Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (18)
Similaire à AUGMENTED REALITY HARDWARE TRENDS AND CHALLENGES
Similaire à AUGMENTED REALITY HARDWARE TRENDS AND CHALLENGES (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
AUGMENTED REALITY HARDWARE TRENDS AND CHALLENGES
- 1. AUGMENTED REALITY: HARDWARE TRENDS AND CHALLENGES OF ACCEPTABILITY Alexandre BOUCHET Research & Development manager Copyright Magic Leap
- 2. • Since 1996 in Laval (53-Mayenne) • Pioneer in VR/AR technologies transfer to industry • Two missions : • Technology Evangelism • Engineering and Consulting on AR/VR • Consulting and contracting authority support • Research project leader/partner (Funding: IA, ANR, IRT, FUI,…) • Pioneering use-cases development 20 persons - R&D team : 12 engineers / PhDs Two strategic domains : Factory of the future New immersive solutions for product and process engineering Augmented reality digital assistance for the workers Multi-User immersive training, learning & simulation 2
- 3. From « hands on tablet » to « hands-free » AR
- 4. Augmented Reality Smartglasses – Hardware Radar 06/10/2015 4 Copyright EPSON
- 5. Head-Worn Handheld Spatial Contact lenses Retinal displays Handheld tablet / smartphone Fixed display HMD From handheld AR to head-worn AR 1990200620072018*2018*…2020*…
- 6. HARDWARE RADAR – Before SmartGlasses 06/10/2015 6
- 7. HARDWARE RADAR - SmartGlasses 06/10/2015 7
- 8. DAQRI Smart Helmet Optinvent ORA X Magic Leap Theia Microsoft Hololens Sony SmartEyeglass Meta Pro Toshiba Composyt Light/ Intel Innovega Konica Minolta CastAR ODG R7 Kopin Golden-I Lumus Atheer Dev Kit Zebra HC1 Laster SeeThru Glassup Seebright Penny c Wear Seer Meta 1 Recon jet Optinvent ORA 1 Vuzix M100 Epson Moverio Google Glass Announced In development Limited / Pre- order Dev.Kits Available Popularity Vuzix M300/3000 Vuzix M2000 From:OriINBAR–InsideAR2014presentation HARDWARE RADAR - SmartGlasses OPTICAL See-through device VIDEO See-through device or NON see-through Google AURA
- 9. HARDWARE RADAR – Monocular SmartGlasses Google Glass Laster SeeThru Recon Jet Optinvent ORA
- 10. HARDWARE RADAR – Binocular SmartGlasses META Epson Moverio CastAR Microsoft Hololens
- 12. The technology acceptance model (from J.NIELSEN) System Acceptability Social acceptability Practical acceptability Usefullness Utility Usability Easy to use Efficient Pleasant … Cost Compatibility Reliability … 06/10/2015 12
- 13. The technology acceptance model (from J.NIELSEN) System Acceptability Social acceptability Practical acceptability Usefullness Utility Usability Easy to use Efficient Pleasant … Cost Compatibility Reliability … 06/10/2015 13
- 14. Social Acceptability 06/10/2015 14 « Always on devices » Vuzix M100 Google Glass LASTER EyePhone Epson Moverio BT-100 SmartGlasses…Size matters
- 15. The technology acceptance model (from J.NIELSEN) System Acceptability Social acceptability Practical acceptability Usefullness Utility Usability Easy to use Efficient Pleasant … Cost Compatibility Reliability … 06/10/2015 15
- 16. SmartGlasses – Buying criteria prioritized From O.INBAR – SmartGlasses Report 2014 06/10/2015 16 For Enterprise / Industrial : • Size and weight • Field of view • Battery life • Robustness • Contrast & brightness • Resolution • Eye position, prescription glasses • Cameras & Sensors • Connectivity • Input devices • Cost for mass production • Design • Content For Consumer • Design & Form factor • Size and weight • Cost for mass production • Battery life • Content • Field of view • Contrast & brightness • Resolution • Eye position, prescription glasses • Cameras & Sensors • Connectivity • Input devices • robustness
- 17. SmartGlasses : Available products field of View Google Glass : 13° monocular Laster See-thru / Optinvent Ora : 23/24° monocular Epson MOVERIO BT-200 : 23° binocular Lumus / MetaPro : 35° binocular 06/10/2015 17 Left Eye Right Eye Google Glass EpsonEpson Laster / Optinvent Lumus / hololens Lumus / Hololens
- 18. Kopin Golden-I Size & Weight From : Ori INBAR + INNOVEGAField of View (Degrees) 200 40 60 80 100 Micro Mega 120 Google Glass Recon Jet Vuzix M100 Epson BT-200 / META 1 Laster Lumus / META Pro NVIS ST50 Helipcopter AR HUD Helmets SmartGlasses – F.O.V v.s SIZE graph Consumer compatible Military & special use Enterprise compatible Optinvent ORA Atheer one Innovega NVIDIA/UNCFUJITSU Future generations ? • Contact lenses • Transparent OLED • Dynamic lightfields • … Current generation : • Waveguides • Curved mirrors Magic LEAP Theoretical usability threshold (85°) Hololens
- 19. SmartGlasses – Buying criteria prioritized From O.INBAR – SmartGlasses Report 2014 06/10/2015 19 For Enterprise / Industrial : • Size and weight • Field of view • Battery life • Robustness • Contrast & brightness • Resolution • Eye position, prescription glasses • Cameras & Sensors • Connectivity • Input devices • Cost for mass production • Design • Content
- 20. SmartGlasses – Battery life graph 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 > 2,5 (hot-swap) Benchmarks in an hands free + display + camera + high CPU loading context
- 22. SmartGlasses – the eye-strain problem Accommodation conflict between real and virtual Smartglasses have a fixed accommodation distance (typically ~3m) Real life use cases implies highly variable point of interest distance relative to the user eyes AR credibility and visualization comfort are really poor when objects of interest are closer than this accommodation distance
- 23. Smartglasses : 10 current challenges (and probably for the next 5 to 10 years…) 1. Large Field of view (>60°) & Non-perturbing for natural viewing 2. Weight reduction / Comfortable wearing 3. Very-low latency graphic rendering (<8ms) 4. Pose estimation and Tracking in unprepared environments (robustness, accuracy, latency, computing power,…) 5. Precise and repeatable Hand-Eye calibration 6. Variable accommodation distance 7. Augmentations occluded by real objects 8. Extended Battery life (>4h) 9. Subtractive blending (how to « mask » objects ?) 10. Eye tracking 06/10/2015 23
- 24. Smartglasses : 10 current challenges (and probably for the next 5 to 10 years…) 1. Large Field of view (>60°) & Non-perturbing for natural viewing 2. Weight reduction / Comfortable wearing 3. Very-low latency graphic rendering (<8ms) 4. Pose estimation and Tracking in unprepared environments (robustness, accuracy, latency, computing power,…) 5. Precise and repeatable Hand-Eye calibration 6. Variable accommodation distance 7. Augmentations occluded by real objects 8. Extended Battery life (>4h) 9. Subtractive blending (how to « mask » objects ?) 10. Eye tracking 06/10/2015 24 Probably solved in more than 5 years Probably solved in the next 3-5 years Probably solved in the next 2 years
- 25. From hype to desillusion to productivity 06/10/2015 25
- 26. Thanks for listening! 30/03/12 269/02/11 Titre 26 Alexandre BOUCHET bouchet@clarte.asso.fr 06/10/2015 26
Notes de l'éditeur
- To cross the Chasm you need : A target Market. Is virtual reality just for gamers? education, training, tourism and the enterprise … A Product Positioning closely associated with the target market. Sony -> gaming Samsung / Oculus -> Social VR ? A good Marketing Strategy: With the might of Facebook, Sony and Samsung behind three of the headsets coming down the pipeline, having a marketing budget sizeable enough to generate mass awareness will not be a problem. Smaller headset manufacturers (basically the start-ups) have a more difficult challenge from this respect. Distribution Channels: Expect a range of channels made available for consumers to purchase headsets. The larger companies operating in this sector (Sony and Samsung) already have a range of distribution channels at their disposal, including retail (direct and third-party). For the smaller companies fulfilment will take place via e-commerce. A good Pricing