149
I ditched my laptop for a pocketable mini PC and a pair of AR glasses — here’s what happened
(www.tomsguide.com)
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
The only thing that really attracts me about these glasses is that you could hold your head up instead of looking down all the time at a laptop or a portable monitor. But most of the time I need more than one display, while the glasses only offer a single, expensive, fairly low resolution screen. I also wonder what it does to your eyes to use this for long periods of time.
I tried a previous incarnation of these and was not impressed. The screen was too dark in bright rooms and the resolution and image sharpness was lacking. Also the response time was rather slow, which made them basically unusable for playing games or watching (which was primarily what I bought them for). Additionally, the virtual screen was not fixed in space but moved around when you moved your head, which gave me vertigo after prolonged use. I ended up returning them after a week.
It appears as if these are at least the second, if not third generation (mine were simply called Air), and the spatial processing chip might help alleviate some of these issues, but I'm disappointed to see that the vertical resolution has not been increased. But at 32:9, it seems that these have twice the horizontal resolution, which would equal two 16:9 screens next to each other.
I wonder if these might be worth giving another try, but I'm loathe to risk it as my Amazon account has been flagged for returning too many purchases before.
The current version of these glasses have this optional device that they sell that provides this fixed-in-real-space projected screen called a Beam -- I assume that it's got enough 3D hardware and such to do the projection.
The problem, as I mention in another comment, is that if you do any kind of 3D projection of a virtual monitor, you have to "spend" resolution from the physical monitor on it to get the virtual monitor enough lower-resolution that it still looks good, and I don't want to give up the resolution.
Like, there are physically 1080p, 1920x1080 OLED displays in front of each eye on these.
My laptop monitor, right now, is 2560x1600. So even from the start, I spend resolution just to get down to the resolution of the displays in the physical HMD.
Then I'm projecting a virtual monitor on that. You could argue what a reasonable virtual-to-physical ratio is, but it's gotta be less than 1.
The virtual display might be big in terms of visual arc, use a lot of my optical receptors. But end of the day, I want to shovel a lot of data into those optical receptors.
Maybe if someone has really blurry vision or something like that, can't see at anything like the kind of laptop screen resolution that I'm describing, it'd be less of an issue. But I'm not there (yet!).
EDIT:
At least one of the current models that XReal has out has three levels of cycleable opacity on the display -- IIRC it's a "premium" feature on the high-end model, with a lower-end model that can't do variable opacity. IIRC there's a button on the body of the glasses or something. I don't know if the specific ones that that guy tested was the this model, but if not, they do make a model that can.
Right, I have a 1600p laptop screen as well and the resolution downgrade was noticeable. What you say about the projection makes sense, unfortunately I haven't seen any specs for the micro OLED displays they use, they only claim that the virtual screen has 1080p, which might be achievable if the displays DO in fact have a higher vertical resolution. It DOES appear that they've increased the size of the displays from 0.55" to 0.68" but there's no information on the native resolution that I can find.
If I saw these glasses in a store somewhere I'd probably try them out but they'd have to be VASTLY better than the ones I tried to convince me to buy them.
I think that some of the issue here is that the theoretical use case that these are designed around is not what the author is trying to use them for.
The author is looking for a monitor replacement.
These are augmented reality goggles. Like, the hardware is optimized to look at the world around yourself and then display useful information annotated over it, for which resolution is not critical. If we had data sources and software for that, that might be useful too, but right now, we don't really have that software library and data sources.
I think that Snow Crash did a good job of highlighting some of the neat potential of and yet also issues with AR:
Putting a rubber-band on brightness:
Highlighting hazards in low-light conditions using sensor fusion can be useful (current high-end US military NVGs do some of this):
Overlaying blueprint data can permit "seeing through walls":
A lot of the obvious stuff that one might display in AR goggles doesn't compete well with just showing reality in terms of usefuless:
Yes, and he's not wrong, as that appears to be the primary use case for these glasses. For full AR, you still need the Beam Pro, which costs half of the price of the glasses alone.
I do love Snow Crash (it was one of my favorite novels growing up), but I think Google Glass was probably much closer to that vision than these are. Personally, all I want is a big fucking screen fixed in space before me that doesn't make me dizzy when I look at it for more than 5 minutes, or wear out my neck muscles too much because the headset is too heavy.
Really. That's a bummer. if there is an advantage to the glasses it should be that you can have as many displays going as you'd want.