Magic Leap is the new Florida-based company developing a very buzzed-about augmented-reality device of the same name

Download 285.48 Kb.
Size285.48 Kb.

Magic Leap is the new Florida-based company developing a very buzzed-about augmented-reality device of the same name. The Magic Leap will integrate realistic three-dimensional images and animations with the user’s real, observed world. There is no release date yet for the product, and the company has not indicated when it might appear in consumer hands. Magic Leap was the first company to publicly announce plans for advanced augmented reality (a substantial “leap” over devices like Google Glass), but we still know relatively few specifics about what the company plans for the device. Despite the secrecy, some major investors have poured huge amounts of money into the project, including a Google investment of $542 million.
Most of what is known about the technical aspects of the device come from Magic Leap patent filings, which industry writers have mined for info and summarized in trade publications. At the time of writing, the patent application remains the only source of a sketch of what a Magic Leap prototype might look like. Currently, questions about the functionality of the Magic Leap may be best answered by the debut of its only major competitor—the Microsoft Hololens. Microsoft’s device has already been demonstrated for the public, providing the only direct window into advanced augmented reality applications—gaming, education, video viewing, and exploration—yet available.
Most VR and augmented reality devices rely on stereoscopic 3D technology, which has been around for ages and can cause disorientation and nausea in its users even despite recent improvements. Both the Hololens and Magic Leap, however, have developed new methods. The Hololens creates the illusion of three-dimensional images inside a pair of lenses, and Magic Leap will use a fiber optic projector to beam digital light fields directly onto the user’s retinas. The Magic Leap’s complex software will map the user’s own position and eye movement and mix in digital light field technology to make the projected objects appear to exist in external reality.
Magic Leap’s use of light beamed directly onto retinas presumably solves the problem of limited range of projection, which may give it a boost over the Hololens’ capabilities. Users of the Hololens are limited to a 120 degree by 120 degree field of operation because the image creation is restricted to the lens field of the glasses. Rachel Metz of the MIT Technology Review seemed to confirm as much in her experience comparing demos of the two devices, describing the Hololens’ inability to mask her peripheral vision as a major detractor to the realism of the images.

One key component of Magic Leap will be the use of “totems.” Totems can be any physical object that the programming designates as such; for example, a block of wood could act as a mouse. An object specifically manufactured for the Magic Leap might be a rubber keyboard onto which the device projects typeface characters. Gesture-based controls like pinching will also be integrated.

Magic Leap is also developing proprietary “sensorywear.” Sensorywear will comprise the head-mounted display and peripherals, which include gloves that can provide tactile feedback. There are images of wearable tech in the patent filings as well, including watches and rings that may interface with the device.

The level to which developers have access to Magic Leap is unclear, although the design software has likely not yet been released. The official Magic Leap website has a cryptic message to developers about the “tight-lipped” status of the project; it invites interested parties to fill out a form and wait to hear back from the company.

Magic Leap has also not released a list of compatible platforms for the device (or whether it will be a stand-alone computer). Also unclear is whether Magic Leap will be intended for in-home/office use (like the Hololens) or use in the everyday outside world (like Google Glass).

Magic Leap’s marketing differs considerably from Microsoft’s marketing of the Hololens, likely due to the current stage of development. Magic Leap’s homepage and related websites focus less on technical issues and more on the idea of bringing magic back into the world.

No less a visionary than Neal Stephenson, author of Snow Crash and a “futurist” with Magic Leap, recently wrote a blog post on the company website explaining his belief that this new technology may have finally caught up with his vision.
Magic Leap already has games under development. One game is described as a first-person shooter that promises an immersive experience with ray guns and “wave” weaponry. Another called “Magic Leap’s Monster Battle” is described by Gizmodo as “as a shared world where players each have customizable virtual pets that follow their finger and can (presumably) battle with one another.” Traditional game controllers will be usable as control tools (along with totems) by Magic Leap.
Magic Leap has also trademarked some titles under the category of “comic books,” which may indicate forthcoming augmented reality comic titles.
Video viewing is likely to proceed along the same lines as those offered by the Microsoft Hololens, which has released video of individuals watching Netflix content projected into the air. Magic Leap’s capacity for video resolution is not yet clear.

Augmented reality’s educational potential is immense. Though we know little about Magic Leap’s specific plans in this area, it is easy to imagine the usefulness of remote instruction through virtual classrooms and guided demonstrations. Microsoft has already successfully demonstrated remote instruction by having an expert guide a user wearing the Hololens through complex home repair tasks. We can expect Magic Leap’s capabilities to be equally impressive.
The Magic Leap’s only major competitor to date is the Microsoft Hololens, as mentioned above and in the following companion white paper: The Hololens is expected to reach the consumer market long before the Hololens.
Rachel Metz of the MIT Technology Review, the only writer to compare personal experiences with both devices, gave much higher marks to Magic Leap. She described its three-dimensional images as much crisper and clearer and found the device to have a much wider range of vision. The Hololens, however, is far ahead in level of portability and freedom of physical motion.

The biggest potential problem facing Magic Leap is its ability secure FDA approval for the projection of digital light fields directly onto the retina. Even if proven safe in trials, there is still a marketing challenge in mitigating public fear about long-term damage to the eye.

A major reason for the company’s secrecy may also be slow development of the technology for consumer use. Magic Leap yet to publicly demonstrate that they can shrink the technology sufficiently to provide comfortable headwear; testers as late as February 2015 describe private demos as occurring via very large prototypes resembling an optometrist’s diagnostic rig. This suggests that the company may have significant work ahead before the technology can be comfortably worn on a user’s face with full freedom of movement.


Official Magic Leap Site:

Magic Leap blog:

Magic Leap Patent Filing Details:

Technology Review of Magic Leap:

Gizmodo Rundown:

Fast Company:

MIT Review:

Comparing Hololens and Magic Leap:

Magic Leap White Sheet Written by Walker McKnight

Download 285.48 Kb.

Share with your friends:

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page