Magic Leap claims that its device is unique in the way it beams light into the eye, though the company declines to explain it further at this time. The user sees the outside world through the glass, while the virtual elements are projected from a light source at the edge of the glass and then reflected into the user’s eyes by the beam-splitting nano-ridges. But all things considered, the answer seems to be: “probably.” See also Kevin Kelly’s sparsely detailed megafeature on ML for Wired in 2016:Īll three major MR headsets rely on images that are projected edgeways onto a semitransparent material-usually glass with a coating of nanoscale ridges. ML then released another video “shot directly through Magic Leap technology on 10/14/15, without the use of special effects or compositing.” Was that true? Definitely a question worth asking, in light of what had happened with the previous video. Magic Leap sent an email to press with a video and the claim “This is a game we’re playing around the office right now” subsequently, The Information revealed that entire video was F/X, created by Weta Workshop. It’s worth noting there was some spin-that-more-than-verged-on-deception going on. What happened to that “completely different approach?” The ML1 is a not a “lightfield projector” or display by any broadly accepted definition This is the part that has gotten the most hype over the years, with endless talk of “Photonic Lightfield Chips”, “Fiber Scanning Laser Displays”, “projecting a digital light field into the user’s eye”, and the holy-grail promise of solving vergence-accommodation conflict, an issue that has plagued HMDs for decades … TL DR: The supposed “Photonic Lightfield Chips” are just waveguides paired with reflective sequential-color LCOS displays and LED illumination, the same technology everyone else has been using for years, including Microsoft in their last-gen HoloLens. Again, yes he would do so … but the details are quite striking … Tull even told TechCrunch “Magic Leap takes a completely different approach.” This is especially interesting because when Magic Leap finally - finally, after 5 years and $1.6 billion - released a product, Oculus’s Palmer Luckey wrote a truly scathing teardown of the Magic Leap One. Legendary and a16z had previously invested in Oculus Rift.

It was incredibly natural and almost jarring - you’re in the room, and there’s a dragon flying around, it’s jaw-dropping and I couldn’t get the smile off of my faceĥ/ and having the Magic Leap demo is as impressive as the original multitouch demo.

Not just an order-of-magnitude more pixels or a faster frame rate, but – thanks to sensors and optics and mobile phone volumes and breakthroughs in computer vision – something I always dreamed of … The product is amazing … this is different I mean, it’s a VC’s job to rave about their portfolio companies, but this was different: Investors included Andreessen Horowitz, Kleiner Perkins, Google (not Google Ventures - Google itself) and many many more. Magic Leap drew in a lot of true believers over the years $2.6 billion worth. He is actually assuaging some of my considerable skepticism re ML, too. The Chief Game Wizard of Magic Leap has the relieved look of a man whose company has, 5 years and $1.6 billion later, finally released something, anything, for the love of God Montresor.

Magic leap magic leapbassbloomberg