Hololens is not perfect! Interesting link here

"zenplay" wrote:
High-end phones have evolved fast. There has been a spec race among vendors and users still demand greater processing and rendering power for gamining and etc., and now there is the mobile VR.

There seems little doubt from anyone that hololens will be processing significantly beyond any smartphones hence the likely high pricetag. Also the HPU is a complete unknown - no smartphone has any such unit and no-one yet knows even how it is processing the holographic images.

Let alone motion sickness ( since GearVR still lacks in positional tracking ), reviewers of Hololens have reported lags and shudders of virtual objects when their heads moving.

This really isnt the case - most reviewers specifically pointed out how surprised they were that there wasn't lag or judder especially in relation to their experiences with VR. If you are focussing on the very rare instance where someone managed to generate one then I think you are being rather disingenuous. It is way ahead of VR in this area (but it does have the advantage of merging real environments). If there is one area journalists and developers have been in agreement on it's that the Hololens experience with regard to moving is extremely good.

TV/monitors are stationary whereas the view of Hololens is not. Unless its FOV covers most of our view, its usability would be restricted. The effect of holographic objects popping in and out as you move your head would be noticeable and irritating.

Hence exactly my point about TVs and monitors. We can only see the images/text on them when we look at them, yet we manage just fine and relatively their proportion of our FOV relative to Hololens is much less. Being stationery is actually more of an issue.
You could lock a giant TV/monitor to the centre of your view with hololens and never have it disapear.
And who says the images will be 'popping in and out' anyway? Feedback is that the edges will blur making the transition far smoother. Outside of the centre of your visual field visual perception is actually way lower anyway.

Most demos were performed under theater-like dark light settings. I doubt if it works so well in a normal office environment.

They absolutely were not in 'theatre-like dark setting' they were on a spotlit stage! I cant believe your home or office is likely to be brighter than the stage for an international tech demo.
Also have you actually read the journalist experiences? They were again surprised at how well the images worked even with bright objects behind them. You seem to be just inventing problems and issues that people who have actually used the Hololens itself are not reporting (or they do it's a rare exception).

I may be overreacting because there are some people claiming that VR is gone and AR is the future.

Anyone claiming VR is gone is almost certainly completely wrong. AR and VR have different use cases to play to their individual strengths and can happily coexist.
However I have not seen any people claim VR is gone - who are you referring to?

Hololens might have a potential to be adopted soon in practical applications. However, it seems to have been overhyped by MS. When first intoduced, TV was not portrayed as if it would surround all your home and office environment.

TV was pretty darned hyped when it came out. And it developed year on year and is now unbelievably far beyond its early capabilities.
What is the relevance to surrounding your home and office? TV never claimed this. But Hololens does claim this, and has already demonstrated the ability to do this.
Like TV it has colossal potential - why would anyone think the technology won't just improve year on year from its already remarkable first version?

Any prominent figure has not officially declared that VR is gone. I was talking about arguments on the Internet like this thread and this one also does not seem to progress in a productive way. We do not need to be overly aggressive or defensive.

"Ashles" wrote:

There seems little doubt from anyone that hololens will be processing significantly beyond any smartphones hence the likely high pricetag. Also the HPU is a complete unknown - no smartphone has any such unit and no-one yet knows even how it is processing the holographic images.

Here, 'the holographic image' is a marketing term and does not seem to be related to the real Hologram. What Hololens has achieved so far is impressive but technologies involved are not mysterious. "Processing significantly beyond any smartphones hence?" I am not sure about it.

Besides, I am not inventing problems which do not exist. Here are quotes from a technical reviewer:

http://doc-ok.org/?p=1223
On the road for VR: Microsoft HoloLens at Build 2015, San Francisco

The screen is bright enough that, in a controlled environment like the darkened demo rooms, the background is effectively erased by virtual objects, but when viewing objects against a bright background (I used a table lamp), they become barely visible.

There is only little jitter while moving or rotating one’s head slowly. There is noticeable tracking latency, such that virtual objects get visibly dragged along with gaze direction changes.

Actually he mentioned that unlike in VR, where such lag can lead to simulator sickness, it can be a minor distraction and does not cause problems in AR.

"zenplay" wrote:
This thread does not seem to progress in a productive way. We do not need to be overly aggressive or defensive.

Who's getting agressive or defensive? :?:

Here, 'the holographic image' is a marketing term and is not related to the real Hologram.

Opinion is currently divided but some believe it may well be an accurate term as the light is desribed as behaving in a holographic way which means it would have different depth like real objects (which will be unlike anything VR would currently be able to do as it is all produced on a flat screen).

What Hololens has achieved so far is impressive but technologies involved are not mysterious. "Processing significantly beyond any smartphones hence?" I am not sure about it.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/29 ... -data.html

Do you know any details about the holographic processing unit? No-one else does at the moment.
But it is not really in doubt that there is no current or near-future smartphone that could handle real-time scanning and processing of the 3-d environment around you and map objects to it.

Besides, I am not inventing problems which do not exist: Here are quotes from a technical reviewer:
...

I already said there may be the occasional exception but the overwhelming majority are more like this:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hololens-hands ... er-1499345

I was expecting to be blown away by HoloLens - and in many ways I was. The instant the headset began mapping the world around me and the holograms began to interact with it, a huge grin broke out across my face.
...
When you compare this to Oculus Rift or Google Glass (and it really isn't fair to compare them as they are different technologies) HoloLens is an order of magnitude leap forward.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/01/ ... tual-real/

Through it all, the 3D effect was thoroughly convincing. The system felt very low latency; as I moved my head and walked around, the objects retained their positioning in the real world, with the castle, for example, never becoming detached from or wobbling around on the table.

http://www.neowin.net/news/round-2-with ... view-today

The effect is really impressive, when it is in your field of view, I could take my Origami holograms and place them on other objects in the room and it would look like the object was on physically there.
...
There is no doubt in mind that this is the future of computing, and when people say a wearable computer, you should be thinking HoloLens. Everyone who has used the device recognizes that this is the direction computing is going and that HoloLens has significant merit behind it.
...
One interesting observation is that the holograms are bright, very bright. In the demos, I could move the holograms around and if I placed them on the lap of another person, that individuals legs would nearly disappear under the hologram. The reason for this is that Microsoft is putting light directly into your eye so it overrides the actual light in the room, it's a neat effect.

http://www.slashgear.com/hololens-hands ... -01381717/

So what do we know about hardware? Well, from a hardware design standpoint, it’s fair to say that HoloLens is one of the best - if not the best - stereoscopic headset I’ve tried on, including various generations of Oculus Rift, HTC’s Vive, and others.
...
Your view of the room through the visor is slightly tinted, but it’s only when you turn your head and suddenly see a virtual object floating in space that the potential for Windows Holographic hits you. The Project Origami playing field I had fumbled together was clearly a digital creation, but it was also one that seemed embedded into the real world, neither too bright nor too dark. You can move around it, seeing each side and angle, and it stays locked in place.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2917613/ ... ideal.html

When it counted, the HoloLens worked well. The holograms were bright and colorful, with a resolution definitely lower than HD quality, but not too bad. And the ability for the HoloLens hardware to see and “scan in” real-world objects into virtual surfaces worked marvelously. With the HoloLens on, holograms take precedence, so you can barely see your hand or arm if a hologram is behind it. The real world is just a ghost haunting Microsoft’s virtual space.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aarontilley ... -you-sick/

Despite the limitations of the field of vision, HoloLens is an impressive and promising gadget. I’ve had the chance to try a number of other augmented reality headsets (no, Magic Leap still won’t let me near whatever they’re doing), and the worst problem is always the latency between your head’s movements and the visuals in the glasses. There’s always some delay, and it makes me feel nauseous.
That’s a problem Microsoft really seems to have solved. Objects stick in space where they’re supposed to. It looks like they exist in the environment around you. When I turned my head, the holograms moved accordingly with no delay. It was the most seamless experience I have had with this kind of technology. After a fair amount of use in the 90-minute session, I felt perfectly fine.

http://www.ibtimes.com/hololens-review- ... ve-1905706

Looks Real, Period
For most people, water pipes and wiring aren’t supersexy, but what made the experience a true epiphany in terms of realizing the potential of virtual reality was that the 3D, holographic images looked real. Not remarkably real or shockingly real or stunningly real. Just real, period. As in, I could not tell where reality ended and the virtual began. There were no ripples in the matrix.

I could add many other similar reviews but these reflect the current industry opinion about Hololens.
I know several developers, all of who are madly excited to start working on Hololens projects, I also know people within Microsoft who have indicated that many major industries and large companies are keen to start Hololens projects.

it certainly has some areas to improve on but this is the equivalent of its DK1 - what will it be capable of in a year from now?

"Ashles" wrote:
Opinion is currently divided but some believe it may well be an accurate term as the light is desribed as behaving in a holographic way which means it would have different depth like real objects (which will be unlike anything VR would currently be able to do as it is all produced on a flat screen).

Opinion is divided? If it is indeed a real holographic image, I wonder why Hololens does such a tremendous job for such a minute effect.

Do you know any details about the holographic processing unit? No-one else does at the moment.
But it is not really in doubt that there is no current or near-future smartphone that could handle real-time scanning and processing of the 3-d environment around you and map objects to it.

I do not know any details about it because I did not design it. However, there are educated guesses. ( The reviewer who I quoted from also discussed about his guesses. ) He even suspected that the demo room had been pre-scanned and later matched in real time to sensory results from the Hololens he was wearing. He also checked that the virtual objects are not occluded by the environment. ( He was able to see the virtual pannel from the back side of the wall where he hung it. )

For the rest of acclamations you demonstrated, I may show equally impressive reviews for any new product such as Apple Watch and claim that it is the current industry opinion.

"zenplay" wrote:
Opinion is divided? If it is indeed a real holographic image, I wonder why Hololens does such a tremendous job for such a minute effect.

I think the reviews I have posted indicate that it is far from a 'minute effect'.

I do not know any details about it because I did not design it. However, there are educated guesses. ( The reviewer who I quoted from also discussed about his guesses. ) He even suspected that the demo room had been pre-scanned and later matched in real time to sensory results from the Hololens he was wearing.

The Hololens designers have stated explicitly that is not the case and the scanning is being carried out real-time.
Of course they could be blatantly lying but i fail to see how that would help them when the product is actually released.

He also checked that the virtual objects are not occluded by the environment. ( He was able to see the virtual pannel from the back side of the wall where he hung it. )

This seems likely to be the case at the moment but as the sensors improve then is almost certainly a solvable problem.

For the rest of acclamations you demonstrated, I may show equally impressive reviews for any new product such as Apple Watch and claim that it is the current industry opinion.

No you couldn't (and that's just a silly argument as it implies that no reviews would ever be worth paying attention to even if they all seem to agree).
All of those reviews above detail specific descriptions and details, and of experiences no-one else is currently doing. Nothing in the Apple watch is unprecedented. But Hololens is genuinely new tech with no competitor doing anything like the same thing.
Also I could easily find a range of opinions on the Apple watch, from good to bad. However all the tech journalists I have read have been saying the same thing about Hololens (amazing tech, genuinely new and incredible experience, with some specific issues that need resolving).

I'm confused why you are trying so hard to find negativity about a genuinely new and stunning direction for technology and computing?

"Ashles" wrote:

I think the reviews I have posted indicate that it is far from a 'minute effect'.

No reviews you have posted mention about the holographic effect. On the other hand, a reviewer from The Verge said that the virtual objects were not felt real. All the reviewers have tested Hololens at a limited environment within a limited time so whatever they say ( mostly impressions ) we had better take them with a grain of salt at the moment.

I'm confused why you are trying so hard to find negativity about a genuinely new and stunning direction for technology and computing?

I am not. I just said there are pros and cons and there are technical reviews critically analyzing MS's claims.
Besides, I don't like something depicted mysterious.

I think we're going to just have to disagree on this subject then.

I believe this is the start of a quite stunning technology which will change how we interact with media, everyday applications, teaching etc.
Apparently you do not because it is mysterious. I honestly don't mean that in a funny way - it just seems like the only reason you have provided for not being excited about the possibilities of this. But TV would have seemed mysterious to anyone seeing it for the first time.

"Ashles" wrote:
Apparently you do not because it is mysterious. I honestly don't mean that in a funny way - it just seems like the only reason you have provided for not being excited about the possibilities of this. But TV would have seemed mysterious to anyone seeing it for the first time.

I said that I don't like something depicted mysterious. I have not found anything mysterious so far. And there should be no mystery such as whether it is holographic or not. The technical spec should be published and verified.

All technologies seemingly involved are active research topics and I will become really excited when they work together seamlessly in a real, uncontrolled environment, which has not been demonstrated yet.

This is an interesting development if it turns out to be true:

Samsung seeks partnership with Microsoft for Hololens

"Ashles" wrote:
This is an interesting development if it turns out to be true:

Samsung seeks partnership with Microsoft for Hololens

In the business world, which is full of irony, Samsung is already confirmed as Apple's primary chip supplier.