This document discusses trends and challenges in augmented reality hardware, specifically smartglasses. It begins by outlining the transition from handheld augmented reality to head-worn augmented reality devices. It then provides an overview of current smartglasses technologies and challenges, including field of view, weight, battery life, rendering latency, tracking accuracy and more. Finally, it argues that while early smartglasses generated hype, the next phase will focus on addressing challenges to enable productive use cases in industries like manufacturing.
Augmented Reality Smartglasses 2016 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
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
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
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