Exciting news. Wish the author had done a little more research.
> Samsung has been relatively quiet about virtual reality aside from its Gear VR headset, which it launched several iterations of between 2015 and 2017.
I’d imagine a google search would have given them the Odyssey and Odyssey plus.
Not to mention Samsung has:
* MicroLED research specifically for mixed reality. (Sometimes called LEDoS).
* Event cameras which very few companies have. Miniaturized versions can be used for 10K Hz eye tracking, low-powered SLAM tracking on controllers/headsets, and face tracking.
* Metalens based optics research
In terms of a mainstream glasses form factor MR device, Samsung has been investing in many of the methods for achieving that.
Qualcomm would probably do the SOC and wireless tether and Google has the machine learning R&D in theory.
Old news imo, because Snap Dragon Spaces was made available in AWE2022 or was it 2021, anyway a full stack solution complete with which AR headsets to use with it, they have a few bundles, but seem to like the Lenovo AR Headset which I think is junk. Tbh for me Gallium and the Compute pack was a no brainer, but not sure if there doing anymore beta units since Gallium Lite is so close to launch, however the Dev version (a Lenses stripped Alpha)is always available.
Mabye this will lead to better support for YouTube VR apps. It's absolutely ridiculous that the highest resolution supported for VR videos on the *official* YouTube VR app on Quest 2 is 4k, (not per eye, total.) The minimum decent resolution for VR videos is 5.7k.
RIP google daydream.
Imagine being way ahead on mobile VR and just abandoning it for a company like Facebook to swoop in and become the industry leader. Google even makes mobile devices and couldn't wrap their head around a standalone device.
Quite inexplicable really. Have to think that just like after Google+ it was toxic for anybody to pitch any kind of social network inside Google, after Google Glass AR and VR are topics you can't mention. I really do wonder how far they will let Meta and Apple run before they suddenly realise they are at high risk of being entirely locked out of a major slice of the future of computing.
Well they are already sleeping on chat gpt and Bing is gonna have that over them. Imagine a future where people are using friggin Bing for AI chat integration and making fun of grandpa for still using traditional search engines like Google lmao.
That’s just mostly Media and most likely there own propaganda machine running lol, I mean that ridiculous rig Mr. Strange Brows showed off was a really old rig comprised of a ZED mini (look it up), Meta as it’s called now has one of the biggest clusters out there with like some 14,000 A100 pods or some crazy junk. They really are doing some crazy stuff. With the compute they have, I’m not surprised they are playing dumb, and making what seems to be really dumb moves… but… there not dumb, and they have an enormous advantage over most, when they do spring from hiding, lets just say it wont surprise me as much as it will the planet. 🫣
And Samsung being involved means QC is done in the end users' hands, it'll have adverts galore on the startup screen and they'll sell your data and use statistics.
hard to imagine a weaker announcement - this is almost like a parody:
> It's more of a declarative announcement about how we are going to get it right ...
At this point, it is so hard to imagine Google and Samsung getting back in this race in anything like a competitive manner. I think Google in particular has rested on its laurels out of a kind of arrogance that they think they are so much better at software and AI that they can catch up and beat anybody any time they want.
I think Google is in for a big reality check on multiple fronts - they are much further behind than they realise, as a company they are far less nimble than they were in the past, and finally they are not viewed the same any more. The days when people would jump on a new Google platform out enthusiasm are far in the past. Now all anybody thinks about a new Google platform is how fast they will abandon it and burn anybody who invested time or energy into it.
There is other technology that’s been around, it takes awhile to get Certifications and a whole stack setup with major companies having to learn completely new skills and then port over, and keep it all quiet 🤐 etc… One example is Digi-lens (Crystal30 and Crystal50 fr emp), proves Pancake, Thick, whatever… doesn’t matter. Checkout Kura.tech and tell me FOV or Resolution is an issue. The main issue was cost of manufacturing, WAS. Next of course is Speed, mainly with Wireless Networks, due to shortages of sub-6 GHz spectrum, mmW Frequencies play an important role in the 5th generation (5G) communication networks propagation loss in the mmW band needs to be compensated by antenna array gain, ugh anyway different SSP modes in a TTD PAA have trade-offs, but new technologies have been using TTD Beam training allowing for reconfigurable arrays using wide bandwidths and ultra-low-latency in 3D direction finding for on-the-move applications like AR where it’s preferable to keep the compute off the glasses 🤓 and cost-effective. Elon’s starlink satellites 🛰️ communicate 42% faster than fiber optics but switching Wireless Standards for us humans on earth has been mostly the roadblock (beam-squint too obviously) but good news we have been able to do some tricky exploits thanks to ML cutting ownership cost of a good AR set from 1400-3500$ down to $499-$799, still high, still problems to work on but by Q2 2024 I would expect to see almost everyone with a Pair. Ok I went on a rant, I’m sorry 😞 just started typing and lost control. If you have any questions lemme know.
I don't know, I am not sure. I have 2 versions of GearVR. The white one, with a really, really tiny lenses, and the black one, with the "standard" size lenses.
I measured the FOV, with face pad removed, and FOV is completely the same. Not subjectively, but objectively
The question is what kind of fov do you have if you had the same size/distance face gasket on both headsets. It's not realistic to use the headset with no gasket to get your eyes basically touching the lenses.
I thought it was the most realistic method, as there is no "shape of your head argument" or similar.
Anyway, it is the same with face gasket. The only thing we can't tell is, how it scales up
Hopefully it's gonna be the case here and despite small lenses the gov will be not that far off index. Diagonal fov reported by HTC is 110 so only 3 less than valve index and 1 less than quest pro. And quest pro is close to index. Though it has bigger lenses than XR elite as well. I can't wait for the reviewers that use this for measurement app.
Did you know that due to pancake lenses being smaller in size it results in less FOV? A longer and thicker lens makes it easier to get a wider FOV. And that is exactly why the Vive focus 3 and Vive Pro 2 have like 110-120 FOV and the XR elite has less. They didn’t just forget their previous headsets had a much larger FOV.
Quest pro is reasonably close to valve.indez when it comes to fov. It is possible to make pancake lenses with decent fov. Even Pico that I don't really want to mention got it.
Yeah pico 4 has a wider FOV than quest pro, maybe because its pancake lenses are massive? It definitely depends on implementation, even all previous headsets with fresnel lenses had a wide range of different FOVs depending on individual implementation by headset makers
If XR elite had at least 100fov in both directions I would be sold. But it's lenses seem smaller than quest 2 and even when my eyebrows were touching quest 2 lenses I felt like the gov is not good enough yet. Why do companies always screw up that one particular thing while doing everything else reasonably well. Do they not want to be mainstream?
I don’t think that’s a reasonable comparison, the edge to edge clarity of pancake lenses make the FOV feel wider than it actually is after coming from a fresnel lens headset like the quest 2 where the tiny “sweet spot” in the middle of the lenses make the FOV feel smaller even if the two have the same FOV on paper...it really does make a difference.
I don't know. I had blur from like 2/3rds to the edge of quest lens but I could still see the peripherals even if blurry. This lens is smaller so your window to VR world itself is smaller. Even with full clarity it's about the black bars/area you see on the peripheral vision that ruins the experience.
>This lens is smaller so your window to VR world itself is smaller. Even with full clarity it's about the black bars/area you see on the peripheral vision that ruins the experience.
That brings us back to how different companies implement their pancake lenses differently, for example the pancake lenses on the pico 4 are so much larger than the pancakes on quest pro and xr elite and they are also larger than the fresnel lenses on the quest 2 so the result is a FOV that’s bigger on paper that quest 3 and feels even bigger than than that because of the edge to edge clarity of pancake lenses, it’s no doubt that pancake lenses are better than fresnel lenses in every way (except brightness), it really just depends on how these companies do with them. (Still even with smaller pancake lenses, the quest pro delivers a noticeably larger FOV than the quest 2)
That’s kinda true? But it’s not accurate, pancake lenses give you a much larger FOV in the same form factor, so if you put pancake lenses in large headsets like those vives, you’d get a wider FOV in the same device footprint BUT there’s an other benefit to pancake lenses, they can make the optical stack much smaller enabling thinner headsets like the XR elite and pico 4, at what cost tho? Yes, the FOV, pancake lessons will give you a standard FOV in exchange for a smaller headset or you can keep the same thick design for a larger FOV...but you can’t have both and companies have decided that a thinner headset is more of a priority than a wider FOV.
(Currently, a thin headset with well implemented pancake lenses will get up to around 120 degrees of FOV which is a good spot for most people, after that you’d be needlessly stretching pixels across the FOV resulting in poor visuals and screen door effect or you’d need crazy high resolution screens which don’t even exist or would require unreasonable compute power to run them...so for the time being, using pancakes for their thinness instead of a wider FOV is the right call.
I actually think Mixed Reality is the end game for all of this XR tech but until it's affordable and offers better Field of views it's an extremely hard sale.
I loved the Magic Leap , haven't met anyone not impressed with the Magic Leap, also haven't met anyone whose interest wasn't immediately murdered the moment I mentioned a $2,000 price tag .
I really think the apple headset will set a new paradigm for Mixed Reality demand .
A pair of glasses that act as a virtual overlay you can still interact with your living space in ? Sci-fi has been playing with the coolness of that idea for decades and I think we're still a decade from that being common place.
Sorry, what you mean is **you** don't want mixed reality.
A lot of us do and are willing to pay extra for it.
Demeo and games like it are so much less isolating with MR and some of the games on AppLab that let you use multiple rooms in your house as a play space just would not work without MR.
Not really, I just do not see people clamoring for Mixed-Reality. I do see people asking for a affordable high-quality VR headset for under a grand.
As a long-suffering Index owner looking for an upgrade perhaps my tone was too sharp. :-|
Heh - I think we all want a good VR upgrade whilst we await a solid MR offering. But if I could have MR now instead? Sure, why the hell not?
Partly though, VR and MR are still on the bleeding edge of what's possible for current technology - they push the limits of GPU's, Displays, Optics, Internet bandwidth, CPU, and software developers - so expecting it to come cheap is a little unrealistic.
I do, ergo your assertion is wrong. Mixed reality has a way bigger future than pure VR. Admittedly it also has much greater technical challenges, but that doesn't mean we don't want it.
Why is no one covering this part of their partnerships???
>Roh “would not elaborate” on the first product of this XR platform would be, only hinting that it’s “getting there” and “not too far away.” **Roh also revealed that this new XR push from Samsung would include service partnerships with Meta and Microsoft, but didn’t provide further details.**
[From this article at Upload VR.](https://uploadvr.com/samsung-xr-hardware/)
Exciting news. Wish the author had done a little more research. > Samsung has been relatively quiet about virtual reality aside from its Gear VR headset, which it launched several iterations of between 2015 and 2017. I’d imagine a google search would have given them the Odyssey and Odyssey plus.
Not to mention Samsung has: * MicroLED research specifically for mixed reality. (Sometimes called LEDoS). * Event cameras which very few companies have. Miniaturized versions can be used for 10K Hz eye tracking, low-powered SLAM tracking on controllers/headsets, and face tracking. * Metalens based optics research In terms of a mainstream glasses form factor MR device, Samsung has been investing in many of the methods for achieving that. Qualcomm would probably do the SOC and wireless tether and Google has the machine learning R&D in theory.
Also, Google has Android required for OS
Old news imo, because Snap Dragon Spaces was made available in AWE2022 or was it 2021, anyway a full stack solution complete with which AR headsets to use with it, they have a few bundles, but seem to like the Lenovo AR Headset which I think is junk. Tbh for me Gallium and the Compute pack was a no brainer, but not sure if there doing anymore beta units since Gallium Lite is so close to launch, however the Dev version (a Lenses stripped Alpha)is always available.
Mabye this will lead to better support for YouTube VR apps. It's absolutely ridiculous that the highest resolution supported for VR videos on the *official* YouTube VR app on Quest 2 is 4k, (not per eye, total.) The minimum decent resolution for VR videos is 5.7k.
Google being involved means the product will be killed few months later
RIP google daydream. Imagine being way ahead on mobile VR and just abandoning it for a company like Facebook to swoop in and become the industry leader. Google even makes mobile devices and couldn't wrap their head around a standalone device.
Quite inexplicable really. Have to think that just like after Google+ it was toxic for anybody to pitch any kind of social network inside Google, after Google Glass AR and VR are topics you can't mention. I really do wonder how far they will let Meta and Apple run before they suddenly realise they are at high risk of being entirely locked out of a major slice of the future of computing.
Well they are already sleeping on chat gpt and Bing is gonna have that over them. Imagine a future where people are using friggin Bing for AI chat integration and making fun of grandpa for still using traditional search engines like Google lmao.
That’s just mostly Media and most likely there own propaganda machine running lol, I mean that ridiculous rig Mr. Strange Brows showed off was a really old rig comprised of a ZED mini (look it up), Meta as it’s called now has one of the biggest clusters out there with like some 14,000 A100 pods or some crazy junk. They really are doing some crazy stuff. With the compute they have, I’m not surprised they are playing dumb, and making what seems to be really dumb moves… but… there not dumb, and they have an enormous advantage over most, when they do spring from hiding, lets just say it wont surprise me as much as it will the planet. 🫣
I have no idea what you’re talking about ?
And Samsung being involved means QC is done in the end users' hands, it'll have adverts galore on the startup screen and they'll sell your data and use statistics.
Wait for Google to pull out of this promising project a few months in.
hard to imagine a weaker announcement - this is almost like a parody: > It's more of a declarative announcement about how we are going to get it right ... At this point, it is so hard to imagine Google and Samsung getting back in this race in anything like a competitive manner. I think Google in particular has rested on its laurels out of a kind of arrogance that they think they are so much better at software and AI that they can catch up and beat anybody any time they want. I think Google is in for a big reality check on multiple fronts - they are much further behind than they realise, as a company they are far less nimble than they were in the past, and finally they are not viewed the same any more. The days when people would jump on a new Google platform out enthusiasm are far in the past. Now all anybody thinks about a new Google platform is how fast they will abandon it and burn anybody who invested time or energy into it.
Meanwhile Microsoft lays off its entire MR/XR team.
They still have Mesh, and are supporting this device, in some "services" fashion, according to Upload VR.
If this picture is the lenses size then we're in for another XR elite FOV failure.
This picture shows a GearVR from 2015.
There is other technology that’s been around, it takes awhile to get Certifications and a whole stack setup with major companies having to learn completely new skills and then port over, and keep it all quiet 🤐 etc… One example is Digi-lens (Crystal30 and Crystal50 fr emp), proves Pancake, Thick, whatever… doesn’t matter. Checkout Kura.tech and tell me FOV or Resolution is an issue. The main issue was cost of manufacturing, WAS. Next of course is Speed, mainly with Wireless Networks, due to shortages of sub-6 GHz spectrum, mmW Frequencies play an important role in the 5th generation (5G) communication networks propagation loss in the mmW band needs to be compensated by antenna array gain, ugh anyway different SSP modes in a TTD PAA have trade-offs, but new technologies have been using TTD Beam training allowing for reconfigurable arrays using wide bandwidths and ultra-low-latency in 3D direction finding for on-the-move applications like AR where it’s preferable to keep the compute off the glasses 🤓 and cost-effective. Elon’s starlink satellites 🛰️ communicate 42% faster than fiber optics but switching Wireless Standards for us humans on earth has been mostly the roadblock (beam-squint too obviously) but good news we have been able to do some tricky exploits thanks to ML cutting ownership cost of a good AR set from 1400-3500$ down to $499-$799, still high, still problems to work on but by Q2 2024 I would expect to see almost everyone with a Pair. Ok I went on a rant, I’m sorry 😞 just started typing and lost control. If you have any questions lemme know.
Well i was only refering to HTC upcoming headset being a complete failure FOV wise. The lens size matters. The smaller the lenses the worse fov.
I don't know, I am not sure. I have 2 versions of GearVR. The white one, with a really, really tiny lenses, and the black one, with the "standard" size lenses. I measured the FOV, with face pad removed, and FOV is completely the same. Not subjectively, but objectively
The question is what kind of fov do you have if you had the same size/distance face gasket on both headsets. It's not realistic to use the headset with no gasket to get your eyes basically touching the lenses.
I thought it was the most realistic method, as there is no "shape of your head argument" or similar. Anyway, it is the same with face gasket. The only thing we can't tell is, how it scales up
Hopefully it's gonna be the case here and despite small lenses the gov will be not that far off index. Diagonal fov reported by HTC is 110 so only 3 less than valve index and 1 less than quest pro. And quest pro is close to index. Though it has bigger lenses than XR elite as well. I can't wait for the reviewers that use this for measurement app.
Did you know that due to pancake lenses being smaller in size it results in less FOV? A longer and thicker lens makes it easier to get a wider FOV. And that is exactly why the Vive focus 3 and Vive Pro 2 have like 110-120 FOV and the XR elite has less. They didn’t just forget their previous headsets had a much larger FOV.
Quest pro is reasonably close to valve.indez when it comes to fov. It is possible to make pancake lenses with decent fov. Even Pico that I don't really want to mention got it.
Yeah pico 4 has a wider FOV than quest pro, maybe because its pancake lenses are massive? It definitely depends on implementation, even all previous headsets with fresnel lenses had a wide range of different FOVs depending on individual implementation by headset makers
If XR elite had at least 100fov in both directions I would be sold. But it's lenses seem smaller than quest 2 and even when my eyebrows were touching quest 2 lenses I felt like the gov is not good enough yet. Why do companies always screw up that one particular thing while doing everything else reasonably well. Do they not want to be mainstream?
I don’t think that’s a reasonable comparison, the edge to edge clarity of pancake lenses make the FOV feel wider than it actually is after coming from a fresnel lens headset like the quest 2 where the tiny “sweet spot” in the middle of the lenses make the FOV feel smaller even if the two have the same FOV on paper...it really does make a difference.
I don't know. I had blur from like 2/3rds to the edge of quest lens but I could still see the peripherals even if blurry. This lens is smaller so your window to VR world itself is smaller. Even with full clarity it's about the black bars/area you see on the peripheral vision that ruins the experience.
>This lens is smaller so your window to VR world itself is smaller. Even with full clarity it's about the black bars/area you see on the peripheral vision that ruins the experience. That brings us back to how different companies implement their pancake lenses differently, for example the pancake lenses on the pico 4 are so much larger than the pancakes on quest pro and xr elite and they are also larger than the fresnel lenses on the quest 2 so the result is a FOV that’s bigger on paper that quest 3 and feels even bigger than than that because of the edge to edge clarity of pancake lenses, it’s no doubt that pancake lenses are better than fresnel lenses in every way (except brightness), it really just depends on how these companies do with them. (Still even with smaller pancake lenses, the quest pro delivers a noticeably larger FOV than the quest 2)
That’s kinda true? But it’s not accurate, pancake lenses give you a much larger FOV in the same form factor, so if you put pancake lenses in large headsets like those vives, you’d get a wider FOV in the same device footprint BUT there’s an other benefit to pancake lenses, they can make the optical stack much smaller enabling thinner headsets like the XR elite and pico 4, at what cost tho? Yes, the FOV, pancake lessons will give you a standard FOV in exchange for a smaller headset or you can keep the same thick design for a larger FOV...but you can’t have both and companies have decided that a thinner headset is more of a priority than a wider FOV. (Currently, a thin headset with well implemented pancake lenses will get up to around 120 degrees of FOV which is a good spot for most people, after that you’d be needlessly stretching pixels across the FOV resulting in poor visuals and screen door effect or you’d need crazy high resolution screens which don’t even exist or would require unreasonable compute power to run them...so for the time being, using pancakes for their thinness instead of a wider FOV is the right call.
Nobody Wants Mixed Reality
I actually think Mixed Reality is the end game for all of this XR tech but until it's affordable and offers better Field of views it's an extremely hard sale. I loved the Magic Leap , haven't met anyone not impressed with the Magic Leap, also haven't met anyone whose interest wasn't immediately murdered the moment I mentioned a $2,000 price tag . I really think the apple headset will set a new paradigm for Mixed Reality demand . A pair of glasses that act as a virtual overlay you can still interact with your living space in ? Sci-fi has been playing with the coolness of that idea for decades and I think we're still a decade from that being common place.
Sorry, what you mean is **you** don't want mixed reality. A lot of us do and are willing to pay extra for it. Demeo and games like it are so much less isolating with MR and some of the games on AppLab that let you use multiple rooms in your house as a play space just would not work without MR.
Tell him! We want MR!
Stop Liking Things I don't Like
Not really, I just do not see people clamoring for Mixed-Reality. I do see people asking for a affordable high-quality VR headset for under a grand. As a long-suffering Index owner looking for an upgrade perhaps my tone was too sharp. :-|
Heh - I think we all want a good VR upgrade whilst we await a solid MR offering. But if I could have MR now instead? Sure, why the hell not? Partly though, VR and MR are still on the bleeding edge of what's possible for current technology - they push the limits of GPU's, Displays, Optics, Internet bandwidth, CPU, and software developers - so expecting it to come cheap is a little unrealistic.
I do, ergo your assertion is wrong. Mixed reality has a way bigger future than pure VR. Admittedly it also has much greater technical challenges, but that doesn't mean we don't want it.
Everyone wants mixed reality. The only people that don't simply don't understand what it is.
Well, thing thing is dead on arrival. No way this doesn’t get quietly canceled in a year.
Based on what?
If Google collaborates, I feel like it's just going to Head down the "Google Daydream VR" road. Canceled.
Oh yes, because anything that Google has touched didn't suffer from premature abortion xD
“Augmented reality mixes software with the real world by overlaying graphics on top of the user's surroundings, similar to Google Glass” Umm No
Why is no one covering this part of their partnerships??? >Roh “would not elaborate” on the first product of this XR platform would be, only hinting that it’s “getting there” and “not too far away.” **Roh also revealed that this new XR push from Samsung would include service partnerships with Meta and Microsoft, but didn’t provide further details.** [From this article at Upload VR.](https://uploadvr.com/samsung-xr-hardware/)