undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmatthewmcg11y ago0 comments

I think you should read this as "what they are doing in the lab."

An "optical table" is to optical technologies as a solderless breadboard is to electronics.

Basically, it's a big, stable platform with lots of threaded holes of a standard size and pitch for attaching lasers, mirrors, etc. Most have some kind of pneumatic isolation or damping to keep vibrations from being transmitted from the floor. Things like interference phenomena are sensitive to displacements of a few nanometers, so you really don't want things like passing trucks to ruin your experiments!

Examples here: http://www.newport.com/Optical-Table-Selection-Guide/140219/...

0 comments

aetherson11y ago

This got lost between my brain and my previous message, but yes, I agree, that's the most likely explanation.

But I mention the "they're trying to build like the equivalent of the early table-based Microsoft Surface (before that meant a tablet), but pseudo-holographic instead" idea just because it's so unbelievable to me that stand-alone goggles can possibly deliver what they're claiming.

bri3d11y ago

Stand-alone goggles make more sense than a table, because they're closer to the eye and can more directly manipulate what the user sees.

If you read through the depths of Magic Leap's site combined with their patent applications, it becomes clear that they are trying to develop a set of goggles which combines some form of projection onto the retina [0] with some form of selective blocking [1] (to give contrast, and prevent the projected images from appearing as hazy mirages over the light otherwise reaching the retina).

Especially the blocking would be impossible to achieve with anything but goggles.

[0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20140071539 [1]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130128230

jrk11y ago

I think the idea is not that they wouldn't have goggles—these lab prototypes have goggles—but that they might be much more constrained than a free, walk-around head mount. Think: Imagineering-like controlled experiences down to arcades rather than a personal walk-around device like Glass^n or Rift AR. Controlling both the environment and background they augment and the head movement (and not worrying as much about miniaturization) could make the problem easier enough to be manageable.

Still unclear. They do seem to imply they want it to be an unconstrained mobile AR device, but that is indeed ambitious enough to warrant skepticism. Walk-around tracking for home/anywhere is still an unsolved problem for Oculus, and overlay AR is at least several times more demanding.

ansible11y ago

I think if you're tracking the user's position, then it may be practical to beam different images to each eye for a good 3D experience.

That's actually how (kinda) Stephenson's VR system he describes in Snow Crash works.

This kind of gets away from many of the issues you have with the Oculus Rift where you have such a tiny window of time (20ms or so) to react to how the person is moving his head. You still have to change the image based on the user's position, but not as much on head rotation which is the really hard part. Just each eye's location in space matters.

Multiple users would likely require multiple projectors.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse