New To The Forum? Click Here To Read The How To Guide. -- Developers Click Here.

Oculus Videos and Interviews from CES 2015

andrewtekandrewtek Posts: 969
Art3mis
edited January 2015 in General
Edit: Here is a new interview with Nate Mitchell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-IdUI0qs7w


I am creating this thread to start collecting Oculus related videos from CES. Please add any other CES videos you find related to Oculus.

Palmer Luckey with Endgadget.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpeKHBeLN6Y


A first Reaction of Crescent Bay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ9DiZ9-bec

Now I want to play Unreal Tournament in my DK2 :D

Another Crescent Bay video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W98IgO0NbSg

Hmmm... that is a lot of sound proofing :D

A series of photos of the booth. Is Gypsy in there? Any other Oculus posters?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Th_eEB9wMU


This one is weird. They seem to think MilkVR is a device that Samsung makes (around 3 minutes in), as opposed to an app/service.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFRmo0YwkcA
OS: Win10 Pro x64, GPU: EVGA GTX 980, CPU: i7-6700K @4.0GHz, Mobo: ASRock Z170 Extreme7+, Ram: [email protected], Main Drive: Samsung SM951 512GB, Monitor: 50" 4K @ 60hz
Tools: UE4, Blender, VS2013, PSP 4.12, Fre:ac

Comments

  • vrcovervrcover Posts: 209
    Brain Burst
    And the Cnet discussion with Palmer.

  • JCatJCat Posts: 132
    Art3mis
    Nice compilation - thanks for taking the time.

    The nerdest news (2 gals and guy) is hilarious. Just because the Gear VR is white, doesn't mean it's called the Milk VR.

    last video's highlight is Palmer's response to Ray Velez while holding his phone!
  • genericusergenericuser Posts: 36
    Brain Burst
    i wonder what the 3rrd product will be that gets released this year? Crescent bay/dk3, cv1 or an input device.
  • cerebralcerebral Posts: 635
    I wouldn't agree with Palmer luckey(first vid 12:08) that it is impossible to scan a perfect holographic representation onto the retina if the light would come from only one light source. As it is the case with VRDs.
    It is more a question of computation you do in advance to compensate for that instead of from where the wave fronts are actually coming.
    The digital lightfield technology from Magic Leap probably solves exactly that problem.
    It isn't like our photoreceptors could sense the direction of a light ray. The photons only need to have a certain energy threshold to trigger a molecular protein cascade in each cell. And this has naturally also a limitation of about happening up to 500 times per second.
    It is a question of virtual computation and therefore it is reproducable.
  • cerebral wrote:
    It isn't like our photoreceptors could sense the direction of a light ray. The photons only need to have a certain energy threshold to trigger a molecular protein cascade in each cell. And this has naturally also a limitation of about happening up to 500 times per second.
    A photoreceptor is not able to tell you where the photon is coming from. That's true but the combination of your eye's lens and many photoreceptors makes it possible. A photon which is coming from a light source directly in front of you won't be deflected from your eye's lens and will hit the centre of your retina (central phoreceptors). If a central receptor is hit your brain tells you that the light is in front of you. A photon from the side instead will get deflrcted to a side of your retina and will be detected by a completely different receptor. That's why your brain tells you that the light source is not in front of you. The question is: How do want to get a single light source directly in front of you (for example) not to hit the centre of your retina? At least you would need some kind of medium which would be able to change the direction of light in front of your eye. I guess that's what he was talking about.

    P.S.: I haven't found anything about how Motion Leap should work so far. Anbody an article about it?
  • Hiro_Protag0nistHiro_Protag0nist Posts: 4,347 Valuable Player
    As my father used to say to me:

    "Get your feet off the table!"

    :lol:

    Great vids!
  • cerebralcerebral Posts: 635
    gabrielinc wrote:
    cerebral wrote:
    It isn't like our photoreceptors could sense the direction of a light ray. The photons only need to have a certain energy threshold to trigger a molecular protein cascade in each cell. And this has naturally also a limitation of about happening up to 500 times per second.
    A photoreceptor is not able to tell you where the photon is coming from. That's true but the combination of your eye's lens and many photoreceptors makes it possible. A photon which is coming from a light source directly in front of you won't be deflected from your eye's lens and will hit the centre of your retina (central phoreceptors). If a central receptor is hit your brain tells you that the light is in front of you. A photon from the side instead will get deflrcted to a side of your retina and will be detected by a completely different receptor. That's why your brain tells you that the light source is not in front of you. The question is: How do want to get a single light source directly in front of you (for example) not to hit the centre of your retina? At least you would need some kind of medium which would be able to change the direction of light in front of your eye. I guess that's what he was talking about.

    P.S.: I haven't found anything about how Motion Leap should work so far. Anbody an article about it?

    It is Magic Leap. With a VRD you can fire photons on every single photo cell. You can physically trigger every single cell
    with the right computed light field signal. http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/01/how-magic-leap-is-secretly-creating-a-new-alternate-reality/
    SO it is a question of virtual computation. Not so much of physical correctness.
    Thats why we do ray tracing for example.
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rocketship+for+mind
    I guess Palmer Luckey just wants to defend their style of doing VR visualization.

  • cerebral wrote:
    gabrielinc wrote:
    cerebral wrote:
    It isn't like our photoreceptors could sense the direction of a light ray. The photons only need to have a certain energy threshold to trigger a molecular protein cascade in each cell. And this has naturally also a limitation of about happening up to 500 times per second.
    A photoreceptor is not able to tell you where the photon is coming from. That's true but the combination of your eye's lens and many photoreceptors makes it possible. A photon which is coming from a light source directly in front of you won't be deflected from your eye's lens and will hit the centre of your retina (central phoreceptors). If a central receptor is hit your brain tells you that the light is in front of you. A photon from the side instead will get deflrcted to a side of your retina and will be detected by a completely different receptor. That's why your brain tells you that the light source is not in front of you. The question is: How do want to get a single light source directly in front of you (for example) not to hit the centre of your retina? At least you would need some kind of medium which would be able to change the direction of light in front of your eye. I guess that's what he was talking about.

    P.S.: I haven't found anything about how Motion Leap should work so far. Anbody an article about it?

    It is Magic Leap. With a VRD you can fire photons on every single photo cell. You can physically trigger every single cell
    with the right computed light field signal. http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/01/how-magic-leap-is-secretly-creating-a-new-alternate-reality/
    SO it is a question of virtual computation. Not so much of physical correctness.
    Thats why we do ray tracing for example.
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rocketship+for+mind
    I guess Palmer Luckey just wants to defend their style of doing VR visualization.

    I've just read the article but Palmer was still right. Motion leap is just a very small image projector. It's not possible to project this image directly into your eye because this image already consists of focused light rays. The lenses of your eyes need an unfocused image source. Motion leap is only creating an 2d or 3d image which needs some sort of "optical element" where it can be projected at. This optical element has to be very wide for a big field of view. It is possible to create a wide picture with a single light source but it's not possible to directly project this image into your eyes. You need at least a large optical element from where you can watch this projected image. Any VR device with a wide FOV needs to be wide as well (as long as we haven't found some kind of new technology, e.g. a black hole would be able to bend light without being very "wide").

    P.S.: It would work if we could remove the effect of lenses of our eyes.
  • cerebralcerebral Posts: 635
    you have ignored everything i argued or haven't understood it. :roll:
  • Tim74UKTim74UK Posts: 1,330
    Nexus 6
    edited January 2015
    cerebral wrote:
    you have ignored everything i argued or haven't understood it. :roll:

    You cannot compare Magic Leap to Oculus Rift as they are two entirely different products in development, that aim to achieve fundamentally different goals.

    Oculus Rift is VR as in Virtual Reality.... yea yea I hear you say we all know that.... But what does Virtual Reality actually mean?? I would say that it means totally immersive artificial environments that brings the person into... Presence, as in the sense you are no longer where you are but are located within the virtual space.

    So field of view is important for VR because the wider the field of view the more sense of presence you have, given your increased sense of being in a natural environment.

    applications for VR are wide open, from games to 360 3d movies where you are in the movie, remote presence, being able to be located anywhere int he world, imagine a virtual office space where the staff all work together as they would in a real office but all the people are all over the world... Imagine being able to go along with someone as they sky dive or look at the world through they eyes of a trapeze artist... Down to the Games where you can interact as if you were really there.

    Magic Leap is AR as in Augmented Reality..... again many people think they know what it is.... but do they really? For me AR is all about displaying IP onto the real world, allowing additional content to enhance our perception of the real world.

    So field of view is less important for Leap Motion as it is unlikely it will ever need to display across the 240 or 180 degrees of natural vision... given it will only overlay a small amount of content onto the real world.

    End Game

    I think people need to realize that the end game will look very different from what is on offer now. Given the ten years mentioned in the first vid we will see wireless self rendering VR devices that can offer photo realistic VR with true interaction. It will be the main computing platform by that time.

    AR however will be built into everything... eventually onto contact lenses and may well add to your experience of VR as opposed to being a competitor.

    An example of the applications of AR would be to display adverts onto the side of buildings that you can see on your way to work, to be able to display content such as personal information in bubbles over peoples heads so you don't forget their names... or to display your favorite novel onto a book with blank pages.... to make your partner look like Angelina jolie or heavens above your ex lol :)

    Analysis of CES 2015 Oculus Information

    I think it's become very clear by now that it is looking far less likely that the CV1 will launch in 2015, if it does it will be sold in the same way that the Development Kits are. The reason I think this is because the CB prototype is just not where Oculus need it to be, to be the CV1 we know they are shooting for. There is too much work left to do to get it there for a true release in 2015... Unless.... CB is indeed CV1.....

    There was also the slip by Palmer about Nimble..... he is not willing to discuss an ongoing acquisition.... that means that Nimble must still have some hoops to jump through for the acquisition to be finalized... My take home from that was that we won't be seeing in built gestural controls into the CV1 if released this year.

    What I think is likely to happen then to conclude is a release of the CB as a CV1, in other words consumers will be able to buy the CV1 (CB) via Oculus with no restrictions.

    I think it will be a long time before we see a consumer product for every day people... because every day people do not have enough technical expertise to get the rift working as they need it to. The only way I see the Rift in the shops is if the technology just works as seamlessly as GearVR and I do not see that happening any time this side of xmas 2015.

    I am still glad I held off on buying a DK2 though, as I believe this side of June we will have the ability to get the CB wrapped around our heads.

    Peace,

    Tim,
    My Rig: - Gigabyte Z97 X5 MB / Core i7 4790K @ 4.4Ghz - Water Cooled Coolmaster AIO Loop (Push - Pull Config)/ 16GB Corsair Dominator ram at 2400Mhz / Palit Jetsteam GTX 980 OC edition / 250GB SSD OS / Program Drive + 2 TB hard drive storage / Win 10
  • cerebral wrote:
    you have ignored everything i argued or haven't understood it. :roll:
    Palmer was talking about field of view. For achieving a high field of view you need to activate a wide range of your photoreceptors in your retina. It's not about an activation threshold. When you're having a single light source how do you want to activate multiple receptors? Every light that comes from a single light source (without projection medium) will be focussed again on the same receptor in your eye by your lens (same receptor => zero field of view). How do want to get a field of view at all without a wide medium in between? You're right. I have no idea how this should work. Please enlight us.
  • cerebralcerebral Posts: 635
    I haven't compared Rift and mLeap in any way.
    Magic Leap doesn't make AR or VR. They call it 'cinematic reality', probably because its much more superior than current VR/AR.
    I don't want to down the Rift here in any way. Its awesome and will the beginning of VR.
    But i think virtual landscape in 2-5 years will fundamentally change. Considering also that the 542mio $ are meant to
    ramp up production of million devices. (all mentioned on their website)
    Just concerned about the truth an passionate about technology.
  • Tim74UKTim74UK Posts: 1,330
    Nexus 6
    cerebral wrote:
    I haven't compared Rift and mLeap in any way.
    Magic Leap doesn't make AR or VR. They call it 'cinematic reality', probably because its much more superior than current VR/AR.
    I don't want to down the Rift here in any way. Its awesome and will the beginning of VR.
    But i think virtual landscape in 2-5 years will fundamentally change. Considering also that the 542mio $ are meant to
    ramp up production of million devices. (all mentioned on their website)
    Just concerned about the truth an passionate about technology.

    "Cinematic reality" is AR.... They called it something else partly because the company behind it started out as a film production company. The only difference they are claiming is AR overlays graphics via a display between your eye and reality and their version displays light directed at your eye.... the difference is depth and focus perception. Even so that does not change the definition of AR...

    "augmented reality
    noun
    a technology that superimposes a computer-generated image on a user's view of the real world, thus providing a composite view."

    Peace,

    Tim,
    My Rig: - Gigabyte Z97 X5 MB / Core i7 4790K @ 4.4Ghz - Water Cooled Coolmaster AIO Loop (Push - Pull Config)/ 16GB Corsair Dominator ram at 2400Mhz / Palit Jetsteam GTX 980 OC edition / 250GB SSD OS / Program Drive + 2 TB hard drive storage / Win 10
  • cerebral wrote:
    I haven't compared Rift and mLeap in any way.
    Magic Leap doesn't make AR or VR. They call it 'cinematic reality', probably because its much more superior than current VR/AR.
    I don't want to down the Rift here in any way. Its awesome and will the beginning of VR.
    But i think virtual landscape in 2-5 years will fundamentally change. Considering also that the 542mio $ are meant to
    ramp up production of million devices. (all mentioned on their website)
    Just concerned about the truth an passionate about technology.
    Magic Leap won't be any danger for Oculus for many years. Magic Leap is not using a single light source but a display consisting of many small mirrors. So, for a high field of view you would need a big display and enough space as well. Advantages would be that eyetracking wouldn't be a problem anymore because there is a real 3d image in front of you. Disadvantages will be that you would need many layers in the display to produce 3d objects in different distances (this would heavily affect image quality I guess) until you've found a better way to produce a "flexible" layer.

    For complex VR environments, like gaming, the "Oculus way" is still the best. Of course, there are no real 3d objects but we get the same 2d images for every eye like there would be a real object. If we add eyetracking and some focusing features it's good enough. Magic Leap will be used for not complete VR environments but for displaying single 3d objects and augmented reality. Different things.
  • WirelineWireline Posts: 1,203
    NerveGear
    My needs from CES are a bit more modest. I would just like to know if Oculus have made performance gains towards a judder-free experience in graphically demanding games :P I wanna fly my planes in ultra-smooth VR :geek:
  • cerebralcerebral Posts: 635
    Wireline wrote:
    My needs from CES are a bit more modest. I would just like to know if Oculus have made performance gains towards a judder-free experience in graphically demanding games :P I wanna fly my planes in ultra-smooth VR :geek:


    there is a new interview with Nate MItchell in which he talks about the demands at 90Hz plus.
    You'll need a good PC. Aside from that he told that they want in future to lower the requirements in order to make it accessible for the masses. I think he had eye tracking/foveated rendering in mind.
    BUt probably in CV2 as it seems.


    Meanwhile FOVE has realized foveated rendering.
    Here an article and vid from CES:
    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/CES-FOVE-die-Eye-Tracking-VR-Brille-aus-dem-Akihabara-Hackerspace-2512531.html
    Here another vid where CEO of FOVE chats a bit. SHe worked formerly at Sony Games.
  • Gypsy816Gypsy816 Posts: 513
    Awesome, thanks for collecting these! :D What do you all think of the videos and articles so far? Anything stand out?
    Oculus Community Manager - kweh!
  • cerebralcerebral Posts: 635
    No. Show us the one that will stand out. ;)
    The 3D audio seems to be terrific. Takes it much processing power?
    Any integration to an engine?
  • DisdroidDisdroid Posts: 562
    As a freelance soundtechnician since 6 years, anything related to the 3d sound makes me restless. I need to try the thingy with the thingy! The robot arm fight is on top of my list.
    People tend to believe what they want to be true.
  • Gypsy816Gypsy816 Posts: 513
    The Stuff TV interview with Palmer will be online soon, BTW. :)
    Oculus Community Manager - kweh!
  • andrewtekandrewtek Posts: 969
    Art3mis
    I added a new interview with Nate Mitchell to the opening post.
    OS: Win10 Pro x64, GPU: EVGA GTX 980, CPU: i7-6700K @4.0GHz, Mobo: ASRock Z170 Extreme7+, Ram: [email protected], Main Drive: Samsung SM951 512GB, Monitor: 50" 4K @ 60hz
    Tools: UE4, Blender, VS2013, PSP 4.12, Fre:ac
  • conectorrrrconectorrrr Posts: 37
    edited January 2015
    all the resolution sicrets. its clearly 1920/1080 with difiuzion >maybe the screen is smaller so the fill pixel distanse could be lower..But honestly really.I am alerady tired of that all sicrety shit. framerate? dk2 2560x1440 downscaled to 1080p Unity 75 Hz just fine.On gtx 980 with well optymised game I its tottaly possible to Hit even 300 FPS.So its not about horse power.Occulus doest have the right perfect screen that is over 1920/1080(or do they?) with right refreash rate. casual consumers are less forgiving than developers. I shown gear VR to some people and some of them mentioned lack of resolution,, so yeah if the screen of CV1 is going to be even worse than gear's VR.. then sellin milions of devices is a fairytail after some reviews .The expectations are already set too hight to believie that 1920/1080 is what people are going to love...because somebody said so..It will take longer than people were hoping for
  • MidnightMidnight Posts: 48
    Brain Burst
    Here is the stuff.tv interview by the way

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmGPwjvXtzk
  • all the resolution sicrets. its clearly 1920/1080 with difiuzion >maybe the screen is smaller so the fill pixel distanse could be lower..But honestly really.I am alerady tired of that all sicrety shit. framerate? dk2 2560x1440 downscaled to 1080p Unity 75 Hz just fine.On gtx 980 with well optymised game I its tottaly possible to Hit even 300 FPS.So its not about horse power.Occulus doest have the right perfect screen that is over 1920/1080 with right refreash rate. casual consumers are less forgiving than developers. I shown gear VR to some people and some of them mentioned lack of resolution,, so yeah if the screen of CV1 is going to be even worse than gear's VR.. then sellin milions of devices is a fairytail after some reviews .The expectations are already set too hight to believie that 1920/1080 is what people are going to love...because somebody said so..It will take longer than people were hoping for

    Their biggest problem is not the resolution, it's idiots.

    Should they use the screen that looks best or the one that has the best resolution to please idiot's.
  • you can call customers idiots, but at the end they are the onces that hold the money to buy this stuff or Not.
    CB might have higher resolution than dk2 but the overall quality of picture is worse than in gear VR. in 2.37min https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpeKHBeLN6Y. I wish there was a question."are we going to see the display from cb in cv1"
  • you can call customers idiots, but at the end they are the onces that hold the money to buy this stuff or Not.
    CB might have higher resolution than dk2 but the overall quality of picture is worse than in gear VR. in 2.37min https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpeKHBeLN6Y. I wish there was a question."are we going to see the display from cb in cv1"

    Yes it's the same idiots who think a 20 megapixel camera is twice as good as a 10 megapixel one.

    Here is another video where they think the CB must be 4k:

    Starts at 1:18


    Hmmm... how could that be? Since the crescent bay is worse than Gear VR?

    Well maybe there is more to it than resolution.
  • it's simple the resolution tells you how much information you are getting from the screen. The optic,refrash rate,distans between individual pixels,brightness, contrast are descriptions of how the information is being served. The optic and all that other stuff can change the impresion of resolution but it can not deliver more info. We could have 8k spread accross 50m/20m display and somobody waching the picture form 5 m away would still say. "the resolution is pretty low"
  • cerebralcerebral Posts: 635
    if Magic LEap is going to succeed and is selling million devices Samsung will need to sell more 4k /8k
    displays for VR since TV and monitor sales will go down.
    I expect it to be like that in 2016.
    MAybe OVR will buy their displays from google and co. in the end.
    An evolution similar to the smartphone?

    http://edition.cnn.com/videos/bestoftv/2014/10/26/cnn-orig-crane-magic-leap.cnn
  • AlexWakeAlexWake Posts: 250
    Brain Burst
    1. Oculus VR's Nate Mitchell talk to us about Crescent Bay's amazing standing demo and what he thinks about Razer's open source OSVR ecosystem so far.


    2. Hands on with the Oculus Rift Crescent Bay prototype at CES 2015


    3. LinusTechTips - Oculus Rift Crescent Bay - The Best Iteration Yet - CES 2015


    4. Darrell Etherington interviews Oculus Rift CEO Brendan Iribe about upcoming changes to the VR headset, now called the Crescent Bay Prototype.


    5. IGN - The Incredible VR of the Oculus Rift Crescent Bay Demo - CES 2015


    6. Gamespot - Why Oculus Rift is Still the Best VR at CES - Gametech at CES 2015
Sign In or Register to comment.