:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/67640013/sony_spacial_reality_display.0.jpg)
I plugged it into a powerful gaming computer, and fired up the first demo. A tiny, intricately detailed Volkswagen Atlas materialized in front of my face — and when I pressed a button, it floated right up out of the screen.
Friday, October 16, 2020
This is Sony’s Spatial Reality Display, and you can buy one for $5,000 in November
I plugged it into a powerful gaming computer, and fired up the first demo. A tiny, intricately detailed Volkswagen Atlas materialized in front of my face — and when I pressed a button, it floated right up out of the screen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
So here’s the thing. This is a really innovative and cool piece of technology. But why on Earth would anyone need this for anything?? And why on EARTH would any individual spend five thousand dollars on it? Like sure, having a 3D, biometrically reactive piece of technology on your desk is a fun party trick, but aside from that I cannot really see a use for this outside of it. It sounds like the supporting imaging tech (like 3D explorable photographs and models) would need to be more developed societally before this could be used for more things by the average tech aficionado. To the little caption blurb in the article asking, “would you pick this over a VR headset:” my answer is no. Virtual Reality tech is developing to new, immersive extremes. The purposes of each kind of tech seem monumentally different? And on top of that, a VR headset is literally an entirely unique experience that I don’t think I would trade for another computer screen, no matter how fancy.
This is pretty cool. It definitely is a step in a direction of what I see in science fiction movies with holographic displays of maps and stuff. I think this becomes more useful when more than one person is able to look at it without breaking the illusion that the device is creating. I agree that it is extremely pricey and I do not imagine that price will drop at any point within the next ten to twenty years, especially as this technology develops. To answer the question about “would you pick this over a VR headset” I actually would pick this. I am very prone to motion sickness, and VR seems to trigger it pretty severely, and I am not sure why. But also, I do agree that both pieces of technology are different, so what is the choice really about? For me, it is up to what makes the user comfortable. Anyone who has vertigo I can imagine would prefer the display over VR.
Sammy I totally agree with you on how this spacial reality display doesn’t seem worth the three to five thousand dollar investment for one person. However, having seen how much commercial shops rely on 3D models in their design and construction process, I can totally see a shop making the investment for one or two of these. An office could have one to use for pitching technical models to clients, or to help a shop foreperson or scenic artist see what the final product completely assembled, finished, and integrated will look like. Since the examples of this piece of technology in action in this article aren’t extensive, and theres no product to really compare this too, I don’t know if it would be worth the investment for our industry now. However, if architecture and that side of the design world latches onto this product and it becomes more widespread, I can 100% see theatre once again taking a piece of technology from another industry and adapting it to work for us.
When I clicked on this article, I did so because a "spacial reality display" sounded cool. I had no idea what that meant or what it would be. After reading the article, I am even more interested in the device. While I understand where people are coming from when they say something like this is useless, I really agree with one thing JC said. This is absolutely just a stepping stone on a path to an even more in-depth virtual reality/holograph type system. I can see how something like this has its place in a lot of different fields. From automotive design to architecture, there are a lot of fields where having a "3D" look at an object helps. As KT said, as this technology gets adopted by other industries, I could see theater latching onto it as well. This would be especially true if we began to see the price drop as it became more readily available.
I think this is a waste of money. I can do alot for 5K and none of that is sinking it into a small glitchy 3-D display that only works if you are sitting a certain way and are alone. Also, now that this is out, within 2 years I bet there are 5 different versions of it from other electronics manufacturers that are faster, better, and cheaper than this will ever be. One thing I learned in my life is that a name can increase the cost of a product. Why is it 5K? Because it’s from Sony. The same reason why a brand name cereal is more expensive than its generic equivalent or that pair of jeans from a designer label cost more than a pair from Old Navy. You pay more for the name than you do for the technology. I can see uses for this in set design and technical direction, but I think we are still far off from this technology to be investing in it right now.
First of all, I think this is a very cool development of VR technology. It is clearly colossally expensive, which means it does not solve the accessibility issues embedded in the possibilities of using VR goggles in our industry. That said, it could be embedded in an interactive live event in some way as a contactless interactive element that can be reused across shows. Museums might be a particularly good application, allowing visitors to closely inspect a catalogue of items that cannot be physically present for whatever reason. It is a bit of a disappointment that there can only be one viewer at a time, though it makes logical sense based on how the technology works. This is yet another case of technology designers working backwards from human behavior to create something that serves people intuitively; it makes me think of the choreographers working for technology companies. I think the Spacial Reality Display is coming out at a time when it is extremely helpful to have contactless interactive displays, and I can imagine that it will see a great deal of success in the exhibit and permanent install fields.
Wow. Absolutely fascinating tech! While I am not sure that the price is justifiable at this point in time, new technologies are always expensive and early adopters will help drive further innovation in the field. I can definitely see where 'holographic' displays like this can be applicable to construction and other visual-based fields. The ability to visualize a 3D model for a scenic designer or director, as KT mentioned, can make a huge difference in the end result. What I don't understand is why the author tried to create a binary choice between holographic displays and VR headsets. They achieve different goals and are appropriate for different processes. A holographic display may be useful for visualizing a single element or part, and VR is much better at visualizing whole environments or elements within a larger context. Neither of them can really compare to AR, where you can overlay digital elements over the real world (think Pokemon Go). As such, the suggestion that one would choose between VR and a holographic display betrays an ignorance of XR tech or a fundamental misunderstanding about the function of these different technologies.
I was wondering the primary audience for this product throughout the article. It makes sense that they are mainly focused on businesses and industries like filmmakers or architects. I do not see any practical use of this device for the everyday person, although it would be really cool. I also wonder about the applications of this device, which the article did not really touch on. Sure, filmmakers and architects may find use in this product, but for what specifically? This device seems very experimental, and I am fascinated thinking about all of its potential creative uses. Technology keeps evolving every day, and I enjoy keeping up with its growth. This is an interesting product and it feels almost like an ‘in-between’ device before technology experiences another breakthrough and uses the knowledge from this product to create a new one, potentially even more realistic. Like I said, my main take away from this article is my excitement at the prospect of the creative experimentation it can be put through.
Whenever I see a new piece of technology that's in the same vein as something like this, I always like to imagine up the role of a general "designer" and how they would use it. From my perspective, I see no reason why this would be any better than any VR headset, which go for only a few hundred dollars nowadays. To be completely immersed inside of the world that you're designing or even just viewing in general seems like a much more valuable thing than to slightly be able to change the visual perspective you have with some linear tracking devices in a screen. This could just be a miscommunication of the main intention of the product, though. There was a sort of subheading that said "Would you pick this over a VR headset" and, insofar as to what I saw within the article, I'd say no. The recommended hardware to use this device is still too expensive for most who don't need it for anything else, let alone the price of the product itself. Either way, I'd love to hear about what exactly Sony is going for with this product.
Post a Comment