From "I tried the Apple Vision Pro. I was lost for words/The VR headset takes users to 3D experiences that feel incredibly real" by Stuart Miles (London Times).
Here's my burning question: How does it work for people who use different prescription glasses for different distances? I know it doesn't accommodate glasses, but that you can have prescription lenses made and inserted inside the goggles, but I have reading glasses, computer glasses, and distance glasses — not to mention the lenses that were implanted in my eyes when I had cataract surgery. I know you see things as if they were out in the room. So do you get extra strong reading glasses for that? But don't you also see through the front to your actual environment? Reading-level lenses would mess that up. I think the answer is that it only seems that you're looking through the front, but actually you're getting another image that is the same distance from your eyes as everything else. That would explain needing only one type of lens, but I'm still worried about straining/ruining my eyes, looking at something so close for so long. And what about my brain? The eyes are looking at something super-close, so close that IRL you'd go cross-eyed looking at it (but presumably the goggles feed images independently to each eye). And the brain is experiencing these images as if they are out in your environment and adjusts to the fakery. Is that okay?
I can't get past these eye/brain questions, though I suppose I'd sweep them aside if I were hot to get into these virtual experiences. But I'm not. They sound annoying! Maybe if I were a prisoner or a space traveler or an invalid, I could drift into the mindset that would welcome the opportunity to gaze at cute animals and beautiful singers and laughing children, but as a free person in the natural world, I don't see the charm. And I'm saying that as someone who looks at a computer screen for hours a day.
पोस्ट्स
२४ टिप्पण्या:
The lenses in the headset change the focal distance required to see the screen so that your eyes aren’t trying to focus at only an inch or two from your eyes
Since my head injury, i've had (slight) double vision..
which is corrected with a prism lens in my glasses. It works Great.. WHEN it's on.
Which means.. No more contacts for me.
I'd Assume, that it'd be an easy software fix to rotate the right eye display θ degrees..
I'd ALSO Assume, that
A) there would be NO WAY IN HELL to do this unless you WERE the Apple corp..
B) the Apple Corp would NEVER be bothered to do this..
C) i WON'T have to worry about spending money on these toys
which means..
D) MORE money for Guided Trout Fishing Trips
Win Win!
"...but as a free person in the natural world, I don't see the charm. And I'm saying that as someone who looks at a computer screen for hours a day."
Ditto and ditto.
I don't even like movies--in fact, won't waste time watching them--that rely on CGI.
Anyway, I had all those experiences organically on acid.
But.. Let's get down to the brASS tACTS.. These Are for PORN. That's WHAT they are for
When I took my first programming class back in the mid-1960s input to the machine was via punch cards and that IBM 7094 took up a huge room. Between then and when I retired eight years ago I have seen numerous technologies come to fruition that were supposed to be “can’t miss” but missed anyway, and numerous technologies that were “what good will that ever be?” that made it big. Examples of the latter include things like web browsers. When Marc Andreessen invented Mosaic, he struggled to find investors!
My point being that it’s way too early to ask what good VR will ever be. We’ll find out sooner or later.
"what is this all for"
Opium for the masses (porn, gaming, sports, virtual tourism). Any work that can be enhanced by immersive visualization. Many more possibilities--though turning a profit is another matter.
"Starts at $3499"
Starts?
Recently did a VR game experience with my son. I have progressive bifocals that I wore and found I had to tilt my head to keep the focus correct. I should probably have tried without the glasses and adjusted to VR goggles focus to accommodate.
I am interested to see if in the future you can subscribe to VR live concert and sporting events. Would be great to see certain events from a front row seat without having to pay $1000s for the seat.
It needs long-lasting batteries that don't catch fire. $ENVX.
I was very skeptical, but I watched the Apple announcement and was impressed by all the technology. I don't see how all the R&D can be recovered at $3,499 per unit, but I note that is the "starting at" price.
I worry about the security of that personal avatar created for doing FaceTime. It's in the uncanny valley today, but in a couple years it won't be. Could it be stolen for purposes of identity theft?
I am reminded of a film shown in class in high school. In an experiment, the subject wears something similar to the Apple vision, but the lenses deliberately flip the image upside down. The alleged purpose was to see how someone could adapt to having the sense of environment manipulated. The apparatus was worn continually during waking hours. Turned out the adaptation was in the brain. After a week wearing the apparatus every day, the subject started seeing the world right side up again. Then, when the apparatus was removed, the world went upside down. Fortunately, the effect was temporary.
So, I suspect there could be unforeseen ramifications for this new product. If it is only worn for a few hours at a time, perhaps the side effects will be small.
Each eye has its own screen which then has a lense over the screen that works as Kylos explains. By the description given of the AR functionality, if you picked up a document IRL and tried to read it through the headset, you may need your readers, which won’t work. If you pull up a document in the AR environment, then you should be to easily magnify to sizes you normally could not do with the given screen size. This is the IMAX type experience some reviewers have noted. That’s the feature I enjoy for watching YouTube videos, which I do with my 1/10th cost Oculus Go.
I do think, Althouse, you might like the Apple Immersive Video aspects as described. While it isn’t as good as visiting real places, if you can’t do so or do so when someone like Alicia Keys is at the place to explain what is happening, then Immersive Video can do better than any TV to making you feel like you are at the location. This isn’t to recommend buying such a system for this capability. Rather, I’m noting that this is likely the most interesting feature, so you can better value that experience vs the cost of obtaining it. I doubt you’d use VR/AR to FaceTime with an avatar or play VR games. Further, what the Apple system may do (beyond access to Apple exclusive content) vs a $300 Meta Quest headset is provide other features you may not be interest in, such as the improved AR. AR is like sitting in a room and being able to bring up more data of what is in the room, or as demonstrated say watching TV while bringing up more information about what you are watching. All of that can be done with a phone, tablet, or PC without the “immersive” feeling which ends up feeling claustrophobic as it actually binds your head.
I get sick watching 3D; sometimes all it takes is quick-cutting in a movie to nauseate me.
Pretty sure I'm not the market for this anyway.
In the 2018 sci-fi “Enter Player One”: …the planet is on the brink of chaos and collapse, but people find salvation in the OASIS: an expansive virtual reality universe”
An answer to the burning question “what is it for”?
Virtual reality should be understood as fake reality.
Cruel neurality.
Society already seems to have lost the distinction between reality and fantasy (which is what fiction is). Not certain we need more help in blurring the boundary.
To expand on my last comment. I was back in Menlo Park last week tagging along while my wife went to her book club. Listened to the girls after their gathering and they all accepted a piece of fiction written by a transvestite as a sound basis for policy.
The more fiction enters our lives, the less able society is to make accurate sound decisions.
I worry about the security of that personal avatar created for doing FaceTime. It's in the uncanny valley today, but in a couple years it won't be. Could it be stolen for purposes of identity theft?
A few things related to this. Prior to using the Apple system, you use a scan of your face to create the avatar. This is also part of Apple’s facial recognition technology. Also, the Apple Vision system will scan your iris to allow your eye to be your in helmet fingerprint to unlock systems that would ordinarily use your fingerprint. This gives Apple your facial recognition, iris scan, and more than likely a finger print scan already on your iPhone or Mac devices.
Apple announced last month that they were adding Live Speech and Personal Voice technology to iPhones, iPads, and Macs. Live Speech allows a person to type content and have it spoken. Personal Voice allows you to record your own voice so that the Live Speech sounds like you. It is “For users at risk of losing their ability to peak - such as those with a recent diagnosis of ALS or other condition that can progressively impact speaking ability - Personal Voice is a simple and secure way to create a voice that sounds like them.”
I can see how that is great for some people. I also see something even darker beyond the identity theft. Imagine having Personal Voice of a deceased love one.
So $3.5K up front. Or snort coke and pay by the month.
I'll think about it, thanks.
gilbar nailed it.
Every second of the day. Around the world. $3050.00 is spent on porn.
Here's my burning question: How does it work for people who use different prescription glasses for different distances?
3, 2, 1, COMMENCE MANSPLAINING!
Only reality is reality.
Milo says, "Only reality is reality." True, but OTOH reality is only reality, and some people need more.
I thought you might ask whether it could replace all those glasses by adapting to the different requirements of your vision in the moment. If that could be done without harming the eyes, it would be great. I can imagine being able to go beyond my human limitations to be able to see far into the distance or into a different spectrum such as infrared or uv. I realize the computer would need to render spectrums outside my range into some analog I could reference, but ok. I am not even sure I am using the correct terminology to discuss this. Insert non apology here.
Imagine looking at the stars and seeing it as if through a telescope or seeing the labels of the stars, constellations.
But even more than that, imagine this crazy, amazing, far fetched idea: what if someone made technology purely for the benefit of the end user? Who knows what mankind could accomplish under such a wildly implausible scenario.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा