Archive for Startups

Mira Prism and Dreamworld AR – (What Disney Should Have Done?)

That Was Fast – Two “Bug-Eye” Headsets

A few days ago  I published a story on the Disney Lenovo Optics and wondered why they didn’t use a much simpler “bug-eye” combiner optics similar to the Meta-2 (below right) which currently sells in a development kit version for $949. It turns out the very same day Mira announced their Prism Headset which is a totally passive headset with a mount for a phone and bug-eye combiners with a “presale price” of $99 (proposed retail $150). Furthermore in looking into what Mira was doing, I discovered that back on May 9th, 2017, DreamWorld announced their “DreamGlass” headset using bug-eye combiners that also includes tracking electronics which is supposed to cost “under $350” (see the Appendix for a note on a lawsuit between DreamWorld and Meta)

The way both of these work (Mira’s is shown on the left) is that the cell phone produces two small images, one for each eye, that reflects off the two curved semi-mirror combiners that are joined together. The combiners reflect part of the phone’s the light and move the focus of the image out in space (because otherwise human could not focus so close).

Real or Not?: Yes Mira, Not Yet Dreamworld

Mira has definitely built production quality headsets as there are multiple reports of people trying them on and independent pictures of the headset which looks to be near to if not a finished product.

DreamWorld has not demonstrated, at least as of their May 9th announcement, have a fully functional prototype per Upload’s article. What may appear to be “pictures” of the headset are 3-D renderings. Quoting Upload:

“Dreamworld’s inaugural AR headset is being called the Dreamworld Glass. UploadVR recently had the chance to try it out at the company’s offices but we were not allowed to take photos, nor did representatives provide us with photographs of the unit for this story.

The Glass we demoed came in two form factors. The first was a smaller, lighter model that was used primarily to show off the headset’s large field of view and basic head tracking. The second was significantly larger and was outfitted with “over the counter” depth sensors and cameras to achieve basic positional tracking. “

The bottom line here is that Mira’s appear near ready to ship whereas DreamWorld still has a lot of work left to do and at this point is more of a concept than a product.

DreamWorlds “Shot Directly From DreamWorld’s AR Glass” videos were shot through a combiner, but it may or may not be through their production combiner configured with the phone in the same place as the production design.

I believe views shown in the Mira videos are real, but they are, of course, shooting separately the people in the videos wearing the heaset and what the image look’s like through the headset. I will get into one significant problem I found with Mira’s videos/design later (see “Mira Prism’s Mechanical Interference” section below).

DreamWorld Versus Mira Optical Comparison

While both DreamWorld and Mira have similar optical designs, on closer inspection it is clear that there is a very different angle between the cell phone display and the combiners (see left). DreamWorld has the combiner nearly perpendicular to the combiner whereas Mira has the cell phone display nearly parallel. This difference in angle means that there will be more inherent optical distortion in the DreamWorld design whereas the Mira design has the phone more in the way of the person’s vision, particularly if they wear glasses (once again, see “Mira Prism’s Mechanical Interference” section below).

See-Through Trade-offs of AR

Almost all see-though designs waste most light of the display in combining the image with the real world light.  Most designs lose 80% to 95% (sometimes more) of the display’s light. This in turn means you want to start with a display 20 to as much as 100 times (for outdoor use) the brightness of a cell phone. So even an “efficient” optical design has serious brightness problems starting with a cell phone display (sorry this is just a fact). There are some tricks to avoid these losses but not if you are starting with the light from a cell phone’s display (broad spectrum and very diffuse).

One thing I was very critical of last time of the Disney-Lenova headset was that it appeared to be blocking about 75 to 80% of the ambient/real-world light which is equivalent to dark sunglasses. I don’t think any reasonable person would find blocking this much light to be acceptable for something claiming to be “see-through” display.

From several pictures I have of Mira’s prototype, I very roughly calculated that they are about 70% transparent (light to medium dark sunglasses) which means they in turn are throwing away 70+% of the cell phone’s light. On of the images from from Mira’s videos is shown below. I have outlined with a dashed line the approximate active FOV (the picture cuts it off on the bottom) which Mira claims to cover about 60 degees and you can see the edge of the combiner lens (indicated by the arrows).

What is important to notice is that the images are somewhat faded and don’t not “dominate”/block-out the real world. This appears true of all the through optics images in Mira’s videos. The room while not dark is also not overly brightly lit. This is going to be a problem for any AR device using a cell phone as its display. With AR optics you are both going to throw away a lot of the displays light to support seeing through to the real world and you have to compete with the light that is in the real world. You could turn the room lights out and/or look at black walls and tables, but then what is the point of being “see through.”

I also captured a through the optics image from DreamWorld’s DreamGlass video (below). The first thing that jumps out at me is how dark the room looks and that they have a very dark table. So while the images may look more “solid” than in the Mira video, most of this is due to the lighting of the room

Because the DreamWorld background is darker, we can also see some of the optical issues with the design. In particular you should notice the “glow” around the various large objects (indicated by red arrows). There is also a bit of a double image of the word “home” (indicated by the green arrow). I don’t have an equivalent dark scene from Mira so I can’t tell if they have similar issues.

Mira Prism’s Resolution

Mira (only) supports the iPhone 6/6s/7 size display and not the larger “Plus” iPhones which won’t fit. This gives them 1334 by 750 pixels to start with. The horizontal resolution first has to be split in half and then about 20% of the center is used to separate the two images and center the left and right views with respect to the person’s eye (this roughly 20% gap can be seen in Mira’s Video). This nets about (1334/2) X 80% = ~534 pixels horizontally. Vertically they may have slightly higher resolution of about 600 pixels.

Mira claims a FOV of “60 Degrees” and generally when a company does not specify the whether it is horizontal, vertical, or diagonal, they mean diagonal because it is the bigger number. This would suggest that the horizontal FOV is about 40 and the vertical is about 45 degrees. This nets to a rather chunky 4.5 arcminutes/pixel (about the same as Oculus Rift CV1 but with a narrower FOV). The “screen door effect” of seeing the boundaries between pixels is evident in Mira’s videos and should be noticeable when wearing.

I’m not sure that supporting a bigger iPhone, as in the Plus size models would help. This design requires that the left and right images be centered over the which limits where the pixels in the display can be located. Additionally, a larger phone would cause more mechanical interference issues (such as with glasses covered in the next section).

Mira Prism’s Mechanical Interference

A big problem with a simple bug-eye combiner design is the location of the display device. For the best image quality you want the phone right in front of the eye and as parallel as possible to the combiners. You can’t see through the phone so they have to move it above the eye and tilt it from parallel. The more they move the phone up and tilt it, the more it will distort the image.

If you look at upper right (“A”) still frame form Mira’s video below  you will see that the phone his just slightly above the eyes. The bottom of the phone holder is touching the top of the person’s glasses (large arrow in frame A). The video suggest (see frames “B” and “C”) that the person is looking down at something in their hand. But as indicated by the red sight line I have drawn in frames A and B the person would have to be looking largely below the combiner and thus the image would at best be cut-off (and not look like the image in frame C).

In fact, for the person with glasses in the video to see the whole image they would have to be looking up as indicated by the blue sight lines in frames A and B above. The still frame “D” shows how a person would look through the headset when not wearing glasses.

I can’t say whether this would be a problem for all types of glasses and head-shapes, but it is certainly a problem that is demonstrated in the Mira’s own video.

Mira’s design maybe a bit too simple. I don’t see any adjustments other than the head band size. I don’t see any way work around say running into a person’s glasses as happens above.

Cost To Build Mira’s Prism

Mira’s design is very simple. The combiner technology is well known and can be sourced readily. Theoretically, Mira’s Prism should cost about the same to make as a number of so called “HUD” displays that use a cell phone as the display device and a (single) curved combiner that sell for between $20 and $50 (example on right). BTW, these “HUD” are useless in the daylight as a cell phone is just not bright enough. Mira needs to have a bit more complex combiner and hopefully of better quality than some of the so-called “HUDs” so $99 is not totally out of line, but they should be able to make them at a profit for $99.

Conclusions On Simple Bug-Eye Combiner Optics With A Phone

First let me say I have discussed Mira’s Prism more than DreamWord’s DreamGlass above because there is frankly more solid information on the Prism. DreamGlass seems to be more of a concept without tangible information.

The Mira headset is about as simple and inexpensive as one could make an AR see-through headset assuming you can use a person’s smartphone. It does the minimum enabling a person to focus on a phone that is so close and combining with the real world. Compared to say Disney-Lenovo birdbath, it is going to make both the display and real world both more than 2X brighter. As Mira’s videos demonstrate, the images are still going to be ghostly and not very solid unless the room and/or background is pretty dark.

Simplicity has its downsides. The resolution is  low, image is going to be a bit distorted (which can be corrected somewhat by software at the expense of some resolution). The current design appears to mechanical interference problems with wearing glasses. Its not clear if the design can be adapted to accommodate glasses as it would seem to move the whole optical design around and might necessitate a bigger headset and combiners.  Fundamentally a phone is not bright enough to support a good see-through display in even moderately lit environments.

I don’t mean to be overly critical of Mira’s Prism as I think it is an interesting low cost entry product, sort of the “Google Cardboard” of AR (It certainly makes more sense than the Disney_Lenovo headset that was just announced). I would think a lot of people would want to play around with the Mira Prism and find uses for it at the $99 price point. I would expect to see others copying its basic design. Still, the Mira Prism demonstrates many of the issues with making a low cost see-though design.

DreamWorld’s DreamGlass on the surface makes much less sense to me. It should have all the optical limitations of the much less expensive Mira Prism. It it adding at lot of cost on top of a very limited display foundation using a smartphones display.

Appendix

Some History of Bug-Eye Optics

It should be noted that what I refer to as bug-eye combiners optics is an old concept. Per the picture on the left taken from a 2005 Links/L3 paper, the concept goes back to at least 1988 using two CRTs as the displays. This paper includes a very interesting chart plotting the history of Link/L3 headsets (see below). Links legacy goes all the way back to airplane training simulators (famously used in World War II).

A major point of L3/Link’s later designs,  is that they used corrective optics between the display and the combiner to correct for the distortion cause by the off-axis relationship between the display and the combiner.

Meta and DreamWorld Lawsuit

The basic concept of dual large combiners in a headset obviously and old idea (see above), but apparently Meta thinks that DreamWorld may have borrowed without asking a bit too much from the Meta-2. As reported in TechCrunch, “The lawsuit alleges that Zhong [Meta’s former Senior Optical Engineer] “shamelessly leveraged” his time at the company to “misappropriate confidential and trade secret information relating to Meta’s technologies”.

Addendum

Holokit AR

Aryzon AR

There are at least two other contenders for the title of “Google Cardboard of AR.” Namely the Aryzon and Holokit which both separate the job of the combiner from the focusing. Both put a Fresnel lens in between the phone and a flat semitransparent combiner. These designs are one step simpler/cheaper (and use cardboard for the structure) than Mira’s design, but are more bulky with the phone hanging out. An advantage of these designs is that everything is “on-axis” which means lower distortion, but they have chromatic aberrations (color separation) issues with the inexpensive Fresnel lenses that the Mira’s mirror design won’t have. There also be some Fresnel lens artifact issues with these designs.

Varjo Foveated Display Part 2 – Region Sizes

Introduction

As discussed in Part 1, the basic concept of foveated display in theory should work to provide high angular resolution with a wide FOV. There is no single display technology today for near-to-eye displays. Microdisplays (LCOS, DLP, and OLED) support high angular resolution but not wide FOV and larger flat panel displays (OLED and LCD) support wide FOV but with low angular resolution.

The image above left includes crops from the picture on Varjo’s web site call “VR Scene Detail” (toward the end of this article is the whole annotated image).  Varjo included both the foveated and un-foveated image from the center of the display. The top rectangle in red it taken from the top edge of the picture where we can just see the transition starting from the foveated image to what Varjo calls the “context” or lower resolution image. Blending is used to avoid an abrupt transition that the eye might notice.

The topic foveated gathered addition interest with Apple’s acquisition of the eye tracking technology company SMI which provided the eye tracking technology for Nvidia’s foveated rendering HMD study (see below). It is not clear at this time why Apple bought SMI, it could be for foveated rendering (f-rendering) and/or foveated display (f-display).

Static Visual Acuity

The common human visual acuity charts (right) give some feel for the why foveation (f-rendering and/or f-display) works. But these graphs are for static images of high contrast black and white line pairs. While we commonly talk about a person normally seeing down to 1 arcminute per pixel (300 dpi at about 10 inches) being good, but people can detect down to about 1/2 arcminute and if you have a long single high contrast line down to about 1/4th of an arcminute. The point here is to understand that these graphs are a one-dimensional slice of a multi-dimensional issue.

For reference, Varjo’s high resolution display has slightly less than 1-arminute/pixel and their context display in their prototype has about 4.7-arcminutes/pixel. More importantly, their high resolution display covers about 20 degrees horizontally and 15 degrees vertically and this is within the range where people could see errors if they are high in contrast based on the visual acuity graphs.

Varjo will be blending to reduce the contrast difference and thus make the transition less noticeable. But on the negative side, with any movement of the eyes, the image on the foveated display will change and the visual system tends to amplify any movement/change.

Foveated Rendering Studies

Frendering, varies the detail/resolution/quality/processing based on where the eyes are looking. This is seen as key in not only reducing the computing requirement but also saving power consumption. F-rendering has been proven to work with many human studies including those done as part of Microsoft’s 2012  and Nvidia’s 2016 papers. F-rendering becomes ever more important as resolution increases.

F-rendering uses a single high resolution display and change the level of rendering detail. It then uses blending between various detail levels to avoid abrupt changes that the eye detect. As the Microsoft and Nvida papers point out, the eye is particularly sensitive to changes/movement.

In the case of the often cited Microsoft 2012, they used 3 levels of detail with two “blend masks” between them as illustrated in their paper (see right). This gave them a very gradual and wide transition, but 3 resolution levels with wide bands of transition are “luxuries” that Varjo can’t have. Varjo only has two possible levels of detail, and as will be shown, they can only afford a narrow transition/bends region. Microsoft 2012 study used only 1920×1080 monitor with a lower resolution central region than Varjo (about half the resolution) and then 3 blending regions that are so broad that that they would be totally impractical for f-display.

Nvidia’s 2016 study (which cites Microsoft 2012) simplified to two levels of detail, fovea and periphery, with a sampling factor of 1 and 4 with a simpler linear blending between the two detail levels. Unfortunately, most of Nvidia’s study was done with a very low angular resolution Oculus headset display with about a 4.7 arcminutes/pixel with a little over 1,000 by 1,000 pixels per eye, the same display as Varjo uses for their low resolution part of the image. Most of the graphs and discussion in the paper was with respect to this low angular resolution headset.

Nvidia 2016 also did some study of a 27″ (diagonal) 2560×1440 monitor with the user 81cm way resulting in an angular resolution of about 1-arcminute and horizontal FOV of 40 degrees which would be more applicable to Varjo’s case. Unfortunately, As the paper states on their user study, “We only evaluate the HMD setup, since the primary goal of our desktop study in Section 3.2 was to confirm our hypothesis for a higher density display.” They only clue they give for the higher resolution system is that, “We set the central foveal radius for this setup to 7.5°.” There was no discussion I could find for how they set the size of the blend region; so it is only a data point.

Comment/Request: I looked around for a study that would be more applicable to Varjo’s case. I was expecting to find a foveated rendering study using say a 4K (3840×2160) television which would support 1 arcminute for 64 by 36 degrees but I did not find it. If you know of such a study let me know.

Foveated Rending is Much Easier Than Foveated Display

Even if we had a f-rendering study of an ~1-arcminute peak resolution system, it would still only give us some insight into the f-display issues. F-rendering, while conceptually similar and likely to to be required to support a f-display (f-display), is significantly simpler.

With f-rendering, everything is mathematical beyond the detection of the eye movement. The size of the high resolution and lower resolution(s) and the blend region(s) can be of arbitrary size to reduce detection and even be dynamic based on contend. The alignment between resolutions is perfectly registered. The color and contrast between resolutions is identical. The resolution of rendering of the high resolution area does not have to scaled/re-sampled to match the background.

Things are much tougher for f-display as there are two physically different displays and the high resolution display has to be optically aligned/moved based on the movement of the eye. The alignment of the display resolution(s) limited by the optics ability to move the apparent location of the high resolution part of the image. There is likely to be some vibration/movement even when aligned. The potential size of the high resolution display as well as the size of the transition region is limited by the size/cost of the microdisplay used. There can be only a single transition. The brightness, color, and contrast will be different between the two physically different displays (even if both are say OLED, the brightness and colors will not be exactly the same). Additionally, the high resolution display’s image will have to be remapped after any optical distortion to match the context/peripheral image; this will both reduce the effective resolution and will introduce movement into the highest resolvable (by the eye) part of the FOV as the foveated display tracks the eye on what otherwise should be say a stationary image.

When asked, Varjo has said that they more capable systems in the lab than the fixed f-display prototype they are showing. But they stopped short of saying whether they have a full up running system and have provide no results of any human studies.

The bottom line here, is that there are many more potential issues with f-display that could prove to be very hard if not practically impossible to solve. A major problem being getting the high res. image to optically move and stop without the eye noticing it. It is impossible to fully understand how will it will work without a full-blown working system and a study with humans and a wide variety of content and user conditions including the user moving their head and reaction of the display and optics.

Varjo’s Current Demo

Varjo is currently demoing a proof of concept system with the foveated/high-resolution image fix and not tracking the center of vision. The diagram below shows the 100 by 100 degree FOV of the current Varjo demonstration system. For the moment at least, let’s assume their next step will be to have a version of this where the center/foveated image moves.

Shown in the figure above is roughly the size of the foveated display region (green rectangle) which covers about 27.4 by 15.4 degrees. The dashed red rectangle show the area covered by the pictures provided by Varjo which does not even fully cover the foveated area (in the pictures they just show the start of the  transition/blending from high to low resolution).

Also shown is a dashed blue circle with the  7.5 degree “central fovial radius” (15 degree diameter) circle of the Nvidia 2016 high angular resolution system. It is interesting that it is pretty close to angle covered vertically by the Varjo display.

Will It Be Better Than A Non-Foveated Display (Assuming Very Good Eye Tracking)?

Varjo’s Foveated display should appear to the human eye as having much higher resolution than an non-foveated display of with the same resolution as Varjo’s context/periphery display. It is certainly going to work well when totally stationary (such as Varjo’s demo system).

My major concern comes (and something that can’t be tested without a full blown system) when everything moves. The evidence above suggests that there may be visible moving noise at the boundaries of the foveated and context image.

Some of the factors that could affect the results:

  1. Size of the foveated/central image. Making this bigger would move the transition further out. This could be done optically or with a bigger device. Doing it optically could be expensive/difficult and using a larger device could be very expensive.
  2. The size of the transition/blur between the high and low resolution regions. It might be worth losing some of the higher resolution to cause a smoother transition. From what I can tell, Varjo a small transition/blend region compared to the f-rendering systems.
  3. The accuracy of the tracking and placement of the foveated image. In particular how accurately they can optically move the image. I wonder how well this will work in practice and will it have problems with head movement causing vibration.
  4. How fast they can move the foveated image and have it be totally still while displaying.
A Few Comments About Re-sampling of the Foveated Image

One should also note that the moving foveated image will by necessity have to be mapped onto the stationary low resolution image. Assuming the rendering pipeline first generates a rectangular coordinated image and then re-samples it to adjust for the placement and optical distortion of the foveated image, the net effective resolution will be about half that of the “native” display due to the re-sampling.

In theory, this re-sampling loss could be avoided/reduce by computing the high resolution image with the foveated image already remapped, but with “conventional” pipelines this would add a lot of complexity. But this type of display would likely in the long run be used in combination with foveated rendering where this may not be adding too much more to the pipeline (just something to deal with the distortion).

Annotated Varjo Image

First, I  want to complement Varjo for putting actual through the optics high resoluion images on their website (note, click on their “Full size JPG version“). By Varjo’s own admission, these pictures were taken crudely with a consumer camera so the image quality is worse than you would see looking into the optics directly. In particular there are chroma aberrations that are clearly visible in the full size image that are likely caused by the camera and how it was use and not necessarily a problem with Varjo’s optics. If you click on the image below, it will bring up the full size image (over 4,000 by 4,000 pixels and about 4.5 megabytes) in a new tab.

If you look at the green rectangle, it corresponds to size of the foveated image in the green rectangle the prior diagram showing the whole 100 by 100 degree FOV.

You should be able to clearly see the transition/blending starting at the top and bottom of the foveated image (see also right). The end of the blending is cutoff in the picture.

The angles give in the figure were calculated based on the known pixel size of the Oculus CV1 display (their pixels are clearly visible in the non-foveated picture). For the “foveated display” (green rectangle) I used Varjo’s statement that it was at least 70 pixels/degree (but I suspect not much more than that either).

Next Time On Foveated Displays (Part 3)

Next time on this topic, I plan on discussion how f-displays may or may not compete in the future with higher resolution single displays.

Varjo Foveated Display (Part 1)

Introduction

The startup Varjo recently announced and did a large number of interviews with the technical press about their Foveated Display (FD) Technology. I’m going to break this article into multiple parts, as currently planned, the first part will discuss the concept and the need for and part 2 will discuss how well I think it will work.

How It Is Suppose to Work

Varjo’s basic concept is relatively simple (see figure at left – click on it to pop it out). Varjo optically combines a OLED microdisplay with small pixels to give high angular resolution over a small area (what they call the “foveated display“), with a larger OLED display to give low angular resolution over a large area (what they call the “context display“). By eye tracking (not done in the current prototype), the foveated display is optically moved to be in the center of the person’s vision by tilting the beam splitter. Varjo says they have thought of and are patenting other ways of optically combining and moving the foveated image other than a beam splitter.

The beam splitter is likely just a partially silvered mirror. It could be 50/50 or some other ratio to match the brightness of the large and microdisplay OLED. This type of combining is very old and well understood. They likely will blend/fade-in the image in the rectangular boarder where the two display images meet.

The figure above is based on a sketch by Urho Konttori, CEO of Varjo in a video interview with Robert Scoble combined with pictures of the prototype in Ubergismo (see below), plus answers to some questions I posed to Varjo. It is roughly drawn to scale based on the available information. The only thing I am not sure about is the “microdisplay lens” which was shown but not described in the Scoble interview. This lens(es) may or may not be necessary based on the distance of the microdisplay from the beam combiner and could be used to help make the microdisplay pixels appear smaller or larger. If the optical path though the beam combiner to large OLED (in the prototype from an Oculus headset) would equal the path from to the microdisplay via reflecting off the combiner, then the microdisplay lens would not be necessary. Based on my scale drawing and looking at the prototype photographs it would be close to not needing the lens.

Varjo is likely using either an eMagin OLED microdisplay with a 9.3 micron pixel pitch or a Sony OLED microdisplay with a 8.7 micron pixel pitch. The Oculus headset OLED has ~55.7 micron pixel pitch. It does not look from the configuration like the microdisplay image will be magnified or shrunk significantly relative to the larger OLED. Making this assumption, the microdisplay image is about 55.7/9 = ~6.2 time smaller linearly or effectively ~38 times the pixels per unit area. This ~38 times the area means effectively 38 times the pixels over the large OLED alone.

The good thing about this configuration is that it is very simple and straightforward and is a classically simple way to combine two image, at least that is the way it looks. But the devil is often in the details, particularly in what the prototype is not doing.

Current Varjo Prototype Does Not Track the Eye

The Varjo “prototype” (picture at left from is from Ubergismo) is more of a concept demonstrator in that it does not demonstrate moving the high resolution image with eye tracking. The current unit is based on a modified Oculus headset (obvious from the picture, see red oval I added to the picture). They are using the two Oculus larger OLED displays the context (wide FOV) image and have added an OLED microdisplay per eye for the foveated display. In this prototype, they have a static beam splitter to combine the two images. In the prototype, the location of the high resolution part of the image is fixed/static and requires that the user look straight ahead to get the foveated effect. While eye tracking is well understood, it is not clear how successfully they can make the high resolution inset image track the eye and whether the a human will notice the boundary (I will save the rest of this discussion for part 2).

Foveated Displays Raison D’être

Near eye display resolution is improving at a very slow rate and is unlikely to dramatically improve. People quoting “Moore’s Law” applying to display devices are simply either dishonest or don’t understand the problems. Microdisplays (on I.C.s) are already being limited by the physics of diffraction as their pixels (or color sub-pixels) get withing 5 times the wavelengths of visible light. The cost of making microdisplays bigger to support more pixels drives the cost up dramatically and this not rapidly improving; thus high resolution microdisplays are still and will remain very expensive.

Direct view display technologies while they have become very good at making large high resolution display, they can’t be make small enough for lightweight head-mounted displays with high angular resolution. As I discussed the Gap in Pixel Sizes (and for reference, I have included the chart from that article) which I published before I heard of Varjo, microdisplays enable high angular resolution but small FOV while adapted direct view display support low angular resolution with a wide FOV. I was already planning on explaining why Foveated Displays are the only way in the foreseeable future to support high angular resolution with a wide FOV: So from my perspective, Varjo’s announcement was timely.

Foveated Displays In Theory Should Work

It is well known that the human eye’s resolution falls off considerably from the high resolution fovea/center vision to the peripheral vision (see the typical graph at right). I should caution, that this is for a still image and that the human visual system is not this simple; in particular it has sensitivity to motion that this graph can’t capture.

It has been well proven by many research groups that if you can track the eye and provide variable resolution the eye cannot tell the difference from a high resolution display (a search for “Foveated” will turn up many references and videos). The primary use today is with Foveated Rendering to greatly reduce the computational requirements of VR environment.

Varjo is trying to exploit the same foveated effect to gives effectively very high resolution from two (per eye) much lower resolution displays. In theory, it could work but will in in practice?  In fact, the idea of a “Foveated Display” is not new. Magic Leap discussed it in their patents with a fiber scanning display. Personally, the idea seems to come up a lot in “casual discussions” on the limits of display resolution. The key question becomes: Is Varjo’s approach going to be practical and will it work well?

Obvious Issues With Varjo’s Foveated Display

The main lens (nearest the eye) is designed to bring the large OLED in focus like most of today’s VR headsets. And the first obvious issues is that the lens in a typical VR headset is designed resolve pixels that are more than 6 times smaller. Typical VR headsets lenses are, well . . ., cheap crap with horrible image quality. To some degree, they are deliberately blurring/bad to try and hide the screen door effect of the highly magnified large display. But the Varjo headset would need vastly better, and much more expensive, and likely larger and heavier optics for the foveated display; for example instead of using a simple cheap plastic lens, they may need a multiple element (multiple lenses) and perhaps made of glass.

The next issue is that of the tilting combiner and the way it moves the image. For simple up down movement of the foveated display’s image will follow a simple path up/down path, but if the 45 degree angle mirror tilts side to side the center of the image will follow an elliptical path and rotate making it more difficult to align with the context image.

I would also be very concerned about the focus of the image as the mirror tilts through of the range as the path lengths from the microdisplay to the main optics changes both to the center (which might be fixable by complex movement of the beam splitter) and the corners (which may be much more difficult to solve).

Then there is the general issue of will the user be able to detect the blend point between the foveated and context displays. They have to map the rotated foveated image match the context display which will loose (per Nyquist re-sampling) about 1/2 the resolution of the foveated image. While they will likely try cross-fade between the foveated and context display, I am concerned (to be addressed in more detail in part 2) that the visible/human detectable particularly when things move (the eye is very sensitive to movement).

What About Vergence/Accommodation (VAC)?

The optical configuration of Varjo’s Foveated Display is somewhat similar to that of Oculus’s VAC display. Both leverage a beam splitter, but then how would you do VAC with a Foveated Display?

In my opinion, solving the resolution with wide field of view is a more important/fundamentally necessary problem to solve that VAC at the moment. It is not that VAC is not a real issue, but if you don’t have resolution with wide FOV, then VAC is not really necessary?

At the same time, this points out how far away headsets that “solve all the world’s problems” are from production. If you believe that high resolution with a wide field of view that also address VAC, you may be in for a many decades wait.

Does Varjo Have a Practical Foveated Display Solution?

So the problem with display resolution/FOV growth is real and in theory a foveated display could address this issue. But has Varjo solved it? At this point, I am not convinced, and I will try and work though some numbers and more detail reasoning in part 2.

VAC By Oculus and Microsoft . . . Everywhere and Nowhere

Technically Interesting New Papers At Siggraph 2017

Both Oculus (Facebook) and Microsoft’s are presenting interesting technical research  papers at Siggraph 2017 (July 30th to August 3rd) that deal with Vergence/Accommodation (VAC).  Both have web pages (Oculus link and Microsoft link) with links to relatively easy to follow videos and the papers. But readers should take to heed the words on the Microsoft Page (which I think is applicable to both): “Note that this Microsoft Research publication is not necessarily indicative of any Microsoft product roadmap, but relates to basic research around holographic displays.” I can’t hope to try and get into all the technical details here, but they both have a lot well explained information with figures and for those that are interested, you can still learn a lot from them even if you have to skip over some of the heavy duty math. One other interesting thing is that both Oculus and Microsoft used phase controlled LCOS microdisplays at the heart of their technologies.

Briefly, VAC is the problem with stereoscopic 3-D where the apparent focus of objects does not agree with were they seem to appear with binocular vision. This problem can cause visual discomfort and headaches. This year I have been talking a lot about VAC thanks first to Magic Leap (ML article) and more recently Avegant (Avegant VAC article ) making big deals about and both raising a lot of money (Magic Leap over $1B) as a result. But least you think Magic Leap and Avegant are the only ones, there are dozens of research groups over the last decade working on VAC. Included in that number is Nvidia with a light field approach that they presented a paper in 2013 also at Siggraph (The 2013 Nvidia Paper with links embedded at the bottom of the Abstract to more information and a video)

The Oculus paper has a wealth of background/education information about VAC and figures that help explain the concepts. In many ways it is a great tutorial. They also have a very lengthy set of references that among other things confirm how many different groups have worked on VAC and this is only a partial list. I also recommend papers and videos on VAC by Gordon Wetzstein of Stanford. There is so much activity that I put “Everywhere” in the title.

I particularly liked Oculus’s Fig. 2 which is copied at the top of this article (they have several other very good figures as well as their video). They show the major classes of VAC, from a) do nothing, b) change focus (perhaps based on eye tracking), to c) Multifocal which is what I think Magic Leap and Avegant are doing, to d)&e) Oculus’s “focal surfaces(s), to f) light fields (ex. Nvidia’s 2013 paper). But light fields are in a way a short cut compared to real/true holograms which is what Microsoft’s 2017 paper is addressing (not shown in the table above but discussed in Oculus’s paper and video).

I put the “real” in front of the work “hologram” because confusingly Microsoft, for what appears to be marketing purposes, has chosen to call stereoscopic merged reality objects “holograms” which scientifically they are not. Thanks to Microsoft’s marketing clout and others choosing “if you can’t beat them joint them” in using the term, we now have the problem of what to call real/true holograms as discussed in Microsoft’s 2017 Siggraph paper.

High Level Conceptually:
  • Light Fields are a way to realize many of the effects of holograms such such as VAC and being able to see around objects. But light fields have piece-wise discontinuities. They can only reduce the discontinuities by massively trading off resolution; thus they need massive amounts of processing and native display resolution for a given visual resolution. Most of the processing and display resolution never makes it do the eye as based on where the eye is looking and focused, all but a small part of the generated image information is never seen. The redundancy with light fields tends to grow with a square law (X and Y).
  • Focus planes in effect try and cut down the Light Field square law redundancy problem by having the image redundancy grow linearly. They need multiple planes and then rely on your eye to do the blending between planes. Still the individual planes on “flat” and with a large continuous surface there would be discontinuities at the point where it would have to change planes (imagine a road going off in the distance).
  • Oculus Surfaces are in essence and improvement on focus planes where the surfaces try to conform more to the depth in the image and reduce the discontinuities. One could then argue whether it would be better to have more simple focus planes or fewer Focus Surfaces.
  • Holograms have at least an “n-cube” problem as they conceptually capture/display the image in X, Y, and Z. As the resolution increases the complexity grows extremely fast. Light fields have sometimes been described as “Quantized Holograms” at they put a finite limit on the computational and image content growth.
Oculus’s Focus Surface Approach

In a nutshell, Oculus is using an eMagin OLED to generate the image and a Jasper Display Phase Shift LCOS device to generate a “focus surface”. The focus changes focus continuously-gradually, and not on a per-pixel basis, which is why they call is a “surface”.  The figure on the right (taken from their video) shows the basic concept of a “focus surface” and how the surface roughly tracks the image depth. The paper (and video) go on to  discuss how having more than one surface and how the distance approximation “error” would compare with multi-focus planes (such as Magic Leap and Avegant).

While the hardware diagram above would suggest something that would fit in a headset, it is still at the optical breadboard stage. Even using microdisplays, it is a lot to put on a person’s head. Not to mention the cost of having in effect two displays (the LCOS one controlling the focus surface) plus all the additional optics. Below is a picture of the optical breadboard.

Microsoft (True This Time) Holograms

While Oculus’s hardware looks like something that could fit in a headset someday, Microsoft is much more of a research concept, although they did show a compact AR Prototype “glasses” (shown at right) that had a small subset of the capability of the larger optical breadboard.

Microsoft’s optical breadboard setup could support either Wide FOV or Multi-Focal (VAC) but not both at the same time (see picture below). Like other real time hologram approaches (and used by Oculus in their focal surface approach), Microsoft uses a Phase LCOS device.The Microsoft paper goes into some of the interesting things that can be done with holograms including correcting for aberrations in the optics and/or a person’s vision.

In many ways Holograms ultimate end game in display technology where comparatively everything else in with VAC is a hack/shortcut/simplification to avoid the massive computations and hardware complexities/difficulties of implementing real time holograms.

Resolution/Image Quality – Not So Much

The image quality in the Oculus Surface paper is by their admission very low both in terms of resolution and contrast. As they freely admit, it is a research prototype and not meant to be a product.

Some of these limitations are the nature of making a one-off experiment as the article points out but some of the issues may be more fundamental physics. One thing that concerns me (and pointed out in the article) in the Oculus design is that they have to pass all three colors through the same LC material and the LC’s behavior varies with wavelength. These problems would become more significant as resolution increases. I will give the Oculus paper props for both for is level of information and candor about many of the issues; it really is a very well done paper if you are interested in this subject.

It is harder to get at the resolution and image quality aspects of the the Microsoft Hologram paper as they show little images from different configurations. They can sort of move the problems around with Holograms; they can tune them and even the physical configuration for image quality, pupil size, or depth accommodation, but not all at the same time. Digital/real-time holograms can do some rather amazing things as as the Microsoft paper demonstrates but but they are still inordinately expensive both to compute and display and the image quality is inferior to more conventional methods. Solving for image quality (resolution/contrast), pupil/eyebox size, and VAC/image depth simultaneously makes the problems/cost tend to take off exponentially.

Don’t Expect to See These In Stores for Decades, If Ever

One has to realize that these are research projects going for some kind of bragging rights in showing the technical prowess, which both Oculus and Microsoft do impressively in their own ways. Note the Nvidia Light Field paper was presented at Siggraph 2013 years ago and supporting decent resolution with Light Fields is still a very far off dream. If their companies thought these concepts were even remotely practical and only a few years away, the companies would have kept them deep dark secrets. These are likely seen by their companies as so out in the future that there is no threat to letting their competition see what they are doing.

The Oculus Surface approach is conceptually better on a “per plane” than the “focus planes” VAC approaches, but then you have to ask are more simple planes better overall and/or less expensive? At a practical level I think the Oculus Surface would be more expensive and I would expect the image quality to be considerably worse. At best, the Oculus Surface would be a stop-gap improvement.

Real time high resolution holograms that will compete on image quality would seem to be even further out in time. This is why there are so many companies/researchers looking at short cuts to VAC with things like focus planes.

VAC in Context – Nowhere

VAC has been a known issue for a long time with companies and researchers working in head mounted displays. Magic Leap’s $1+B funding and their talk about VAC made it a cause célèbre in AR/VR and appears to have caused a number of projects to come out from behind closed doors (for V.C. funding or just bragging rights).

Yes, VAC is a real issue/problem particularly/only when 3-D stereoscopic objects appear to be closer than about 2 meters (6 feet) away. It causes not only perceptual problems, but can cause headaches and make people sick. Thus you have companies and researchers looking for solutions.

The problem IMO is that VAC is would be say about 20th (to pick a number) on my list of serious problems facing AR/VR. Much higher on the list are based image quality, ergonomic (weight distribution), power, and computing problems. Every VAC solution comes at some expense in terms of image quality (resolution/contrast/chromatic-abberations/etc).

Fundamentally, if you eye can pick what it focuses on, then there has to be a lot of redundant information presented to the eye that it will discard (not notice) as it focuses on what it does see. This translates into image information that must be displayed (but not seen), processing computations that are thrown away, and electrical power being consumed for image content that is not used.

I’m Conflicted

So I am conflicted. As a technologist, I find the work in VAC and beyond (Holograms address much more than VAC) fascinating. Both the Oculus and Microsoft articles are interesting and can be largely understood by someone without a PhD in the subject.

But in the end I am much more interested in technology that can reach a sizable market and on that score I don’t understand all the fuss about VAC.  I guess we will have to wait and see if Magic Leap changes the world or is another Segway or worse Theranos; you might be able to tell which way I am leaning based on what I understand.

Today, the image quality of headsets is pretty poor when compared to say direct view TVs and Monitors, the angular resolution (particularly of VR) is poor, the ergonomics are for the most part abysmal, and if you are going to wireless, the batteries are both too heavy and have too short a life. Anything that is done to address VAC makes these more basic problems not just a little worse, but much worse.

Avegant “Light Field” Display – Magic Leap at 1/100th the Investment?

Surprised at CES 2017 – Avegant Focus Planes (“Light Field”)

While at CES 2017 I was invited to Avegant’s Suite and was expecting to see a new and improved and/or a lower cost version of the Avegant Glyph. The Glyph  was a hardly revolutionary; it is a DLP display based, non-see-through near eye display built into a set of headphones with reasonably good image quality. Based on what I was expecting, it seemed like a bit much to be signing an NDA just to see what they were doing next.

But what Avegant showed was essentially what Magic Leap (ML) has been claiming to do in terms of focus planes/”light-fields” with vergence & accommodation.  But Avegant had accomplished this with likely less than 1/100th the amount of money ML is reported to have raised (ML has raised to date about $1.4 billion). In one stroke they made ML more believable and at the same time raises the question why ML needed so much money.

What I saw – Technology Demonstrator

I was shown was a headset with two HDMI cables for video and USB cable for power and sensor data going to an external desktop computer all bundle together. A big plus for me was that there enough eye relief that I could wear my own glasses (I have severe astigmatism so just diopter adjustments don’t work for me). The picture at left is the same or similar prototype I wore. The headset was a bit bulkier than say Hololens, plus the bundle of cables coming out of it. Avegant made it clear that this was an engineering prototype and nowhere near a finished product.

The mixed reality/see-through headset merges the virtual world with the see-through real world. I was shown three (3) mixed reality (MR) demos, a moving Solar System complete with asteroids, a Fish Tank complete with fish swimming around objects in the room and a robot/avatar woman.

Avegant makes the point that the content was easily ported from Unity into their system with fish tank video model coming from the Monterrey Bay Aquarium and the woman and solar system being downloaded from the Unity community open source library.  The 3-D images were locked to the “real world” taking this from simple AR into be MR. The tracking was not all perfect, nor did I care, the point of the demo was the focal planes, lots of companies are working on tracking.

It is easy to believe that by “turning the crank” they can eliminate the bulky cables and  the tracking and locking to between the virtual and real world will improve. It was a technology capability demonstrator and on that basis it has succeeded.

What Made It Special – Multiple Focal Planes / “Light Fields”

What ups the game from say Hololens and takes it into the realm of Magic Leap is that it supported simultaneous focal planes, what Avegant call’s “Light Fields” (a bit different than true “light fields” to as I see it). The user could change what they were focusing in the depth of the image and bring things that were close or far into focus. In other words, they simultaneously present to the eye multiple focuses. You could also by shifting your eyes see behind objects a bit. This clearly is something optically well beyond Hololens which does simple stereoscopic 3-D and in no way presents multiple focus points to the eye at the same time.

In short, what I was seeing in terms of vergence and accommodation was everything Magic Leap has been claiming to do. But Avegant has clearly spent only very small fraction of the development cost and it was at least portable enough they had it set up in a hotel room and with optics that look to be economical to make.

Now it was not perfect nor was Avegant claiming it to be at this stage. I could see some artifacts, in particularly lots of what looked like faint diagonal lines. I’m not sure if these were a result of the multiple focal planes or some other issue such as a bug.

Unfortunately the only available “through the lens” video currently available is at about 1:01 in Avegant’s Introducing Avegant Light Field” Vimeo video. There are only a few seconds and it really does not demonstrate the focusing effects well.

Why Show Me?

So why were they more they were showing it to me, an engineer and known to be skeptical of demos? They knew of my blog and why I was invited to see the demo. Avegant was in some ways surprising open about what they were doing and answered most, but not all, of my technical questions. They appeared to be making an effort to make sure people understand it really works. It seems clear they wanted someone who would understand what they had done and could verify it it some something different.

What They Are Doing With the Display

While Avegant calls their technology “Light Fields” it is implemented with (directly quoting them) “a number of fixed digital focal planes, and then interpolate the planes in-between them.” Multiple focus planes have many of the same characteristics at classical light fields, but require much less image data be simultaneously presented to the eye and thus saving power on generating and displaying as much image data, much of which the eye will not “see”/use.

They are currently using a 720p DLP per eye for the display engine but they said they thought they could support other display technologies in the future. As per my discussion on Magic Leap from November 2016, DLP has a high enough field rate that they could support displaying multiple images with the focus changing between images if you can change the focus fast enough. If you are willing to play with (reduce) color depth, DLP could support a number of focus planes. Avegant would not confirm if they use time sequential focus planes, but I think it likely.

They are using “birdbath optics” per my prior article with a beam splitter and spherical semi-mirror /combiner (see picture at left). With a DLP illuminated by LEDs, they can afford the higher light losses of the birdbath design and support having a reasonable amount of transparency to the the real world. Note, waveguides also tend to lose/wast a large amount of light as well. Avegant said that the current system was 50% transparent to the real world but that the could make it more (by wasting more light).

Very importantly, a birdbath optical design can be very cheap (on the order of only a few dollars) whereas the waveguides can cost many tens of dollars (reportedly Hololen’s waveguides cost over $100 each). The birdbath optics also can support a very wide field of view (FOV), something generally very difficult/expensive to support with waveguides. The optical quality of a birdbath is generally much better than the best waveguides. The downside of the birdbath compared to waveguides that it is bulkier and does not look as much like ordinary glasses.

What they would not say – Exactly How It Works

The one key thing they would not say is how they are supporting the change in focus between focal planes. The obvious way to do it would with some kind of electromechanical device such as moving focus or a liquid filled lens (the obvious suspects). In a recent interview, they repeatedly said that there were no moving parts and that is was “economical to make.”

What They are NOT Doing (exactly) – Mechanical Focus and Eye/Pupil Tracking

After meeting with Avegant at CES I decided to check out their recent patent activity and found US 2016/0295202 (‘202). It show a birdbath optics system (but with a non-see through curved mirror). This configuration with a semi-mirror curved element would seem to do what I saw. In fact, it is very similar to what Magic Leap showed in their US application 2015/0346495.

Avegant’s ‘202 application uses a combination of a “tuning assembly 700” (some form of electro-mechanical focus).

It also uses eye tracking 500 to know where the pupil is aimed. Knowing where the pupil is aimed would, at least in theory, allow them to generate a focus plane for the where the eye is looking and then an out of focus plane for everything else. At least in theory that is how it would work, but this might be problematical (no fear, this is not what they are doing, remember).

I specifically asked Avegant about the ‘202 application and they said categorically that they were not using it and that the applications related to what they were using has not yet been published (I suspect it will be published soon, perhaps part of the reason they are announcing now). They categorically stated that there were “no moving parts” and that the “did not eye track” for the focal planes. They stated that the focusing effect would even work with say a camera (rather than an eye) and was in no way dependent on pupil tracking.

A lesson here is that even small companies file patents on concepts that they don’t use. But still this application gives insight into what Avegant was interested in doing and some clues has to how the might be doing it. Eliminate the eye tracking and substitute a non-mechanical focus mechanism that is rapid enough to support 3 to 6 focus planes and it might be close to what they are doing (my guess).

A Caution About “Demoware”

A big word of warning here about demoware. When seeing a demo, remember that you are being shown what makes the product look best and examples that might make it look not so good are not shown.

I was shown three short demos that they picked, I had no choice. I could not pick my own test cases.I also don’t know exactly the mechanism by which it works, which makes it hard to predict the failure mode, as in what type of content might cause artifacts. For example, everything I was shown was very slow moving. If they are using sequential focus planes, I would expect to see problems/artifacts with fast motion.

Avegant’s Plan for Further Development

Avegant is in the process of migrating away from requiring a big PC and onto mobile platforms such as smartphones. Part of this is continuing to address the computing requirement.

Clearly they are going to continue refining the mechanical design of the headset and will either get rid of or slim down the cables and have them go to a mobile computer.  They say that all the components are easily manufactureable and this I would tend to believe. I do wonder how much image data they have to send, but it appears they are able to do with just two HDMI cables (one per eye). It would seem they will be wire tethered to a (mobile) computing system. I’m more concerned about how the image quality might degrade with say fast moving content.

They say they are going to be looking at other (than the birdbath) combiner technology; one would assume a waveguide of some sort to make the optics thinner and lighter. But going to waveguides could hurt image quality and cost and may more limit the FOV.

Avegant is leveraging the openness of Unity to support getting a lot of content generation for their platform. They plan on a Unity SDK to support this migration.

They said they will be looking into alternatives for the DLP display, I would expect LCOS and OLED to be considered. They said that they had also thought about laser beam scanning but their engineers objected to trying for eye safety reasons; engineers are usually the first Guinea pigs for their own designs and a bug could be catastrophic. If they are using time sequential focal planes which is likely, then other technologies such as OLED, LCOS or Laser Beam Scanning cannot generate sequential planes fast enough to support that more than a few (1 to 3) focal planes per 1/60th of a second on a single device at maximum resolution.

How Important is Vergence/Accomodation (V/A)?

The simple answer is that it appears that Magic Leap raised $1.4B by demoing it. But as they say, “all that glitters is not gold.” The V/A conflict issue is real, but it mostly affects content that virtually appears “close”, say inside about 2 meters/6 feet.

Its not clear that for “everyday use” there might be simpler, less expensive and/or using less power ways to deal with V/A conflict such as pupil tracking. Maybe (don’t know) it would be enough to simply change the focus point when the user is doing close up work rather than have multiple focal planes presented to the eye simultaneously .

The business question is whether solving V/A alone will make AR/MR take off? I think the answer to this is clearly no, this is not the last puzzle piece to be solved before AR/MR will take off. It is one of a large number of issues yet to be solved. Additionally, while Avegant says they have solved it economically, what is economical is relative. It still has added weight, power, processing, and costs associated with it and it has negative impacts on the image quality; the classic “squeezing the balloon” problem.

Even if V/A added nothing and cost nothing extra, there are still many other human factor issues that severely limit the size of the market. At times like this, I like to remind people the the Artificial Intelligence boom in the 1980s (over 35 years ago) that it seemed all the big and many small companies were chasing as the next era of computing. There were lots of “breakthroughs” back then too, but the problem was bigger than all the smart people and money could solve.

BTW, it you want to know more about V/A and related issues, I highly recommend reading papers and watching videos by Gordon Wetzstein of Stanford. Particularly note his work on “compressive light field displays” which he started working on while at MIT. He does an excellent job of taking complex issues and making them understandable.

Generally Skeptical About The Near Term Market for AR/MR

I’m skeptical that with or without Avegant’s technology, the Mixed Reality (MR) market is really set to take off for at least 5 years (an likely more). I’ve participated in a lot of revolutionary markets (early video game chips, home/personal computers, graphics accelerators, the Synchronous DRAMs, as well as various display devices) and I’m not a Luddite/flat-earther, I simply understand the challenges still left unsolved and there are many major ones.

Most of the market forecasts for huge volumes in the next 5 years are written by people that don’t have a clue as to what is required, they are more science fiction writers than technologist. You can already see companies like Microsoft with Hololens and before them Google with Google Glass, retrenching/regrouping.

Where Does Avegant Go Business Wise With this Technology?

Avegant is not a big company. They were founding in in 2012. My sources tell me that they have raise about $25M and I have heard that they have only sold about $5M to $10M worth of their first product, the Avegant Glyph. I don’t see the Glyph ever as being a high volume product with a lot of profit to support R&D.

A related aside: I have yet to see a Glyph “in the wild” being using say on an airplane (where they would make the most sense). Even though the Glyph and other headsets exist, people given a choice still by vast percentages still prefer larger smartphones and tablets for watching media on the go. The Glyph sells for about $500 now and is very bulky to store, whereas a tablet easily slips into a backpack or other bag and the display is “free”/built in.

But then, here you have this perhaps “key technology” that works and that is doing something that Magic Leap has raised over $1.4 Billion dollars to try and do. It is possible (having not thoroughly tested either one), that Avegant’s is better than ML’s. Avegant’s technology is likely much more cost effective to make than ML’s, particularly if ML’s depends on using their complex waveguide.

Having not seen the details on either Avegant’s or ML’s method, I can’t say which is “best” both image wise and in terms of cost, nor whether from a patent perspective, whether Avegant’s is different from ML.

So Avegant could try and raise money to do it on their own, but they would have to raise a huge amount to last until the market matures and compete with much bigger companies working in the area. At best they have solved one (of many) interesting puzzle pieces.

It seems obvious (at least to me) that more likely good outcome for them would be as a takeover target by someone that has the deep pockets to invest in mixed reality for the long haul.

But this should certainly make the Magic Leap folks and their investors take notice. With less fanfare, and a heck of a lot less money, Avegant has as solution to the vergence/accommodation problem that ML has made such a big deal about.

CES 2017 AR, What Problem Are They Trying To Solve?

Introduction

First off, this post is a few weeks late. I got sick on returning from CES and then got busy with some other pressing activities.

At left is a picture that caught me next to the Lumus Maximus demo at CES from Imagineality’s “CES 2017: Top 6 AR Tech Innovations“. Unfortunately they missed that in the Lumus booth at about the same time was a person from Magic Leap and Microsoft’s Hololens (it turned out we all knew each other from prior associations).

Among Imagineality’s top 6 “AR Innovations” were ODG’s R-8/R-9 Glasses (#1) and Lumus’s Maximus 55 degree FOV waveguide (#3). From what I heard at CES and saw in the writeups, ODG and Lumus did garner a lot of attention. But by necessity, theses type of lists are pretty shallow in their evaluations and I try to do on this blog is go a bit deeper into the technology and how it applies to the market.

Among the near eye display companies I looked at during CES include Lumus, ODG, Vuzix, Real Wear, Kopin, Wave Optics, Syndiant, Cremotech, QD Laser, Blaze (division of eMagin) plus several companies I met with privately. As interesting to me as their technologies was there different takes on the market.

For this article, I am mostly going to focus on the Industrial / Enterprise market. This is were most of the AR products are shipping today. In future articles, I plan to go into other markets and more of a deep dive on the the technology.

What Is the Problem They Are Trying to Solve?

I have had an number of people asked me what was the best or most interesting AR thing I saw at CES 2017, and I realized that this was at best an incomplete question. You first need to ask, “What problem are they trying to solve?” Which leads to “how well does it solve that problem?” and “how big is that market?

One big takeaway I had at CES having talked to a number of different company’s is that the various headset designs were, intentionally or not, often aimed at very different applications and use cases. Its pretty hard to compare a headset that almost totally blocks a user’s forward view but with a high resolution display to one that is a lightweight information device that is highly see-through but with a low resolution image.

Key Characteristics

AR means a lot of different things to different people. In talking to a number of companies, you found they were worried about different issues. Broadly you can separate into two classes:

  1. Mixed Reality – ex. Hololens
  2. Informational / “Data Snacking”- ex. Google Glass

For most of the companies were focused on industrial / enterprise / business uses at least for the near future and in this market the issues include:

  1. Cost
  2. Resolution/Contrast/Image Quality
  3. Weight/Comfort
  4. See-through and/or look over
  5. Peripheral vision blocking
  6. Field of view (small)
  7. Battery life per charge

For all the talk about mixed reality (ala Hololens and Magic Leap), most of the companies selling product today are focused on helping people “do a job.” This is where they see the biggest market for AR today. It will be “boring” to the people wanting the “world of the future” mixed reality being promised by Hololens and Magic Leap.

You have to step back and look at the market these companies are trying to serve. There are people working on a factory floor or maybe driving a truck where it would be dangerous to obscure a person’s vision of the real world. They want 85% or more transparency, very lightweight and highly comfortable so it can be worn for 8 hours straight, and almost no blocking of peripheral vision. If they want to fan out to a large market, they have to be cost effective which generally means they have to cost less than $1,000.

To meet the market requirements, they sacrifice field of view and image quality. In fact, they often want a narrow FOV so it does not interfere with the user’s normal vision. They are not trying to watch movies or play video games, they are trying to give necessary information for person doing a job than then get out of the way.

Looking In Different Places For the Information

I am often a hard audience. I’m not interested in the marketing spiel, I’m looking for what is the target market/application and what are the facts and figure and how is it being done. I wanting to measure things when the demos in the boths are all about trying to dazzle the audience.

As a case in point, let’s take ODG’s R-9 headset, most people were impressed with the image quality from ODG’s optics with a 1080p OLED display, which was reasonably good (they still had some serious image problems caused by their optics that I will get into in future articles).

But what struck me was how dark the see-through/real world was when viewed in the demos. From what I could calculate, they are blocking about 95% of the real world light in the demos. They also are too heavy and block too much of a person’s vision compared to other products; in short they are at best going after a totally different market.

Industrial Market

Vuzix is representative of the companies focused on industrial / enterprise applications. They are using with waveguides with about 87% transparency (although they often tint it or uses photochromic light sensitive tinting). Also the locate the image toward the outside of the use’s view so that even when an image it displayed (note in the image below-right that the exit port of the waveguide is on the outside and not in the center as it would be on say a Hololens).

The images at right were captured from a Robert Scoble interview with Paul Travers, CEO of Vuzix. BTW, the first ten minutes of the video are relatively interesting on how Vuzix waveguides work but after that there is a bunch of what I consider silly future talk and flights of fancy that I would take issue with. This video shows the “raw waveguides” and how they work.

Another approach to this category is Realwear. They have a “look-over” display that is not see through but their whole design is make to not block the rest of the users forward vision. The display is on a hinge so it can be totally swung out of the way when not in use.

Conclusion

What drew the attention of most of the media coverage of AR at CES was how “sexy” the technology was and this usually meant FOV, resolution, and image quality. But the companies that were actually selling products were more focused on their user’s needs which often don’t line up with what gets the most press and awards.

 

Everything VR & AR Podcast Interview with Karl Guttag About Magic Leap

With all the buzz surrounding Magic Leap and this blog’s technical findings about Magic Leap, I was asked to do an interview by the “Everything VR & AR Podcast” hosted by Kevin Harvell. The podcast is available on iTunes and by direct link to the interview here.

The interview starts with about 25 minutes of my background starting with my early days at Texas Instruments. So if you just want to hear about Magic Leap and AR you might want to skip ahead a bit. In the second part of the interview (about 40 minutes) we get into discussing how I went about figuring out what Magic Leap was doing. This includes discussing how the changes in the U.S. patent system signed into law in 2011 with the America Invents Act help make the information available for me to study.

There should be no great surprises for anyone that has followed this blog. It puts in words and summarizes a lot that I have written about in the last 2 months.

Update: I listen to the podcast and noticed that I misspoke a few times; it happens in live interviews.  An unfathomable mistake is that I talked about graduating college in 1972 but that was high school; I graduated from Bradley University with a B.S. in Electrical Engineering in 1976 and then received and MSEE from The University of Michigan in 1977 (and joined TI in 1977).  

I also think I greatly oversimplified the contribution of Mark Harward as a co-founder at Syndiant. Mark did much more than just have desigeners, he was the CEO, an investor, and and the company while I “played” with the technology, but I think Mark’s best skill was in hiring great people. Also, Josh Lund, Tupper Patnode, and Craig Waller were co-founders. 

 

Evergaze: Helping People See the Real World

Real World AR

Today I would like to forget about all the hype and glamor near eye products to have fun in a virtual world. Instead I’m going to talk a near eye device aimed at helping people to see and live in the real world.  The product is called the “seeBoost®” and it is made by the startup Evergaze in Richardson, Texas. I happen to know the founder and CEO Pat Antaki from working together on a near eye display back in 1998, long before it was fashionable. I’ve watched Pat bootstrap this company from its earliest days and asked him if I could be the first to write about seeBoost on my blog.

The Problem

Imagine you get Age Related Macular Degeration (AMD) or Diabetic Retinopathy. All your high-resolution vision and best color vision of the macular (and where high resolution fovea resides) is gone and you see something like the picture on the right. All you can use is your peripheral vision which is low in resolution, contrast, and color sensitivity. There are over 2 million people in the U.S that can still see but have worse than 20/60 vision in their better eye.

What would you pay to be able to read a book again and do other normal activities that require the ability to have “functional vision?” So not only is Evergaze aiming to help a large number of people, they are going after a sizable and growing market.

seeBoost Overview

seeBoost has 3 key parts, the lightweight near-to-eye display, a camera with high speed autofocus, and proprietary processing in an ASIC that remaps what the camera sees onto the functioning part of the user’s vision. They put the proprietary algorithms in hardware so they could have the image remapping and contrast enhancement performed with extremely low latency so that there is no perceptible delay when a person moves their head. As anyone that has used VR headsets will know, this important for wearing the device for long periods of time to avoid headaches and nausea.

A perhaps subtle but important point is that the camera and display are perfectly coaxial, so there is no parallax error as you move the object closer to your eye. The importance of centering the camera with the user’s eye for long term comfort was a major point made AR headset user and advocate Steve Mann in his March 2013, IEEE Spectrum article, “What I’ve learned from 35 years of wearing computerized eyewear”. Quoting from the article, “The slight misalignment seemed unimportant at the time, but it produced some strange and unpleasant result.” And in commenting on Google Glass Mr. Mann said, “The current prototypes of Google Glass position the camera well to the right side of the wearer’s right eye. Were that system to overlay live video imagery from the camera on top of the user’s view, the very same problems would surely crop up.”

Unlike traditional magnifying optics like a magnifying glass, in addition to being able to remap the camera image to the parts of the eye that can see, the depth of field and magnification amount are decoupled: you can get any magnification (from 1x to 8x) at any distance (2 inches to infinity). It also has digital image color reversal (black-to-white reversal, useful for reading pages with a lot of white). The device is very lightweight at 0.9 oz. including cable. The battery pack supports for 6 hours of continual use on a single charge.

Use Case

Imagine this use scenario: playing bridge with your friends. To look at the cards in your hand you may need 2x mag at 12 inches’ distance. The autofocus allows you to merely move the cards as close to your face as you like, the way a person would naturally use to make something larger. Having the camera coaxial with the display makes this all seem natural versus say having a camera above the eye. Looking at the table to see what cards are placed there, maybe you need 6x mag. at 2 feet. To see other people’s eyes and facial expressions around the table, you need 1-2x at 3-4 feet.

seeBoost is designed to help people see so they can better take part in the simple joys of normal life. The lightweight design mounts on top of a user’s prescription glasses and can help while walking, reading signs and literature, shopping, watching television, recognizing faces, cooking, and even playing sports like golf.

Another major design consideration was the narrow design so that it does not cover-up lateral and downwards peripheral vision of the eye.  This turns out to be important for people who don’t want to further lose peripheral vision. In this application, monocular(single eye) is for better situational awareness and peripheral vision.

seeBoost is a vision enhancement device rather it essentially a computer (or cell phone) monitor that you must plug into something. The user simply looks at the screen (through seeBoost), as seeBoost improves their vision for whatever they’re looking at, be it an electronic display or their grandchildren’s faces.

Assembled in the USA and Starting to Ship

This is not just some Kickstarter concept either. Evergaze has been testing prototypes with vision impaired patients for over a year and have already finished a number of studies. What’s more they recently started shipping product. To the left is an image that was taken though the seeBoost camera via its display and optics.

What’s more this product is manufactured in the US at a production line Evergaze set up in Richardson, TX. If you want to find out more about the company you can go their their YouTube Channel or if you know someone that needs a seeBoost, you can contact Pat Antaki via email: pantaki@evergaze.com

Magic Leap & Hololens: Waveguide Ego Trip?

ml-and-hololens-combiner-cropThe Dark Side of Waveguides

Flat and thin waveguides are certainly impressive optical devices. It is almost magical how you can put light into what looks a lot like thin plates of glass and an small image will go on one side and then with total internal reflection (TIR) inside the glass, the image comes out in a different place. They are coveted by R&D people for their scientific sophistication and loved by Industrial Designers because they look so much like ordinary glass.

But there is a “dark side” to waveguides, at least every one that I have seen. To made them work, the light follows a torturous path and often has to be bent at about 45 degrees to couple into the waveguide and then by roughly 45 degrees to couple out in addition to rattling of the two surfaces while it TIRs. The image is just never the same quality when it goes through all this torture. Some of the light does not make all the turns and bends correctly and it come out in the wrong places which degrade the image quality. A major effect I have seen in every diffractive/holographic waveguid  is I have come to call “waveguide glow.”

Part of the problem is that when you bend light either by refraction or using diffraction or holograms, the various colors of light bend slightly differently based on wavelength. The diffraction/holograms are tuned for each color but invariably they have some effect on the other color; this is particularly problem is if the colors don’t have a narrow spectrum that is exactly match by the waveguide. Even microscopic defects cause some light to follow the wrong path and invariably a grating/hologram meant to bend say green, will also affect the direction of say blue. Worse yet, some of the  light gets scattered, and causes the waveguide glow.

hololens-through-the-lens-waveguide-glowTo the right is a still frame from a “Through the lens” video” taken through the a Hololens headset. Note, this is actually through the optics and NOT the video feed that Microsoft and most other people show. What you should notice is a violet colored “glow” beneath the white circle. There is usually also a tendency to have a glow or halo around any high contrast object/text, but it is most noticeable when there is a large bright area.

For these waveguides to work at all, they require very high quality manufacturing which tends to make them expensive. I have heard several reports that Hololens has very low yields of their waveguide.

I haven’t, nor have most people that have visited Magic Leap (ML), seen though ML’s waveguide. What  ML leap shows most if not all their visitors are prototype systems that use non-waveguide optics has I discussed last time. Maybe ML has solved all the problems with waveguides, if they have, they will be the first.

I have nothing personally against waveguides. They are marvels of optical science and require very intelligent people to make them and very high precision manufacturing to make. It is just that they always seem to hurt image quality and they tend to be expensive.

Hololens – How Did Waveguides Reduce the Size?

Microsoft acquired their waveguide technology from Nokia. It looks almost like they found this great bit of technology that Nokia had developed and decided to build a product around it. hololensBut then when you look at Hololens (left) there is this the shield to protect the lenses (often tinted but I picked a clear shield so you could see the waveguides). On top of this there is all the other electronic and frame to mount it on the user’s head.

The space savings from the using waveguides over much simpler flat combiner  is a drop in the bucket.

ODG Same Basic Design for LCOS and OLED

I’m picking Osterhout Design Group’s for comparison below because because they demonstrate a simpler, more flexible, and better image quality alternative to using a waveguide. I think it makes a point. Most probably have not heard of them, but I have know of them for about 8 or 9 years (I have no relationship with them at this time). They have done mostly military headsets in the past and burst onto the public scene when Microsoft paid them about $150 million dollars for a license to their I.P. Beyond this they just raised another $58 million from V.C.’s. Still this is chump change compared to what Hololens and Magic Leap are spending.

Below is the ODG R7 LCOS based glasses (with the one of the protective covers removed). Note, the very simple flat combiner. It is extremely low tech and much lower cost compared to the Hololens waveguide. To be fair, the R7 does not have as much in the way of sensors and processing as the as Hololens.

odg-r-with-a-cover-removed

The point here is that by the time you put the shield on the Hololens what difference does having a flat waveguide make to the overall size? Worse yet, the image quality from the simple combiner is much better.

Next, below is ODG’s next generation Horizon glasses that use a 1080p Micro-OLED display. It appears to have somewhat larger combiner (I can’t tell if it is flat or slightly curved from the available pictures of it) to support the wider FOV and a larger outer cover, but pretty much the same design. The remarkable thing is that they can use the a similar optical design with the OLEDs and the whole thing is about the same size where as the Hololens waveguide won’t work at all with OLEDs due broad bandwidth colors OLEDs generate.

odg-horizons-50d-fov

ODG put up a short video clip through their optics of the Micro-OLED based Horizon (they don’t come out and say that it is, but the frame is from the Horizon and the image motion artifacts are from an OLED). The image quality appears to be (you can’t be too quantitative from a YouTube video) much better than anything I have seen from waveguide optics. There is not of the “waveguide glow”. odg-oled-through-the-optics-002

They even were willing to show text image with both clear and white backgrounds that looks reasonably good (see below). It looks more like a monitor image except for the fact that is translucent. This is the hard content display because you know what it is supposed to look like so you know when something is wrong. Also, that large white area would glow like mad on any waveguide optics I have seen. odg-oled-text-screen-002

The clear text on white background is a little hard to read at small size because it is translucent, but that is a fundamental issue will all  see-though displays. The “black” is what ever is in the background and the “white” is the combination of the light from the image and the real world background.  See through displays are never going as good as an opaque displays in this regards.

Hololens and Magic Leap – Cart Before the Horse

It looks to me like Hololens and Magic Leap both started with a waveguide display as a given and then built everything else around it. They overlooked that they were building a system. Additionally, they needed get it in many developers hands as soon as possible to work out the myriad of other sensor, software, and human factors issues. The waveguide became a bottleneck, and from what I can see from Hololens was an unnecessary burden. As my fellow TI Fellow Gene Frantz and I used to say when we where on TI’s patent committeed, “it is often the great new invention that causes the product to fail.”

I (and few/nobody outside of Magic Leap) has seen an image through ML’s production combiner, maybe they will be the first to make one that looks as good as simpler combiner solution (I tend to doubt it, but it not impossible). But what has leaked out is that they have had problems getting systems to their own internal developers. According the Business Insider’s Oct. 24th article (with my added highlighting):

“Court filings reveal new secrets about the company, including a west coast software team in disarray, insufficient hardware for testing, and a secret skunkworks team devoted to getting patents and designing new prototypes — before its first product has even hit the market.”

From what I can tell of what Magic Leap is trying to do, namely focus planes to support vergence/accommodation, they could have achieved this faster with more conventional optics. It might not have been as sleek or “magical” as the final product, but it would have done the job, shown the advantage (assuming it is compelling) and got their internal developers up and running sooner.

It is even more obvious for Hololens. Using a simple combiner would have added trivially to the the design size while reducing the cost and getting the the SDK’s in more developer’s hands sooner.

Summary

It looks to me that both Hololens and likely Magic Leap put too much emphasis on the using waveguides which had a domino effect in other decisions rather than making a holistic system decision. The way I see it:

  1. The waveguide did not dramatically make Hololens smaller (the case is still out for Magic Leap – maybe they will pull a rabbit out of the hat). Look at ODG’s designs, they are every bit as small.
  2. The image quality is worse with waveguides than simpler combiner designs.
  3. Using waveguides boxed them in to using only display devices that were compatible with their waveguides. Most notably they can’t use OLED or other display technology that emit broader spectrum light.
  4. Even if it was smaller, it is more important to get more SDKs in developers (internal and/or external hand) sooner rather than later.

Hololens and Magic Leap appear to be banking on getting waveguides into volume production in order to solve all the image quality and cost problems with them. But it will depend on a lot of factors, some of which are not in their control, namely, how hard it is to make them well and at a price that people can afford. Even if they solve all the issues with waveguides, it is only a small piece of their puzzle.

Right now ODG seems to be taking more the of the original Apple/Wozniak approach; they are finding elegance in a simpler design. I still have issues with what they are doing, but in the area of combining the light and image quality, they seem to be way ahead.

Magic Leap – No Fiber Scan Display (FSD)

Sorry, No Fiber Scan Displays

For those that only want my conclusion, I will cut to the chase. Anyone that believes Magic Leap (ML) is going to have a Laser Fiber Scanned Display (FSD) anytime soon (as in the next decade) is going to be sorely disappointed. FSDs is one of those concepts that sounds like it would work until you look at it carefully. Developed at the University of Washington in the mid to late 2000’s, they were able to generate some very poor quality images in 2009 and as best I can find, nothing better since.

The fundamental problem with this technology is that wiggling a fiber is very hard to control accurately enough to make a quality display. This problem is particularly true when the scanning fiber has to come to near rest in the center of the image. It is next to impossible (and impossible at a rational cost) to have the wiggling fiber tip with finite mass and its own resonate frequency follow a highly accurate and totally repeatable path.

Magic Leap has patents applications related to FSDs showing two different ways to try and increase the resolution, provide they could ever make a decent low resolution display in the first place. Effectively, they have patents that doubled down on FSD, one was the “array of FSDs” which I discussed in the Appendix of my last article that would be insanely expensive and would not work optically in a near eye system and the other doubles down on a single FSD that ML calls “Dynamic Region Resolution” (DRR) which I will discuss below after discussing the FSD basics.

The ML patent applications on the subject of FSD read more like technical fairy tales of what they wished they could do with a bit of technical detail and drawing scattered in to make it sound plausible. But the really tough problems of making it work are never even discussed, no less solutions proposed.

Fiber Scanning Display (FSD) Basics

ml-spiral-scanThe concept of the Fiber Scanning Display (FSD) is simple enough, two piezoelectric vibrators connected to one side of an optical fiber cause the fiber tip follow a spiral path starting from the center and a working its way out. The amplitude of the vibration starts at zero in the center and then gradually increases in amplitue causing the fiber to both speed up and follow a spiral path. At the fiber tip accelerates the tip moves outward radially. The spacing of each orbit is a function of the increase in speed.

ml-fiber-scanning-basic

Red, Green, and Blue (RGB) lasers are combined and coupled into the fiber at the stationary end. As the fiber moves, the lasers turn on an off to create “pixels” that come out the spiraling end of the fiber. At the end a scan, the lasers are turned off and drive is gradually reduced to bring the fiber tip back to the starting point under control (if they just stopped the vibration, it would wiggle uncontrollably).  This retrace period while faster than the scan takes a significant amount of time since it is a mechanical process.

An obvious issue is how well they can control a wiggling optical fiber. As the documents point out, the fiber will want to oscillate based on its resonance frequency that can be stimulated by the piezoelectric vibrators. Still, one would expect that the motion will not be perfectly stable, particularly at the beginning when it is moving slowly and has no momentum.  Then there is the issue as how well it will follow the exactly the same path from frame to frame when the image is supposed to be still.

One major complication I did not see covered in any of the ML or University of Washington (which originated the concept) documents or applications is what it takes to control the laser accurately enough. The fiber speeding up from near zero at its center to maximum speed as the end of the scan. At the center of the spiral the tip moving very slowly (near zero speed). If you turned a laser on for the same amount of time and brightness as the center, pixels would be many times closer together and brighter at the center than the periphery. The ML applications even recognize that increasing the resolution of a single electromechanical  FSD is impossible for all practical purposes.

Remember that they are electromechanically vibrating one end of the fiber to cause the tip to move in a spiral to cover the area of a circle. There is a limit to how fast they can move the fiber, how well they can control it, and the fact that they want fill a wide rectangular area so a lot of the circular area will be cut off.

Looking through everything I could find that was published on the FSD, including Schowengerdt (ML co-founder and Chief Scientist) et al’s SID 2009 paper “1-mm Diameter, Full-color Scanning Fiber Pico Projector” and SID2010 paper, “Near-to-Eye Display using Scanning Fiber Display Engine” only low resolution still images are available and no videos. Below are two images from the SID 2009 paper along with the “Lenna” standard image reproduced in one of them, perhaps sadly, these are best FSD images I could find anywhere. What’s more, there has never been a public demonstration of it producing a video which I believe would show additional temporal and motion problems. 2009-fsd-images2

What you can see in both of the actual FSD images is that the center is much brighter than the periphery. From the Lenna FSD image you can see how distorted the image is particularly in the center (look at Lenna’s eye in the center and the brim of the hat for example). Even the outer parts of the image are pretty distorted. They don’t even have an decent brightness control of the pixels and didn’t even attempt to show color reproduction (requiring extremely precise laser control). Yes the images are old, but there are a series of extremely hard problems outlined above that are likely not solvable which is likely why we have not seen any better pictures of an FSD from ANYONE (ML or others) in the last 7 years.

While ML may have improved upon the earlier University of Washington work, there is obviously nothing they are proud enough to publish, no less a video of it working. It is obvious that non of the released ML videos use a FSD.

Maybe ML had improved it enough to show some promise to get investors to believe it was possible (just speculating). But even if they could perfect the basic FSD, by their own admission in the patent applications, the resolution would be too low to support a high resolution near eye display. They would need to come up with a plausible way to further increase the effective resolution to meet the Magic Leap hype of “50 Mega Pixels.”

“Dynamic Region Resolution (DRR) – 50 Mega Pixels ???

Magic Leap on more than one occasion has talked about the need to 50 Megapixels to support the field of view (FOV) they want with the angular resolution of 1-arcminute/pixel that they say is desirable. Suspending the disbelief that they could even make a good low resolution FSD, they doubled down with what they call “Dynamic Region Resolution” (DRR).

US 2016/0328884 (‘884) “VIRTUAL/AUGMENTED REALITY SYSTEM HAVING DYNAMIC REGION RESOLUTION” shows the concept. This would appear to answer the question of how ML convinced investors that having a 50 megapixel equivalent display could be plausible (but not possible).

ml-variable-scan-thinThe application shows what could be considered to be a “foveated display”, where various area’s of the display varies in image density based on where it will be projected onto the human’s retina. The idea is to have high pixel density where the image will project on the highest resolution part of the eye, the fovea, and that resolution is “wasted” on the parts of the eye that can’t resolve it.

The concept is simple enough as shown in ‘884’s figures 17a and 17b (left). The concept is to track the pupil to see where the eye is looking (indicated by the red “X” in the figures) and then adjust the scan speed, line density, and sequential pixel density based on where the eye is looking. Fig 17a show the pattern for when the eye is looking at the center of the image where they would accelerate more slowly in the center of the scan. In Fig. 17b they show the scanning density to be higher where the eye is looking at some point in the middle of the image. They increase the line density in a ring that covers where the eye is looking.

Starting at the center the fiber tip is always accelerating.  For denser lines they just accelerate less, for less dense areas they accelerate at a higher rate so this sound plausible. The devil is in the details in how the fiber tip behaves as it acceleration rate changes.

Tracking the pupil accurately enough seems very possible with today’s technology. The patent application discusses how wide the band of high resolution needs to be to cover a reasonable range of eye movement from frame to frame which make it sound plausible. Some of the obvious fallacies with this approach include:

  1. Control the a wiggling fiber with enough precision to meet the high resolution and to do it repeatedly from scan to scan. They can’t even do it at low resolution with constant acceleration.
  2. Stability/tracking of the fiber as it increase and decreases its acceleration.
  3. Controlling the laser brightness accurately at both the highest and lowest resolution regions.  This will be particularly tricky as the the fiber increases or decreases it acceleration rate.
  4. The rest of the optics including any lenses and waveguides must support the highest resolution possible for the use to be able to see it. This means that the other optics need to be extremely high precision (and expensive)
What about Focus Planes?

Beyond the above is the need to support ML’s whole focus plane (“poor person’s light field”) concept.  To support focus planes they need 2 to 6 or more images per eye per frame time (say 1/60th of a second). The fiber scanning process is so slow that even producing a single low resolution and highly distorted image in 1/60th is barely possible, no less multiple images per 1/60th of a second to support the plane concept.  So to support the focus plane concept they would need a FSD per focus plane with all its associated lasers and control circuitry; the size and cost to produce would become astronomical.

Conclusion – A Way to Convince the Gullible

The whole FSD appears to me to be a dead end other than to convince the gullible that it is plausible. Even getting a FSD to produce a single low resolution image would take more than one miracle.  The idea of a DRR just doubles down on a concept that cannot produce a decent low resolution image.

The overall impression I get from the ML patent applications is that they were written to impress people (investors?) that didn’t look at the details too carefully. I can see how one can get sucked into the whole DRR concept as the applications gives numbers and graphs that try and show it is plausible; but they ignore the huge issues that they have not figured out.