Google Leads $542m Funding Round For Augmented Reality Wearables Company

An anonymous reader writes: After rumors broke last week, Magic Leap has officially closed the deal on a $542 million Series B investment led by Google. The company has been extremely tight-lipped about what they're working on, but some digging reveals it is most likely an augmented reality wearable that uses a lightfield display. "Using our Dynamic Digitized Lightfield Signal, imagine being able to generate images indistinguishable from real objects and then being able to place those images seamlessly into the real world," the company teases. Having closed an investment round, Magic Leap is now soliciting developers to create for their platform and hiring a huge swath of positions.

Comments

Another dorky one?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am all for 3-D stuff - but not if I have to don some gear that will give me a headache, or will make me look like a dork, or both.

Re:Another dorky one?

[Defenestrar]

If they're using light field tech it should be of variable focus (i.e. what you look at is what gets into focus). If they can do the computation fast enough (again a big if) your eyes would never notice (again assuming appropriate displays - which don't exist yet). Even if they get variable focus (and parallax and other imaging tricks), I think "indistinguishable" augmented reality will still be limited by two major factors which I don't see any tech ready to touch in the near future: full visible spectrum color space (can't be done with just RGB), and more importantly - total brightness and contrast ratio (i.e. match the output of the sun (as perceived by the eye) and the dynamic contrast range of the human eye).

Re:Another dorky one?

[Prune]

Your post started off good, noting the issue of focus (the actual depth cue related to focus, though, is not focus itself, but accommodation--the response of the eye to defocus) which is often ignored and people commonly only address stereopsis and motion parallax. However, it then took a couple of wrong turns. First is the issue of color reproduction. Humans are trichromats. We have three types of cone cells in our retinas, and a variant of RGB (read: color space based on only three primaries) can reproduce the full CIE perceptual color gamut. Prototype display systems that do just that exist, and I've seen more than one demoed at SIGGRAPH over the past decade. Perhaps your confusion stems from the very different situation with lighting, where the full spectral response of the luminaire matters because the resultant perceived colors are the product of the light spectrum and the lit surface spectral reflectance, convolved with the retinal cone cell response curves, and so two lights with the same whitepoint but different spectra can result in a situation where two surfaces are perceived to have the same color under one of the lights, but different colors under the other. However, this does not apply to emissive displays, where three primaries is all you need, as long as the choice in primaries is right and the maximum saturation achievable is sufficient. The second wrong turn is in regards to contrast. High dynamic range displays exceeding the dynamic range of the human eye have been around for quite a few years--just search for BrightSide technologies. I still remember the initial prototype at the graphics lab at UBC (where I did my masters). So all the issues have been individually resolved; it's just a matter of putting it all together.

Re:Another dorky one?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're using light field tech it should be of variable focus (i.e. what you look at is what gets into focus). If they can do the computation fast enough (again a big if) your eyes would never notice (again assuming appropriate displays - which don't exist yet). Even if they get variable focus (and parallax and other imaging tricks),

Lightfield isn't variable focus. Lightfield is multiple focus. You're actually handling content at multiple (or infinite) focal depths simultaneously, such that the system doesn't need to know what your eyes are doing. There's no need to actively apply "tricks" like parallax, since that's already a behavior that already passively exists in any lightfield system.

Re:Another dorky one?

[JesseMcDonald]

Humans are trichromats. We have three types of cone cells in our retinas...

It's not quite that simple. Putting aside the rare few tetrachromats with four kinds of cone cells, there are also the rods, which can sense a broad spectrum of light overlapping the ranges of the cone cells—some more than others. The color isn't going to look quite right if the overall brightness reported by the rods doesn't match the per-component brightnesses reported by the cones.

That said, three well-chosen primary colors can get us most of the way there, perhaps enough so that these minor differences won't matter—unless you happen to be tetrachromatic.

Re:Another dorky one?

[Prune]

The idea that there might be some human tetrachromats has been entirely discredited.

Re:Another dorky one?

[JesseMcDonald]

The idea that there might be some human tetrachromats has been entirely discredited.

I stand corrected. It appears that while there are plenty of humans with four cones, this has only been identified (in 2012) to lead to enhanced color differentiation in one subject after 20 years of research. The vast majority are "non-functional tetrachromats". So perhaps not entirely discredited, but close enough as makes little difference.

This is separate from the ability for trichromats to distinguish more colors by taking into account both the cones and the rods, which is well-established, though generally limited to the low-light conditions where the rods are more sensitive.

Reminds me of "it"

[davesque]

All the secretive talk about this company's product reminds me a lot of the Segway launch.

Re:Reminds me of "it"

[turkeydance]

you win. beat me to it.

Re:Reminds me of "it"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Massive simultaneous remote digital presence world"
PCT/US2012/036681
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2012154620A2?cl=en

Sounds kind of holodeck-y

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtual clothing anyone? And hope you don't get hacked?

Re:Sounds kind of holodeck-y

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds more like the Borg and that you will be assimilated

Re:Sounds kind of holodeck-y

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, my first thought was holodeck too lol...

Better than a wtch

[Gonoff]

This seems so much more interesting than a watch.
I have not worn a watch for years. I can't at work because I work in a hospital. Outside work, I don't bother because I can get the time off my phone or a clock etc.
Augmented reality could be useful in all sorts of jobs and leisure activities.

So far, the only wearable technology I use is a stereo in-ear bluetooth headset.

Re: Better than a wtch

[Anonymous Coward]

"...and leisure activities..."

Giggity.

Re:Better than a wtch

[davesque]

With that typo, I thought you were saying it was better than a witch somehow. I'm not sure how...witches are pretty cool.

Re:Better than a wtch

[rtb61]

The limits in augmented reality wearable technology are processing power, weight,comfort and variable focus. Something as simple as whether you can actually see reality directly through the display or whether reality needs to be captured first, processed and redisplayed with the augmentation added to it. If you can see through the display is greatly simplifies processing requirements, just requiring a portion of the wearable display to block light at the appropriate focal point and display an alternate image. This reduces the potential for far greater visual lag, something we already deal with to a degree.

Variable focus of the display is trickier as that requires distortion of the display field to cause the eye to shift focus upon various elements within the display.

So logical method would be to arrange a grid of mirrors within a curved array and either allow the normal visual field to pass or block it and reflect an alternate light source at that point. That light being delivered via, say fibre optics and light channels formed by the curved array. Distortions if the array allow for variations of focus, with the base level for the array being initially set for the specific user. Tricks with polarisation can also be used to achieve this. Still the big choice is whether to capture the environment process it and alter it or just alter a transparent display.

There is a safety factor, altering a transparent display which fails to clear is safer than altering a processed image which of course fails to no visual input and that time required to realise the loss of image is extended, reach up and take off the glasses in conjunction with the loss of possibly needed information being provided by the augmented display.

Re:Better than a wtch

[Prune]

A watch remains the only jewelry socially acceptable for a straight man to wear in all possible contexts of style of dress, from the most casual to the most formal.

Re:Better than a wtch

[Prune]

The variable focal depth issue was solved long, long ago by microlens arrays. Current ultra-high resolution displays make this approach very practical, as you can have 8x8 patches behind each microlens and still have decent overall 2D resolution. As for the variable opacity, just use DLP tech, as was (is?) fashionable in some projectors.

Re:Better than a wtch

[rtb61]

A bit of careful thought would make clear why neither concept as mentioned work all that well in the application you implied, their inherent design fails that particular application. Quick knee jerk thinking make it seems like they might work but careful consideration of the problems inherent in them should make it clear why those solutions fail.

1 Important Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it going to require a Google+ account?

No I will never let this one go.

extremely tight-lipped

[Anonymous Coward]

won't last long, google, being publicly held, will have to disclose some details of this significant investment in their next sec filing

This is the most incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

thing I've ever seen!

Signed,
Segway owner

More Matrix-y

[justthinkit]

Neo never knew he was in the matrix, whereas the trekkies generally knew.

Augmented Reality Wearable

[PPH]

A codpiece?

Google = defense contractor

[globaljustin]

TFA's tech is all an extension of Google Glass in a way

Google's after the defense contractor market now...developing/marketing Glass as a consumer product was an afterthought and mostly for PR, imho

Re:Google = defense contractor

[swillden]

Google's after the defense contractor market now...developing/marketing Glass as a consumer product was an afterthought and mostly for PR, imho

LOL. You don't know much about Sergey Brin, do you?

Re:Google = defense contractor

[Gravis Zero]

Google's after the defense contractor market now...developing/marketing Glass as a consumer product was an afterthought and mostly for PR, imho

it's neither humble nor an opinion, it's a delusion.

and so?

[globaljustin]

why dont you explain? if it is lol funny then you should be able to say why

Re:and so?

[swillden]

why dont you explain? if it is lol funny then you should be able to say why

Sergey Brin, director of X projects at Google and co-founder of the company, has a strong anti-authoritarian and anti-military streak. The idea that he'd invest himself so deeply into a project focused on military applications is laugh-out-loud funny.

Wondering

[StripedCow]

Thinking of the #1 searched-for keyword on Google, I'm wondering what this will be used for mainly...

See livestream football

[weiche]

Watch Real Madrid Barcelona and many more games free. Visit Live-fodbold.dk

or this ...

[LarryLart]

After I checked some of the job requirements posted on their website I was initially tempted to think that they are working on a VRD(virtual retinal display) variant. Then I found this - http://www.google.com/patents/...

Re:or this ...

[LarryLart]

And there are other patents filled by Magic Leap Inc - https://www.google.com/search?... My "rough" guess is that they are probably looking at a system which combines freeform optical waveguide prism/compensation lens with an image generated by virtual retinal display.

Goodbye Oculus

[Anonymous Coward]

Prediction: Oculus will go belly up because their tech is old and fundamentally limited. Google's pony will win the race. Sorry, facebook!

Re:Goodbye Oculus

[bouldin]

I think it's hilarious that facebook paid 2 billion for Oculus, while Magic Leap has far superior tech and seems to value itself around 1.6 billion.

Here are two possible explanations:
1. Zuckerberg is an idiot CEO who overpays for things (he did pay 20 billion for whatsapp, after all).
2. Zucker knows his stock is way overpriced, so he is actually getting a better deal than it appears. Most of the Oculus acquisition is paid for with fb stock.

Either way, another very smart move by Google.

hasn't stopped him yet

[globaljustin]

so where was his "strong anti-authoritarian and anti-military streak" when he was rolling over for the NSA **for years**...

Google invades privacy for profit and for decades gave the NSA (and god knows who else) an unaccountable back door to all our data

you're trying to pass the Kool-Aide and it's not going to fly...

Re:hasn't stopped him yet

[swillden]

so where was his "strong anti-authoritarian and anti-military streak" when he was rolling over for the NSA **for years**...

That never happened. The NSA tapped Google's fiber without Google's knowledge, but there's no evidence that Google ever willingly participated. As soon as Google found out about the taps, it accelerated a program to get the data on all those fibers encrypted, to lock the NSA out.

Google invades privacy for profit and for decades gave the NSA (and god knows who else) an unaccountable back door to all our data

Google trades the right to target ads to you in exchange for services, and enables you to opt out of the trade if you want, even providing the necessary tools for you to do it. Google has never given the NSA an "unaccountable back door". See David Drummond's numerous public statements on this issue. From my personal perspective as a Google security engineer, I think it would be virtually impossible for such a back door to exist in Google's systems without my having noticed some trace of it. Take that as you will.

You're coming to this question with a whole bunch of inaccurate assumptions, which are seriously skewing your perspective. You should take a breath, look into what really happened (as much as is public information anyway) vis a vis the NSA, PRISM, etc., and then re-evaluate.

Or not, that's your choice. I'll merely point out that time will prove me right with respect to any purported military-focused work by Google X and leave it there.