Focal surface displays mimic the way our eyes naturally focus at objects of varying depths. Rather than trying to add more and more focus areas to get the same degree of depth, this new approach changes the way light enters the display using spatial light modulators (SLMs) to bend the headset's focus around 3D objects—increasing depth and maximizing the amount of space represented simultaneously.
All of this adds up to improved image sharpness and a more natural viewing experience in VR.
"Quite frankly, one of the reasons this project ran as long as it did is that we did a bunch of things wrong the first time around," jokes Research Scientist Fix. "Manipulating focus isn't quite the same as modulating intensity or other more usual tasks in computational displays, and it took us a while to get to the correct mathematical formulation that finally brought everything together. Our overall motivation was to do things the 'right' way—solid engineering combined with the math and algorithms to back it up. We weren't going to be happy with something that only worked on paper or a hacked together prototype that didn't have any rigorous explanation of why it worked."
The paper (PDF).
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 19 2017, @10:56PM (6 children)
It sounds like implementing a focal surface display will eliminate a major source of eye strain. Soon, any headset that does not have an adequate method of retinal blur correction will be garbage.
Don't accept anything less than 180 degrees, preferably 210 [roadtovr.com] (comparison [roadtovr.com]). This needn't be computationally taxing since less detail could be rendered on the edges. And if a "focal surface display" already includes eye tracking in order to approximate retinal blur, the eye tracking could be used to render less detail at spots where the eyes are not pointed at (this "foveated rendering" [theverge.com] article includes an image right at the top that demonstrates the concept very well).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by julian on Friday May 19 2017, @11:01PM
I'm hoping this makes VR usable for me. Right now a few minutes makes me feel like I've held my eyes crossed for hours. It causes a weird burning soreness.
At least I don't get the nausea that some people report. I bet that'll be harder to fix.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @11:06PM (4 children)
On the other side of the coin, as an inventor, you don't want early adopters. When you invent something in a stroke of insight, your first instinct might be to shout from the rooftops, look at this awesome thing I just invented. But if you can't explain how or why it works, or you can't even replicate the invention reliably, your early adopters will hate you. If it takes you 2~3 years to develop the theory behind your invention, everyone will hate your guts. You will become known as that idiot loser who can't do anything right.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 19 2017, @11:41PM
That reminded me to check the EmDrive news.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday May 20 2017, @12:12AM (2 children)
You're conflating two things: functionality and understanding.
If you can build something that functions reliably, plenty of people will be happy to buy it. You don't have to be able to explain how it works - even if you could, they probably wouldn't understand (How many people actually understand any of the physics or information theory that makes a smartphone work? Most barely understand enough applied software skills to use the thing.)
There are times when a solid theoretical understanding is necessary to make things function reliably, say - the notoriously unreliable cold fusion results, but it's actually lot less common than you'd think, especially if you're building upon existing technology or biology, in which case you can accomplish an incredible amount dealing with a bunch of "black boxes" that just need to be assembled or modified.
Of course, without theory it can be difficult to impossible to get a patent, or to improve on your invention substantially, but that has nothing to do selling the things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 20 2017, @12:45AM (1 child)
You forgot the worst possible scenario: the invention doesn't really do anything. It only looks like it works sometimes. When you finally produce a theory to explain why it works, you end up proving it can't work. When I was in high school, I did a science fair project which was useless according to a library book that I should have read. When I was in graduate school, I was utterly convinced of the validity of my research until I personally disproved the entire premise of my own final thesis. Those were just two of my many mistakes, and life has been one long exercise in retracting my own ideas. Only now am I accomplishing great things! .... or so I think. Years of bitter experience tell me everything I'm doing now is probably wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 20 2017, @01:44AM
Often Wrong Soong, is that you, old man?