zlacker

>>gumby+(OP)
The thing that got me about the Magic Leap is I couldn't find a reliable video of what it looked like through the lenses. Everything was clearly a CGI overlay or recreation. Reviewers claimed they were prohibited from showing video through the lenses.[0]

I can understand not wanting their product misrepresented, but all the secrecy and censorship about it makes me believe it is bad, and I'm not going to spend money on something I believe is bad.

0. https://youtu.be/TfzlU7nW23Y?t=34

>>daenz+X3
VR looks shitty in video through the lenses too, but it's actually really cool. I wouldn't have been put off buying a Vive by lackluster video captures, because people were saying really good things about it (or, at least, a lot of the things I wanted to hear to convince me to be an early adopter).

I guess Magic Leap's problem is that their product is thoroughly meh. Nobody is raving about it (that I'm aware of), and nothing I've seen makes me feel like going out of my way to try one.

>>cacony+Np
One major difference between VR and AR content is that VR can do blacks. Current AR is limited to overlaying more light onto a piece of your visual field. It has no way to make any spot more dark. This is fine for VR, since there should be no other light leaking in apart from what is produced by the unit. AR at the least needs a projector that can compete with the amount of light in the your scene already.

>>kaibee+bF
You could make an occlusion shutter but I haven’t seen a small lcd with the requisite speed and resolution.

>>gumby+nF
You actually can't do that: People have tried, but the plane of focus makes the LCD too blurry. It's an unsolved technology problem.

>>drcode+RK
So the whole light field techbuzz was just vaporware hype? Or no, but even that can't do black?

>>pas+k81
Actually, my understanding is that light field is actually the ONLY way you could have ar with opaque black. However, you'd need orders of magnitude better light field tech than what's available.