Avegant muestra un prototipo basado en campos de luz

What it’s more excited about is its light field display. Light field technology, with regards to AR headsets, works by replicating how the human eye perceives light and then structuring virtual images that can be placed at different, fixed distances in an environment. The human eye can also look at them in the same way as physical objects.

This means you can close one eye and still perceive the full image and even change which object in a scene you’re focusing on by squinting at a far-off object. Because these objects are not made of traditional pixels, and instead constructed out of light and essentially blasted onto your retinas, they can behave more organically than 2D VR images being warped to fit a 3D screen, as is the case with the Oculus Rift.

Avegant has developed a lightweight prototype of its AR headset's final design. However, its product is expected to appear in 12 to 18 months. Signs of its immaturity ranged from tracking issues that caused a virtual model to be transposed out of the field of view and resolution lines caused by prototype optics.

HoloLens still has a few advantages over the Avegant prototype. Microsoft's headset is an independent unit while Avegant's prototype requires being tethered to a PC. HoloLens can also map a room by itself; the Avegant prototype requires external tracking sensors similar to the HTC Vive's. But the Avegant readily admits that independent headsets that can map out a room and determine one's placement in it are quickly becoming the standard.

FoV was better than HoloLens and ODG, less than Meta. It was honestly really hard to ask questions about the display because things just reacted the way your brain would expect to in terms of focusing which was a really bizarre experience but very pleasant. Not perfect yet and not super refined as it's still a prototype, comparisons to any other headset are kind of unfair as it's unclear how expensive this rig was so it could've been research-grade. I work for TechCrunch so it was a press demo, waiting to detail full experiences in a video we shot during the demo which we should be pubbing next week.

ianott 1 punto hace 10 horas
Great write up. Can you comment on what you felt the approximate FOV was on the demo unit?
enlaceembedpadre

[–]kguttagKarl Guttag, kguttag.com 2 puntos hace 9 horas
I wish I could but I was blindsided in getting to see the demo. Also the content I saw was not conducive to telling the FOV (very sparse pixel content). As I wrote I was expecting something totally different. I spent the time I had trying to both see the demo and look for tell-tall artifacts as to how it worked.

It is a 720p device which means they only have 1280 pixels horizontally. That is not a lot to support a wide FOV. At 30 degree FOV, you have about 1.4 arminutes/pixel. At 50 degrees you are at 2.3 a-m/pixel which is starting to get chunky. An advantage of the "birdbath" optics they are using is that it will support a wide FOV (much easier than waveguides). In the end the FOV is more limited by eye relief (the distance from the eye to the displays) which is particularly important if you want to allow people to wear their own glasses.

They should be able to switch to a 1080p device and get about a 50 degree FOV with about a 1.56 a-m/pixel resolution which will be good enough for most people if not "ideal" (ideal is considered 1 a-m/pixel or better).