way beyond the primitive stage you are suggesting. Ditto with NASA and others. There are technology exchanges going on in multiple directions with Oculus Rift from lots of sources. The fact that OR has chosen VR videogames and movies (secondary) as their consumer critical path is challenging. But all of the problems are solvable. You seem to be just ignoring that their platform has already been deemed much more relevant than Glyph or anything like it. Fair game if we are just talking HDTV viewing. But your bias is showing through a wee bit in this discussion. Even though it is being adequately rebutted by others in the context of exactly what OR is trying to do.

This thread became synonymous with eyes-in technology as it has been created when OR was the only chick in town. It would not make sense to create 'Glyph' thread here as much as the 'OR' thread does not make sense in a forum on flat panel displays and OLED when in fact even 'flat' does not reflect reality anymore (say hello to the famous conservatism of AVS mgmt). So I see the Glyph discussion here as enriching the thread. About the OR expectations it is generally recognized OR is behind its original schedule. Reason for this is that initial promises of 'ideal' VR got hard landing when confronted with the intricacies of the technology. The CES demo of the OR gave further argument to this point since completely new external motion tracking system was shown. This is far from the initial system of tracking integrated in the headset. I am thus talking about hard facts which you interpret as conspiracy theory with agenda. BTW, there is no doubt whatsoever that on contracts from the DOD, NASA, NSA and other three and four letter agencies OR can be made absolutely perfect. The problem is that it won't be consumer product anymore since costs will play a minor role if at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

These Kickstarter projects have a great tendency to slip way behind schedule.

Glyph is existing in good, workable prototypes. The goal of getting it productized in one year time seems realistic. What may be disturbing its launch is an effect similar to the expectations bar of OR: seeing the Glyph product with its modest, not all-encompassing goals, people may say: yeah it works but would like to have bigger FOV, more res, perfect motion tracking - thus craving for the OR specs. For me as a kickstarter this is minor problem since Glyph has a fallback to high-end headphones and video projected to the eye is fascinating, worth some experimenting with own generated signals biggrin.gif.

And that's where the Glyph may shine guys, no demanding motion tracking required.
Edited by irkuck - 2/4/14 at 12:46am
post #189 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Glyph principle: direct eye projection, it makes it fundamentally different.

I've seen this claimed repeated many times around the internet, that there is some special visual quality gained with how the Glyph projects an image directly into your retina. I'm highly skeptical of the claim, as the only way we can see at all is if light reaches the inside of our eyes. You're much more knowledgeable about the Glyph than me, so maybe you can answer the question. What exactly is it that makes that better? They claim it's better because it's more natural, but how is it more natural? I need some hard science to convince me that the claim is something other than fluff.
Edited by Airion - 2/4/14 at 3:48am
post #190 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Glyph principle: direct eye projection, it makes it fundamentally different.

I've seen this claimed repeated many times around the internet, that there is some special visual quality gained with how the Glyph projects an image directly into your retina. I'm highly skeptical of the claim

 

I also don't like the way they're framing this.  ALL images start outside the eye and end up as a projection "directly" on the retina.  Every last thing you see is like this.

 

Take a look at their diagram.  I don't see how it's fundamentally different from any other displayed rectangle in front of your eyes.

http://i0.wp.com/www.roadtovr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Avegant-Virtual-Retinal-Display-Infographic.png

post #191 of 286
When referring to the eye-projection principle as fundamentally different I do not mean the current Glyph is fundamentally different. I see it rather as a potential first step towards practical realization of supernormal vision, when one looks at Fig. 2 there it strikes that a version of micromirrors with added movements in depth could be used for projecting with precise wavefront compensation.
post #192 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I also don't like the way they're framing this.  ALL images start outside the eye and end up as a projection "directly" on the retina.  Every last thing you see is like this.

Take a look at their diagram.  I don't see how it's fundamentally different from any other displayed rectangle in front of your eyes.

Well, it's fundamentally different than any other display that uses a screen, for one.

And it seems like it might be fundamentally different than previous microdisplay solutions where the microdisplay sat in front of the eye and you looked straight at it.

Here, you are never looking directly at the DMD (which I presume is a TI DLP chip, but I have done no research)... which is good because those things don't really produce anything resembling a human-processable image. But basically, this seems like a tiny DLP projector where the DMD --> optics --> eyeball replaces the normal DMD --> optics --> screen --> eyeball method. (Yes, I've simplified).

Forget this "direct retina" stuff for a second, the fact is the first and only time this image is ever focused is in your eye. Not on some LCOS microdisplay sitting 2 inches in front of your eye. Not on a screen in your Oculus Rift goggles.

There is a lot of reason to believe this technology will ultimately find its way into a future Oculus Rift design assuming it works as advertised.

That said, I still believe it has no implications for mass-market movie watching.
post #193 of 286
^Indeed, there is something in this principle which makes there is absolutely no screen door effect. But will the Glyph principle make its way to OR? On the side of OR method is phenomenal progress in very high density mobile (OLED) displays. At some density any screen door might be eliminated while the display willl offer ideal black level which is Achilles feet of micromirrors.
post #194 of 286
Thread Starter 
@Irkuck:

I read your response to my post this morning. And...I agree with a lot of your points. Certainly not all of them. I can sometimes sound like a fan-boy myself for OR. Even though it is not my intention. I have not given them a dime of my money yet (that will come with their first consumer product). And they most surely have given me nothing...except excitement about the future for OR. I actually like the discussion about Glyph tech and all of the other associated technologies that OR may deploy in its products (including miniature Flat panel OLED wink.gif ). I agree with you that it is enriching conversation of "Wearable Headsets" on a bigger scale. IMO the need to make a dedicated Glyph thread is the point in time when you or someone else decides that it needs to be dissected in its own space because of clearly divergent priorities. But in this one it is useful only to compare different approaches to bring the best or most optimum VR Headset or HDTV Headsets to market. "Flat Panel General and OLED Technology" does not impart a size limitation. Hence this is where OR belongs in the AVS Forum of "Today". Along with HTPC Gaming IMO. But I think you are absolutely right on target, that the Forum itself needs to acknowledge the emergence of this intriguing and exciting new Display category...Wearable HD Displays and VR Headsets...by creating space for it when Oculus Rift launches....with subcategories like Gaming & Games, immersive miniature HDTV, Optical Disk, UHDTV in miniature, miscellaneous. This Category could take a lot of different spokes from center of the wheel because of its unique AV properties.

What you cite as hard realities at CES was simply OR showing work in progress along their critical path...which showcased their evolved thinking about several problems they had solved. Or ones that were already theoretically solved and in process of being implemented. That's their public take. Not mine. We'll all see how far they got when we get our hands on the consumer product. I personally don't care. Because I'll buy version 1.0 and upgrade to 2.0-...ad nauseum, if it works as promised even in the primitive state of 480p.

"BTW, there is no doubt whatsoever that on contracts from the DOD, NASA, NSA and other three and four letter agencies OR can be made absolutely perfect. The problem is that it won't be consumer product anymore since costs will play a minor role if at all."

Their version won't be a consumer product. But you can bet 100% there will be 2-way to 3-way information and technology exchanges going on. In fact...it apparently already is. That why Rogo is totally correct in his reaction to some of your comments. To wit...that you are undervaluing ORs commitment, strategic alliances (core competencies) and capabilities to overcome technical hurdles. I believe them when they say they've solved all of the problems you referenced. I just think we are looking at a "Continuous Improvement" process. One that is prelude to a major launch in 2014-2015. Each version will be better and better IMO. And who knows. OR is so well financed right now...They may buy GLYPH down the road. biggrin.gif If it works and is viable. There are some things about Glyph's approach that gives me reason to pause. Like Direct Retinal impact. There is a huge pathway for malevolence and corruption with that Genie. Mind control and hypnotism comes to front of mind with me.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/05/oculus-rift-and-thalmics-myo-armband-are-a-match-made-in-heaven-say-founders-and-investors/
Edited by barrelbelly - 2/5/14 at 11:48am
post #195 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

@Irkuck:
I agree with you that it is enriching conversation of "Wearable Headsets" on a bigger scale. IMO the need to make a dedicated Glyph thread is the point in time when you or someone else decides that it needs to be dissected in its own space because of clearly divergent priorities. But in this one it is useful only to compare different approaches to bring the best or most optimum VR Headset or HDTV Headsets to market. "Flat Panel General and OLED Technology" does not impart a size limitation. Hence this is where OR belongs in the AVS Forum of "Today". Along with HTPC Gaming IMO. But I think you are absolutely right on target, that the Forum itself needs to acknowledge the emergence of this intriguing and exciting new Display category...Wearable HD Displays and VR Headsets...by creating space for it when Oculus Rift launches....with subcategories like Gaming & Games, immersive miniature HDTV, Optical Disk, UHDTV in miniature, miscellaneous. This Category could take a lot of different spokes from center of the wheel because of its unique AV properties.

In a kinda typical turn, as AVS became older it got conservative. It is now a Deep, Deep South of AV technology with preference to old traditions over reality and thus the forum names like "Flat Panel" where there ar tons of discussions about Curved Panels and Flexible Panels. No wonder then stuff like VR headsets are covered under 3D or flat panels. Another twist is
on this topic is observed (inevitable?) movement from AVS to AVBusiness with "Great Found Deals" forums.

What you cite as hard realities at CES was simply OR showing work in progress along their critical path...which showcased their evolved thinking about several problems they had solved. Or ones that were already theoretically solved and in process of being implemented. That's their public take. Not mine. We'll all see how far they got when we get our hands on the consumer product. I personally don't care. Because I'll buy version 1.0 and upgrade to 2.0-...ad nauseum, if it works as promised even in the primitive state of 480p.
Their version won't be a consumer product. But you can bet 100% there will be 2-way to 3-way information and technology exchanges going on. In fact...it apparently already is. That why Rogo is totally correct in his reaction to some of your comments. To wit...that you are undervaluing ORs commitment, strategic alliances (core competencies) and capabilities to overcome technical hurdles. I believe them when they say they've solved all of the problems you referenced. I just think we are looking at a "Continuous Improvement" process. One that is prelude to a major launch in 2014-2015. Each version will be better and better IMO. And who knows. OR is so well financed right now...They may buy GLYPH down the road. biggrin.gif If it works and is viable. There are some things about Glyph's approach that gives me reason to pause. Like Direct Retinal impact. There is a huge pathway for malevolence and corruption with that Genie. Mind control and hypnotism comes to front of mind with me.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/05/oculus-rift-and-thalmics-myo-armband-are-a-match-made-in-heaven-say-founders-and-investors/[/quote]

The concern I am raising is in response to claims OR specs are way better than the modest Glyph. This is true but those better specs turn out to be much more difficult to translate into consumer product for the masses where there are tons of techno-economic optimizations have to be made. I hope OR will deliver soon, in 2014, but your link is illustrating weel the point I made before: Full VR is a beast with appetite hard to satisfy, so now there is craving for body representation. A noble goal but satisfying it would require another round of R&D, new economic model and further product launch postponing.
post #196 of 286
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

I hope OR will deliver soon, in 2014, but your link is illustrating weel the point I made before: Full VR is a beast with appetite hard to satisfy, so now there is craving for body representation. A noble goal but satisfying it would require another round of R&D, new economic model and further product launch postponing.

That's why I think they should just ram their initial launch stake in the ground in 2014...based on their vision of a reasonable VR experience. Then improve continuously...at a breakneck pace with 3rd party partners and their own IP. That's why I really like their approach of going after the PC and mobile markets first. Those markets actually demand rapid and continuous progress. We could be in OR version 4.0 before the start of 2016 IMO by launching into that market.But at least changes will be backwards compatible to a very large degree.
post #197 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

That why Rogo is totally correct .

The smartest thing you have ever written. wink.gif

But seriously, a good post.
post #198 of 286
The biggest problem with OR is going to be eye fatigue caused by trying to focus on those screens. Most people at these demos play it for 5 minutes and declare it the best thing since sliced bread. A VR headset will need to be worn for much longer periods with no eye fatigue, visible pixel structure or motion sickness to be mass market viable. If virtual retina displays like the Glyph can indeed increase their FOV required for full immersion, then it is clearly the superior format.
post #199 of 286
The micromirror chip Glyph is using
Edited by irkuck - 2/24/14 at 8:29am
post #200 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

The biggest problem with OR is going to be eye fatigue caused by trying to focus on those screens.

 

I've heard that the focusing is usually completely painless.  AIUI, there are ways of "focusing to infinity" and/or approximating parallel light sources that don't require your eye's lens to jump through any hoops.  It is not like focusing on a piece of paper 3 or whatever inches away.

post #201 of 286
post #202 of 286

 

Yeah.  A lot of failures.  I had hopes for this one (not in the article):

42e4ac8af6f01a61ac74b3d26bc145a0.jpg
post #203 of 286
That's why they are still only selling devkits, and not a retail product. They know that they have to get things right or they are doomed from the start.
post #204 of 286
^That is also compounded by very stringent requirements for VR, nothing less than perfect is acceptable. On the visual side there should be excellent pictures without a hint of artefacts - here I see the Glyph principle as inherently better. But even perfect visuals are not engough as people seem to want full and perfect body representation - either via Kinect-type sensors or body suits which makes things even more complicated.
post #205 of 286
You're missing an even more basic issue that needs to be solved before these gain public acceptance. They are very uncomfortable to wear for more than a few minutes. It's like wearing a diving mask on land. In addition, it also made my entire forehead sweat like crazy. I work for a game developer nearby Oculus HQ so we had a chance to evaluate the device for possible inclusion in our project. At this stage, I'm not sold and will wait for the dust to settle after they launch the consumer version. If I had to place a bet today, I'd wager than this will go down just like Nvidia's 3D gaming glasses.
post #206 of 286
^Indeed, ergonomy is even more critical than anything less since an otherwise perfect device which is uncomfortable to wear will not be accepted. The "diving mask" issue of OR is a very serious fundamental problem. I see the only potential way of solving it by a large FOV version of the projection method used in Glyph.
post #207 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

You're missing an even more basic issue that needs to be solved before these gain public acceptance. They are very uncomfortable to wear for more than a few minutes. It's like wearing a diving mask on land. In addition, it also made my entire forehead sweat like crazy. I work for a game developer nearby Oculus HQ so we had a chance to evaluate the device for possible inclusion in our project. At this stage, I'm not sold and will wait for the dust to settle after they launch the consumer version. If I had to place a bet today, I'd wager than this will go down just like Nvidia's 3D gaming glasses.

The ergonomics are, indeed, going to prevent the mainstream adoption of this technology from happening anytime soon. But a big difference between this and something like 3D gaming glasses is that Oculus Rift is orders of magnitude beyond the immersion effect of anything that came before it.

It's very hard to build a consumer product around something that might be enjoyed for 10-30 minutes before becoming uncomfortable and content will need to be built very cleverly to take that into account. Indeed, future OR headsets will have to find better ways to offer the right blend of closing off the world and keeping the wearer comfortable (perhaps the "dark room" model with less included light blocking to allow passage of more air/more comfort?) But 3D gaming was never going to be a breakthrough. It's a variant of gaming, which is already a niche.

Oculus Rift is so much more than just high-end gaming; at least in concept.
post #208 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

You're missing an even more basic issue that needs to be solved before these gain public acceptance. They are very uncomfortable to wear for more than a few minutes. It's like wearing a diving mask on land. In addition, it also made my entire forehead sweat like crazy. I work for a game developer nearby Oculus HQ so we had a chance to evaluate the device for possible inclusion in our project. At this stage, I'm not sold and will wait for the dust to settle after they launch the consumer version. If I had to place a bet today, I'd wager than this will go down just like Nvidia's 3D gaming glasses.

The ergonomics are, indeed, going to prevent the mainstream adoption of this technology from happening anytime soon. But a big difference between this and something like 3D gaming glasses is that Oculus Rift is orders of magnitude beyond the immersion effect of anything that came before it.

It's very hard to build a consumer product around something that might be enjoyed for 10-30 minutes before becoming uncomfortable and content will need to be built very cleverly to take that into account. Indeed, future OR headsets will have to find better ways to offer the right blend of closing off the world and keeping the wearer comfortable (perhaps the "dark room" model with less included light blocking to allow passage of more air/more comfort?) But 3D gaming was never going to be a breakthrough. It's a variant of gaming, which is already a niche.

Oculus Rift is so much more than just high-end gaming; at least in concept.

 

Two immediate thoughts come to mind:

 

1. The cringe factor with these things has been (albeit slowly) improving over time.

2. I'm not sure we can quite tell what is fringe yet.  Can we?

post #209 of 286
post #210 of 286
The HMZ-T design is horrible, and certainly not what you want from a VR headset. I can't wear it for more than a few minutes before it starts to become painful.
This is why the Oculus rift is based around a ski goggles design - it does a great job blocking ambient light, and spreads the weight over a much larger surface area.

It's still too front-heavy right now, but I'm not sure how you solve that properly without a counterweight at the back, which then doubles your weight altogether. I suppose it might be possible to move some of the electronics to the rear?

Anything which resembles "glasses" is going to have problems from that amount of weight resting on the bridge of your nose, and doing a poor job of blocking ambient light.

The Avegant Glyph design should benefit from having a solid brace across the top of your head, due to the "headphone" style design, which may do a good job distributing the weight - but I already have neck/shoulder problems when wearing the heavier high-end headphones. Anything over about 300g starts to be a problem.
Edit: I forgot that the Glyph changes between sitting on your head like headphones, and being a "glasses" style HMD. Terrible design for both applications.

Something with a solid headband across the top like a pair of headphones, which also rests on your face is probably the answer. But then it starts to look ridiculous.
Maybe if the Glyph design was modified to be a split headband, rather than the entire thing moving in front of your eyes it would work better.
Edited by Chronoptimist - 3/4/14 at 4:25am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Oculus Rift VR Headsets