[HN Gopher] The paper that came up with Apple Vision Pro's outwa...
___________________________________________________________________
The paper that came up with Apple Vision Pro's outward-facing
display [pdf]
Author : ramboldio
Score : 87 points
Date : 2023-06-08 15:39 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.medien.ifi.lmu.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.medien.ifi.lmu.de)
| CharlesW wrote:
| Hey _@ramboldio_ , as one of the authors of the paper, do you
| have insider knowledge that Apple got the idea from your paper
| vs. Facebook's "bizarre 'reverse passthrough'"1 prototype from
| 2021? Is there a licensing arrangement? (Just curious, it's a
| really interesting idea in any case!)
|
| 1 https://www.laptopmag.com/news/facebooks-bizarre-reverse-pas...
| ramboldio wrote:
| no insider knowledge, I just know that the work from facebook
| cited our work:
| https://research.facebook.com/blog/2021/08/display-systems-r...
|
| They also add the display that would work with different
| angles. So it looks like, maybe Apple implemented Meta's
| research. The timeline could work.
|
| For completeness, there is also another paper "FrontFace"
| proposing a similar idea that was published around the same
| time: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3098279.3098548
| CharlesW wrote:
| Thanks for the info! It must feel great to see this becoming
| a reality, and I hope it benefits you and your partners
| professionally.
| ramboldio wrote:
| Yes, feels awesome, thanks!
| ladberg wrote:
| If you're suggesting that Apple implemented Meta's research
| starting as it was published on 8/2021, then that timeline
| absolutely does _not_ work.
| [deleted]
| jessriedel wrote:
| Could you say more? I agree an Apple VR headset has been in
| the works for longer than 2 years, but is it that crazy
| that they were working on multiple approaches and didn't
| settle on a final design until after 8/2021, which included
| using some non-trivial ideas from that paper?
| ladberg wrote:
| Can't really give out any non-public info unfortunately.
|
| I'm not saying that everything was fixed in stone by
| 8/2021, but any big hardware features like the front-
| facing display would take longer than that to develop
| start-to-finish, so I'm just refuting the possibility
| that Apple could have started development of a front-
| facing display on the headset and had it ready on the
| final product in <2 years.
|
| It's not necessarily that a display itself (or any other
| individual component really) takes >2 years to develop,
| but that a tightly integrated cutting-edge system can't
| have significant hardware features added on <2 years
| before the final product is demoed to the public.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I'm gonna go ahead and play:'I work near hardware in
| FAANG, this is totally possible to pull off in 2 years'
|
| ...but if you're asserting 'I work at Apple, impossible',
| I'll give it to you.
|
| Generally people believe way too strongly that phones /
| other hardware /etc. are set 3 years in advance. Note
| it's well-reported Vision Pro just got to DVT in the last
| 4-6 weeks.
| Demmme wrote:
| Is this verified?
|
| U do like the LMU after all I'm in Munich but this though is more
| obvious than magic.
| ramboldio wrote:
| What I can verify:
|
| To the best of my knowledge, this is the first work that
| proposes putting a photorealistic, perspective corrected face
| on a VR headset.
|
| "FrontFace" (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3098279.3098548) is
| the first work that proposes putting eyes on a display on VR to
| "lower the communication barrier".
| DonHopkins wrote:
| It should be touch sensitive so it can detect when somebody pokes
| you in the eye.
| ramboldio wrote:
| Like this? https://gugenheimer.com/?portfolio=facetouch-
| enabling-touch-...
| gfodor wrote:
| Anyone who thought reprojection was the solve for AR considered
| this solution since you'd have to find a way to simulate glass.
| The first consumer grade passthrough VR was the GearVR in 2015 or
| so, so I don't think the idea was originally conceived this late.
| billconan wrote:
| I prefer no outward-facing display if that can make Vision Pro
| cheaper.
| haswell wrote:
| I think that more than anything, the inclusion of this feature
| is a hint about where Apple intends to take this product, and
| that they want to send a crystal clear message that this device
| is meant for interacting with other people.
|
| And it seems this is such an important aspect of the product
| that they're willing to reduce the addressable market from a
| cost perspective.
|
| This, to me, is what makes this product intriguing. And it
| makes me think that Apple's real goal is something closer to a
| pair of glasses, and they just know they can't get there
| without a long series of iterations.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > that they want to send a crystal clear message that this
| device is meant for interacting with other people.
|
| But that display increases the "creepy factor" by orders of
| magnitude.
| haswell wrote:
| This product isn't in the public's hands yet, so I think
| it's a bit early to conclude that it's categorically
| creepy.
|
| But even if it ends up being a bit creepy, a) I think Apple
| is well aware of that and b) again I think this highlights
| how important they think it is to send the message from day
| 1 that solving for isolation is a top priority and
| intrinsic to their end-goal.
| acomjean wrote:
| When google glass came out, there was the question of if
| you want to talk to someone who has a camera running at
| all times, (recording?). Its weird how perspective
| shifts.
|
| Of course in some places if its recording all the time it
| might be in some weird wire taping situation.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Its weird how perspective shifts.
|
| It's not clear that it has shifted yet. It wasn't clear
| that Google Glass would be rejected until people started
| wearing them publicly.
| omegaworks wrote:
| Google is also in the market of using every bit of data
| it can possibly record of you to show you ads.
| smoldesu wrote:
| It's a shame I don't trust Apple not to do the same
| anymore. If the advertisement creep into MacOS is any
| indication, the Vision Pro might have more pop-ups than
| the Quest.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > This product isn't in the public's hands yet, so I
| think it's a bit early to conclude that it's
| categorically creepy
|
| I was just going by the materials that Apple has
| released. It's true that I haven't personally seen the
| device in action in real life. But what Apple has shown
| certainly triggers a "creepy factor" in me.
|
| Whether or not this is an issue for many people, and
| whether or not Apple will address it, isn't really
| relevant. What I've seen right now creeps me out a bit.
| haswell wrote:
| > _Whether or not this is an issue for many people, and
| whether or not Apple will address it, isn 't really
| relevant_
|
| Why/how is this not relevant in a broader sense?
|
| Or are you just saying this isn't relevant to you
| personally?
| JohnFen wrote:
| Yes, to me, personally. I should have made that more
| clear. Sorry.
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| Pretty much everyone I have spoken to about the thing has
| been like "that's fucking creepy".
|
| A few have hoped you can display something else on it -
| like cat eyes or something to make it less fucking weird.
| woah wrote:
| Apple isn't generally in the habit of cutting corners
| jackmott42 wrote:
| They cut headphone jacks to save space. No reason you can't
| cut a pointless outer display to save space too!
| wahahah wrote:
| The 7 had space for a jack (see StrangeParts retrofitting
| one); they removed it purely for sleekness (and money).
| ec109685 wrote:
| The first iPhone only had 2G, the first iPad was super slow,
| and first AppleWatch had unusable apps.
|
| They're always evaluating if they can cut a corner.
| dangus wrote:
| I think it's one of the most important features of the design.
| Apple is trying to get VR/AR users out in public so that it can
| be a mainstream device.
|
| In the long run, adding a second screen isn't that expensive,
| and the cameras that capture the video of your eyes already
| have to be inside the system to perform eye tracking. If
| smartphone manufacturers can make folding phones with second
| screens for under $1000 I think that the outward-facing display
| is not the lowest hanging fruit for cost reduction.
| drcode wrote:
| in apple's eyes, that would make you a VR zombie
|
| apple has decided VR zombies hurt their brand & they won't
| allow it
| layer8 wrote:
| This is funny, because to my eyes their main marketing image
| for the Vision Pro (dark-skinned woman) makes a face like a
| dazed zombie.
| billconan wrote:
| the world is biased against us introverts by forcing us to
| socialize.
|
| you see, we wear a noise cancelling headset to pretend to be
| working, in order to avoid unwanted socialization.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Look on the bright side, maybe you can hack the vision pro
| to emulate direct eye contact in a conversation, when in
| reality you're scrolling hn comments.
| guhidalg wrote:
| Honestly not a bad idea. You could even fall asleep and
| continue to display blinking eyes with no one catching
| on.
| ramboldio wrote:
| I have to try it out to see whether it's worth it. But since
| the display can be fairly low-resolution, I don't except that
| it adds a lot of cost. Weight would be a bigger concern to me..
| dangus wrote:
| How heavy is an OLED panel? Isn't it like a piece of flexible
| plastic?
|
| Early reviewers seem to say that the metal construction of
| the Vision Pro seems to be contributing a lot to its weight.
| Most other headsets are all plastic.
| mickdarling wrote:
| My concern is primarily power draw. For a device with only a
| 2 hour battery, every erg matters.
| dangus wrote:
| While the displays are significant areas of power draw, for
| this product I don't think they're the low-hanging fruit.
| This is a device that's performing a whole bunch of
| computation in real time: video, lidar, infrared, eye
| tracking, and then it has to drive two 4K+ displays, one
| for each eye, with 3D-accelerated content being rendered at
| all times.
|
| Go to an AR web page on your phone and start playing around
| with 3D objects in your space and you'll notice your phone
| getting significantly warmer and drawing more power. The
| Vision Pro is doing this literally all the time.
|
| Also, the camera and sensor work that is tracking your eyes
| has to happen whether or not there is an outward-facing
| display.
|
| Apple makes a watch with a display that is always on, and
| their phones have high resolution OLEDs that can stay on
| for over 13 hours (iPhone 14 Pro Max 150 nits brightness
| doing continuous 5G web browsing).
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| It uses slow refresh like new iphones
| Geee wrote:
| It's not on all the time. Only when you interact with
| people.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Hm, doesn't it use the outward-facing display at all
| times, to display your status (whether you're fully
| immersed, are able to see others, or are recording a
| video, etc.?) I'm sure there's more processing required
| to show the eyes, but it's still illuminating the display
| when it's showing these other states. These could be done
| via simple LED indicators, saving some energy.
| TastyLamps wrote:
| Google did something similar in 2017 (although it's overlaying
| your WHOLE FACE) on the headset and only when viewed through a
| camera: https://blog.google/products/google-ar-vr/google-
| research-an...
| ladberg wrote:
| This is not the same as the Vision Pro's display. This paper
| describes tracking a single other person and displaying a
| perspective-correct rendering for them, but the Vision Pro
| displays a perspective-correct rendering for many viewpoints at
| once using a lenticular screen.
|
| Apple's solution works for >1 people at the same time and doesn't
| require any external tracking (though it's already doing the
| external tracking regardless), at the cost of lower resolution
| and only being correct in one dimension vs two.
| ramboldio wrote:
| Adding multiple viewpoints is actually sth Meta first proposed,
| based on the paper from above:
|
| https://research.facebook.com/blog/2021/08/display-systems-r...
| jessriedel wrote:
| More detail from that post:
|
| > There are several established ways to display 3D images.
| For this research, we used a microlens-array light field
| display because it's thin, simple to construct, and based on
| existing consumer LCD technology. These displays use a tiny
| grid of lenses that send light from different LCD pixels out
| in different directions, with the effect that an observer
| sees a different image when looking at the display from
| different directions. The perspective of the images shift
| naturally so that any number of people in the room can look
| at the light field display and see the correct perspective
| for their location.
|
| > As with any early stage research prototype, this hardware
| still carries significant limitations: First, the viewing
| angle can't be too severe, and second, the prototype can only
| show objects in sharp focus that are within a few centimeters
| of the physical screen surface. Conversations take place
| face-to-face, which naturally limits reverse passthrough
| viewing angles. And the wearer's face is only a few
| centimeters from the physical screen surface, so the
| technology works well for this case -- and will work even
| better if VR headsets continue to shrink in size, using
| methods such as holographic optics.
| jessriedel wrote:
| Do you know where one could read more about Apple's technique?
| I don't know much about lenticular displays or why the trick
| only works in one direction (presumably the horizontal one).
| ladberg wrote:
| Think of it like those movie posters or bookmarks that change
| as you move from side to side, but with a screen behind it.
|
| The Wikipedia article might explain it better:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_lens
|
| It could work in both dimensions but you're sacrificing even
| more resolution by doing it that way. For example imagine you
| have a 1000x1000 pixel display (I just made this resolution
| up) and you stick a 1D lenticular screen on top with a pitch
| of 10 pixels. You've effectively split the display into 10
| separate 100x1000 displays that are each view from a
| different angle. You could instead use a 2D lenticular screen
| and split it up into 100 100x100 displays viewable from a
| different angle in a 10x10 grid at virtually no extra $ cost.
| However, you're displaying at 1/10th the resolution just to
| be able to support perspective-correct views from above or
| below, which are way less common than from the side.
| ramboldio wrote:
| Facebooks paper on their technology is quite amazing:
| https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3450550.3465338
|
| I'm guessing (?) Apple's approach is similar.
| cubefox wrote:
| Please provide a source which says that Apple's solution works
| for more than one person. I'm pretty sure they didn't say
| anything about that.
| ladberg wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/live/GYkq9Rgoj8E?t=6729
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Having patented technology for see through AR display in 2016
| that is cited by Apple [1] and knowing how crazy hard it is, it's
| a little bit refreshing to know that Apple recognized pass-
| through HMD AR as too hard and decided to invest in compensatory
| technology instead of trying to solve the hard see through AR
| problems.
|
| [1]https://patents.google.com/patent/US10757400B2/en
| nickelbob wrote:
| Just curious - why is it so hard?
| Animats wrote:
| Nobody has a good way to draw dark while keeping it in focus.
| slg wrote:
| I'm not aware of all the details around the technical
| complications, but from a physics perspective, you can't make
| something darker and more opaque by adding more light.
| Therefore, an AR headset needs to be able to at least
| partially block light in order to make convincing images. It
| seems a lot easier just to go with Apple's approach of
| blocking all light rather than try to develop tech that will
| only selectively block the light behind the AR objects while
| allowing other light through.
|
| The blocking all light approach also allows you to hide other
| potential weaknesses of a device. For example, a lower field
| of view is much more distracting in a pass-through AR device
| as you still have your full peripheral vision. VR devices
| will generally black out the light outside of the FOV making
| it easier to ignore.
| mshockwave wrote:
| another follow-up, slightly tangent question: how does F-35's
| helmet do that without blocking all the lights?
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Off the top of my head:
|
| 1. Field of view is limited to existing optics
| miniaturization
|
| 2. Subtractive shading (rendering black) might not be
| solvable
|
| 3. Variable focus objects in the same scene requires
| projecting n>2 significantly different wavefronts - not
| solved how to do this with a single vibrating element
| pornel wrote:
| Do you know why an LCD panel can't be used to block light?
| moron4hire wrote:
| The Magic Leap 2 does. It works ok. It's not as
| completely useless as armchair quarterbacks on line would
| have you believe. But it's also not the greatest thing.
| Objects are a little fuzzy around the edges and friend on
| the accuracy of the object surface detection. So moving
| objects can lag.
| Tarragon wrote:
| The LCD panel is too close and out of focus.
|
| For example, close one eye and hold the tip of a pen
| about an inch in front the other and you'll see that it
| doesn't actually block any of the world.
| Filligree wrote:
| Which pixels need to be darkened to shade off an object
| depends on the distance to that object, and will also
| block the light coming from other objects at other
| distances. It's very inconvenient.
| jacobn wrote:
| It's one of those "small, low energy, bright, pick 1-2,
| definitely not 3" type situations.
|
| Moore's law works great for semiconductors, but Maxwell
| doesn't negotiate ;)
| CharlesW wrote:
| (Caveat: I don't know a lot about pass-through HMD AR, and I
| assume you're incredibly smart and that the patent is
| innovative.)
|
| > _...it 's a little bit refreshing to know that Apple
| recognized pass-through HMD AR as too hard and decided to
| invest in compensatory technology..._
|
| I understand the framing as "compensatory technology", but is
| it possible that what Apple's doing is the simpler _and_ better
| way to solve the problem? Pass-through AR strikes me as an old-
| school analog approach, like optical printing for special
| effects. But a 100% digital vision pipeline seems like it could
| unlock interesting capabilities like "night vision", new ways
| of highlighting interesting objects, etc.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I think the most prominent attempt at see-through AR was the
| Microsoft HoloLens. But if you've actually tried the
| HoloLens, the Field of View is atrociously, tragically small.
| The first HoloLens had a field of view of 30deg*17.5deg. The
| second HoloLens improved to 43deg*29deg, but it's still best
| described as "cramped." Couple that with almost all of the
| compute budget for the device going into vision processing
| and having very little compute left for actually running apps
| (the first HoloLens having a 1Ghz Intel Atom from 2015, the
| second a superior... Snapdragon 850).
|
| The other problem, of course, is that nothing can be truly
| solidly-colored. Everything has some opacity - which,
| combined with the FOV issue, is why HoloLens was never
| marketed as having anything to do with VR.
| dfsl wrote:
| Apple's Vision Pro launch shows what Microsoft could have
| truly achieved with HoloLens
|
| https://tecl.ink/2023/06/apples-vision-pro-wearable-
| headset-...
| moron4hire wrote:
| The vision processing was done with a separate SoC. Your
| applications were not contending for compute time with the
| vision processing. That's just how anemic the CPU was.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| In theory the wavefront emulator is the simplest display -
| all of the "pixels" are rendered in your brain so you don't
| have to build an actual "display"
|
| HOWEVER if someone can get the input -> photon production
| pipeline to be less than ~10ms, then that does solve a lot of
| the rendering issues, however it doesn't solve all of the
| other long term problems that come with that amount of
| hardware - including weight and complexity.
|
| That said, there's a lot of known-unknowns that need to be
| solved, for example I don't have a solution for micropiezo
| resonance issues that I'm sure will crop up.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| Agreed. In fact, this approach is also likely better for
| military applications which I hope they explore.
|
| Currently, NVGs that are fielded by soldiers are already
| displaying images in a way that's not pass-through (using
| classic image intensification tubes). Something like the
| Apple vision headset in a lighter and more durable form
| factor would allow for eg; fusion imagery (fusing visible,
| thermal, and night vision).
| Despegar wrote:
| It's not in Apple's interests to get into military
| contracting because of the potential to damage their brand,
| as well as avoiding the geopolitical tensions that would
| invite.
| jolmg wrote:
| > is it possible that what Apple's doing is the simpler and
| better way to solve the problem? Pass-through AR strikes me
| as an old-school analog approach, like optical printing for
| special effects.
|
| I think they're different and not one better than the other.
| If I wanted to drive with an HMD on, or otherwise be in a
| situation where it could be deadly to have my sight turned
| off for even a second or to even have some lag or stutter or
| other glitch in my eyesight, I'd much rather have a pass-
| through AR HMD. One's sense of sight seems much more reliable
| with it by its very nature. You simply don't have those modes
| of failure with transparent plastic, no matter what's going
| on in the hardware/software.
| flangola7 wrote:
| Your steering wheel and pedals are digital too. Airliner
| controls have been digital for decades. Factories have life
| or death safety systems that count on silicon and a
| software stack to respond quickly and without error.
|
| Apple can make it possible if they wanted too.
| [deleted]
| sdeframond wrote:
| I believe cars' steering are analog because it would too
| expensive to achieve the required level of reliability.
|
| Planes are crazy expensive anyway,so fly-by-wire can be
| afforded.
| faitswulff wrote:
| These are all very different from the "HUD goes dark and
| my meat brain panics, causing me to get into an accident"
| scenario that GP is talking about.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Steering is analog. One of reasons why by-wire steering
| control did not succeed is user feedback, it was tried
| and failed. Brake pedal is analog too, just assisted and
| override-able. Gas pedal had been all digital for some
| time.
|
| Also, it's true that Airbus sidestick is fully
| electronic, but there's a nuance in engine control being
| in the center on airplanes. Until automated, engine
| control on airliners was a task of a flight engineer,
| like it still is on ocean going ships. So fully
| digitalized engine control is a replacement to the FE,
| not necessarily an automation of what originally was a
| pilot's task. Which means, I think, pushing a vehicle
| forward was never necessarily the responsibility of a
| pilot or a driver, though controlling where not to go is.
| fooker wrote:
| >Steering is analog.
|
| This is changing rapidly. eg:
|
| https://www.infinitiusa.com/infiniti-
| news/technology/direct-...
| Despegar wrote:
| Which is probably the point of the R1 and the real-time
| subsystem.
| warning26 wrote:
| I'm quite certain they're _still_ trying to solve the hard see-
| through AR problems, and are hoping to release a future Vision
| headset with a true see-through display.
|
| But otherwise I agree, it makes sense for them to focus on what
| they can do best with current tech as a stopgap. With current
| see-through HMD tech, AR ends up incredibly disappointing. (See
| also: Hololens & Magic Leap's limited FOV)
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| They are still asking suppliers to solve the technology, yes.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Hopefully we are not forgetting about Bosch's Retinal
| Projection which solves many problems with lensing HMD AR. If
| I was a betting man I would say Bosch came up with this tech
| almost specifically for Apple to integrate it into
| interactive glasses.
| dfsl wrote:
| Yes...
|
| https://tecl.ink/2023/06/apples-vision-pro-wearable-
| headset-...
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Right, I think it's going to come eventually but it's really
| really really hard
| samwillis wrote:
| My understanding is that occlusion in "see through" AR is an
| unsolved problem, everything looks ghostly and somewhat
| semitransparent. Until someone solves that I suspect the re-
| projection method is the only viable option.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Yes "projecting black" is effectively impossible - every
| once in a while someone from Magic Leap would claim they
| had solved it but everyone knew it was bullshit
| jessriedel wrote:
| I'm sorta surprised by this. Don't liquid crystal
| displays in laptops do exactly that?: LCDs are a
| controllably transparent array that is overlaid on a
| uniform backlight. So why can't one create a set of
| glasses where the lens are an LCD array without the
| backlight?
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| An LCD simply turns "off" to display "black" - so the
| emissions stop (relative to surrounding pixel emissions)
|
| With a projector, you can't "throw" nothing (aka black).
| As a result "projected black" is simply lack of
| projection.
|
| In the case of a translucent or transparent reflection or
| waveguide surface - which is what the projection reflects
| off of - "black" is whatever the darkest part of the
| surface is. In effect whatever else is emitting from the
| surface that you're looking at will change the depth of
| "black" you get.
|
| This is why the Hololens and other see through AR devices
| are always tinted, to set a higher threshold for "black"
| than the surrounding unaided view.
| moron4hire wrote:
| LCDs do not emit light. They have a light emitter (or
| reflector, for passive monochrome displays ala an LCD
| watch face) behind them and the liquid crystal part
| selectively allows that light to be blocked or pass
| through.
|
| The are three layers of polarizing material. The two
| outer layers are at right-angle polarizations to each
| other and normally would be completely opaque on their
| own. When power is applied to the liquid crystal, it
| twists the crystal's polarization to be at a 45deg angle
| to the other two layers, which then permits some of the
| incident light to pass through.
|
| An optically transparent waveguide display can use an LCD
| layer to block light coming through the front and then
| not render graphics on that area of the display. It will
| be opaque black at that point (though rather fuzzy around
| the edges, as the LCD won't be in focus).
|
| Magic Leap 2 actually employs this technique. It's... a
| lot like the rest of the device: a good idea on paper.
| cbm-vic-20 wrote:
| Magic Leap.. How are they still around? And have a
| valuation in the billions?
| moron4hire wrote:
| I don't know. I mean, their newest device _is_ better
| than the HoloLens 2. But like, that 's just a relative
| statement. Waveguide displays are still objectively
| dogshit.
| dfsl wrote:
| HoloLens stopped being a focus of Microsoft and it shows
| in the product
|
| https://tecl.ink/2023/06/apples-vision-pro-wearable-
| headset-...
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| That's a fair response, though I hope you'd agree that in
| the context of discussing pass through Vs see through
| "black" the majority of use cases are indeed fully
| occluding/lit LCDs near eye and not ML style lenses.
| moron4hire wrote:
| But you were talking about the Magic Leap, replying to
| someone talking about waveguides...
| daniel_reetz wrote:
| I work in the space. Occlusion only matters if it matters.
| "Ghostly" information display is suitable for a shockingly
| wide range of tasks.
| samwillis wrote:
| While that's true, I believe these (mass market) devices
| need to be general purpose, and so need to cover the use
| cases where occlusion is necessary.
| K0balt wrote:
| This is also what I intuited. Can you give some examples
| of things that require "projected black" , especially
| those that couldn't be solved by using a darkened room?
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-08 23:01 UTC)