Tag Archive for Meta

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.

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.

AR/MR Optics for Combining Light for a See-Through Display (Part 1)

combiners-sample-cropIn general, people find the combining of an image with the real world somewhat magical; we see this with heads up displays (HUDs) as well as Augmented/Mixed Reality (AR/MR) headsets.   Unlike Starwars R2D2 projection into thin air which was pure movie magic (i.e. fake/impossible), light rays need something to bounce off to redirect them into a person’s eye from the image source.  We call this optical device that combines the computer image with the real world a “combiner.”

In effect, a combiner works like a partial mirror.  It reflects or redirects the display light to the eye while letting light through from the real world.  This is not, repeat not, a hologram which it is being mistakenly called by several companies today.  Over 99% people think or call “holograms” today are not, but rather simple optical combining (also known as the Pepper’s Ghost effect).

I’m only going to cover a few of the more popular/newer/more-interesting combiner examples.  For a more complete and more technical survey, I would highly recommend a presentation by Kessler Optics. My goal here is not to make anyone an optics expert but rather to gain insight into what companies are doing why.

With headsets, the display device(s) is too near for the human eye to focus and there are other issues such as making a big enough “pupil/eyebox” so the alignment of the display to the eye is not overly critical. With one exception (the Meta 2) there are separate optics  that move apparent focus point out (usually they try to put it in a person’s “far” vision as this is more comfortable when mixing with the real word”.  In the case of Magic Leap, they appear to be taking the focus issue to a new level with “light fields” that I plan to discuss the next article.

With combiners there is both the effect you want, i.e. redirecting the computer image into the person’s eye, with the potentially undesirable effects the combiner will cause in seeing through it to the real world.  A partial list of the issues includes:

  1. Dimming
  2. Distortion
  3. Double/ghost images
  4. Diffraction effects of color separation and blurring
  5. Seeing the edge of the combiner

In addition to the optical issues, the combiner adds weight, cost, and size.  Then there are aesthetic issues, particularly how they make the user’s eye look/or if they affect how others see the user’s eyes; humans are very sensitive to how other people’s eye look (see the EPSON BT-300 below as an example).

FOV and Combiner Size

There is a lot of desire to support a wide Field Of View (FOV) and for combiners a wide FOV means the combiner has to be big.  The wider the FOV and the farther the combiner is from the eye the bigger the combiner has to get (there is not way around this fact, it is a matter of physics).   One way companies “cheat” is to not support a person wearing their glasses at all (like Google Glass did).

The simple (not taking everything into effect) equation (in excel) to computer the minimum width of a combiner is =2*TAN(RADIANS(A1/2))*B1 where A1 is the FOV in degrees and and B1 is the distance to farthest part combiner.  Glasses are typically about 0.6 to 0.8 inches from the eye and the size of the glasses and the frames you want about 1.2 inches or more of eye relief. For a 40 degree wide FOV at 1.2 inches this translates to 0.9″, at 60 degrees 1.4″ and for 100 degrees it is 2.9″ which starts becoming impractical (typical lenses on glasses are about 2″ wide).

For, very wide FOV displays (over 100 degree), the combiner has to be so near your eye that supporting glasses becomes impossible. The formula above will let your try your own assumptions.

Popular/Recent Combiner Types (Part 1)

Below, I am going to go through the most common beam combiner options.  I’m going to start with the simpler/older combiner technologies and work my way to the “waveguide” beam splitters of some of the newest designs in Part 2.  I’m going to try and hit on the main types, but there are many big and small variations within a type

gg-combinerSolid Beam Splitter (Google Glass and Epson BT-300)

These are often used with a polarizing beam splitter polarized when using LCOS microdisplays, but they can also be simple mirrors.  They generally are small due to weight and cost issues such as with the Google Glass at left.  Due to their small size, the user will see the blurry edges of the beam splitter in their field of view which is considered highly undesirable.  bt-300Also as seen in the Epson BT-300 picture (at right), they can make a person’s eyes look strange.  As seen with both the Google Glass and Epson, they have been used with the projector engine(s) on the sides.

Google glass has only about a 13 degree FOV (and did not support using a person’s glasses) and about 1.21 arc-minutes/pixel angular resolution with is on the small end compared to most other headset displays.    The BT-300 about 23 degree (and has enough eye relief to supports most glasses) horizontally and has dual 1280×720 pixels per eye giving it a 1.1 arc-minutes/pixel angular resolution.  Clearly these are on the low end of what people are expecting in terms of FOV and the solid beam quickly becomes too large, heavy, and expensive at the FOV grows.  Interesting they are both are on the small end of their apparent pixel size.

meta-2-combiner-02bSpherical/Semi-Spherical Large Combiner (Meta 2)

While most of the AR/MR companies today are trying to make flatter combiners to support a wide FOV with small microdisplays for each eye, Meta has gone in the opposite direction with dual very large semi-spherical combiners with a single OLED flat panel to support an “almost 90 degree FOV”. Note in the picture of the Meta 2 device that there are essentially two hemispheres integrated together with a single large OLED flat panel above.

Meta 2 uses a 2560 by 1440 pixel display that is split between two eyes.  Allowing for some overlap there will be about 1200 pixel per eye to cover 90 degrees FOV resulting in a rather chunkylarge (similar to Oculus Rift) 4.5 arc-minutes/pixel which I find somewhat poor (a high resolution display would be closer to 1 a-m/pixel).

navdy-unitThe effect of the dual spherical combiners is to act as a magnifying mirror that also move the focus point out in space so the use can focus. The amount of magnification and the apparent focus point is a function of A) the distance from the display to the combiner, B) the distance from the eye to the combiner, and C) the curvature.   I’m pretty familiar with this optical arrangement since the optical design it did at Navdy had  similarly curved combiner, but because the distance from the display to the combiner and the eye to the combiner were so much more, the curvature was less (larger radius).

I wonder if their very low angular resolution was as a result of their design choice of the the large spherical combiner and the OLED display’s available that they could use.   To get the “focus” correct they would need a smaller (more curved) radius for the combiner which also increases the magnification and thus the big chunky pixels.  In theory they could swap out the display for something with higher resolution but it would take over doubling the horizontal resolution to have a decent angular resolution.

I would also be curious how well this large of a plastic combiner will keep its shape over time. It is a coated mirror and thus any minor perturbations are double.  Additionally and strain in the plastic (and there is always stress/strain in plasic) will cause polarization effect issues, say whenlink-ahmd viewing and LCD monitor through it.   It is interesting because it is so different, although the basic idea has been around for a number of years such as by a company called Link (see picture on the right).

Overall, Meta is bucking the trend toward smaller and lighter, and I find their angular resolution disappointing The image quality based on some on-line see-through videos (see for example this video) is reasonably good but you really can’t tell angular resolution from the video clips I have seen.  I do give them big props for showing REAL/TRUE video’s through they optics.

It should be noted that their system at $949 for a development kit is about 1/3 that of Hololens and the ODG R-7 with only 720p per eye but higher than the BT-300 at $750.   So at least on a relative basis, they look to be much more cost effective, if quite a bit larger.

odg-002-cropTilted Thin Flat or Slightly Curved (ODG)

With a wide FOV tilted combiner, the microdisplay and optics are locate above in a “brow” with the plate tilted (about 45 degrees) as shown at left on an Osterhout Design Group (ODG) model R-7 with 1280 by 720 pixel microdisplays per eye.   The R-7 has about a 37 degree FOV and a comparatively OK 1.7 arc-minutes/pixel angular resolution.

odg-rr-7-eyesTilted Plate combiners have the advantage of being the simplest and least expensive way to provide a large field of view while being relatively light weight.

The biggest drawback of the plate combiner is that it takes up a lot of volume/distance in front of the eye since the plate is tilted at about 45 degrees from front to back.  As the FOV gets bigger the volume/distance required also increase.
odg-horizons-50d-fovODG is now talking about a  next model called “Horizon” (early picture at left). Note in the picture at left how the Combiner (see red dots) has become much larger. They claim to have >50 degree FOV and with a 1920 x 1080 display per eyethis works out to an angular resolution of about 1.6 arc-minutes/pixel which is comparitively good.

Their combiner is bigger than absolutely necessary for the ~50 degree FOV.  Likely this is to get the edges of the combiner farther into a person’s peripheral vision to make them less noticeable.

The combiner is still tilted but it looks like it may have some curvature to it which will tend to act as a last stage of magnification and move the focus point out a bit.   The combiner in this picture is also darker than the one in the older R-7 combiner and may have additional coatings on it.

ODG has many years of experience and has done many different designs (for example, see this presentation on Linked-In).  They certainly know about the various forms of flat optical waveguides such as Microsoft’s Hololens is using that I am going to be talking about next time.  In fact,  that Microsoft’s licensed Patent from ODG for  about $150M US — see).

Today, flat or slightly curved thin combiners like ODG is using probably the best all around technology today in terms of size, weight, cost, and perhaps most importantly image quality.   Plate combiners don’t require the optical “gymnastics” and the level of technology and precision that the flat waveguides require.

Next time — High Tech Flat Waveguides

Flat waveguides using diffraction (DOE) and/or holographic optical elements (HOE) are what many think will be the future of combiners.  They certainly are the most technically sophisticated. They promise to make the optics thinner and lighter but the question is whether they have the optical quality and yield/cost to compete yet with simpler methods like what ODG is using on the R-7 and Horizon.

Microsoft and Magic Leap each are spending literally over $1B US each and both are going with some form of flat, thin waveguides. This is a subject to itself that I plan to cover next time.