[kguttag]

Objective is often in the eye of the beholder. I do express opinion, but I try to back them up with evidence.

The Fiber Scanning Display is in a whole different category. This looks like pure lying on Magic Leap's part.

In this particular case I have tried to lay out the math that proves that Fiber Scanning Displays are never going to support high resolution. No amount of money or time is going to make Fiber Scanning Displays work. I picked this case because the math was simple to follow and easy to prove that it was not possible. Yet it has been a key point in Magic Leaps Presentations and patent applications through to the latest ones printed.

I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible.

It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing?

There are other areas of optics and image quality where you can argue about whether the image quality will be "good enough" but Fiber Scanning Displays is a black and white issue.

[sprafa]

Your articles are mildly helpful. However it's also possible that ML has new insights into this technology or that they have developed new tech whose patent is still under consideration? What if you're right and these particular patents are just FUD designed to mislead competitors and they're going with something else?

All of the possibilities could be true. I find it hard to dismiss the personal anecdotes of people going into the ML offices and being blown away though. I am not betting on anything, yet, just that someone somewhere will solve this problem, as it seems insanely profitable to do so. Whether it's ML or someone else I don't know.

[sbarre]

I would think Occam's razor would prevail here..

Sure, ML might have discovered/invented some new tech or method that disproves all the previous established knowledge, and they are sitting on some revolutionary new product..

But is that more likely than the idea that they thought they could pull off this technological "leap" in theory, and in practice eventually realized they could not?

[drcode]

Well, some would argue Occam's razor would state "Lots of people who've seen the demo of the technology where impressed, maybe this means they created impressive technology"

[CamperBob2]

I think it is a very valid point to asked how a company could have been presenting something that was not possible, why people invested in a company saying things that were not possible, and why Magic Leap is holding to the fiction that it might be possible. It seems to me to be a pretty simple question. Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing?

I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once. And people are still throwing money at Theranos ( https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/26/theranos... ).

About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money.

[TeMPOraL]

> I've heard them referred to as the "Theranos of VR" more than once.

Wouldn't "uBeam of VR" be a more apt description? There's no outright fraud yet, just (apparently) tons and tons of bullshit and impossible promises.

> About the only conclusion that I've been able to draw is that a lot of people simply have too much money.

In case someone with an itchy wallet reads this:

I'm working on quantum flux capacitance technology that can revolutionize cold fusion research schedules. I need only a modest $10M and zero oversight to bring it to a market. It's a safer and better investment (AAA+ five stars!) than Theranos - I'm not a kind of person that could turn it into a massive media scandal. Contact me, and I'll tell you where to wire the money.

[UncleEntity]

> Were they lying or did they not know what they are doing?

This (less biased) article[0] seems to suggest your analysis is a bit off.

Isn't there some old saying about how an engineer can mathematically prove a bumblebee can't fly?

[0]https://gpuofthebrain.com/blog/2016/7/22/how-magic-leap-will...

[yorwba]

That article doesn't really address the issue of the fiber speed except for

"By using a piezoelectric actuator to achieve this scanning, one can maintain scan rates on the order of 10s of kHz"

10 kHz at a framerate of more than 100 Hz gives you less than 100 vibrations per frame. If each vibration covers a single row of pixels, you need at least a dozen fiber displays to produce a high-resolution display. There will likely be artifacts at the boundaries, but it might be possible to compensate.

After reading this, I think that the technology might be possible, but it likely won't be as amazing as claimed by Magic Leap's PR.

[kguttag]

The GPU of The Brain author seems to be well meaning and nice guy but he don't not understand optics.

The parallel fiber idea is "optically silly" but it takes some understanding of light to prove it is impossible too. It is yet another example of trying to fool people. I did try and explain this before on my blog over a year ago. See http://www.kguttag.com/2016/11/20/magic-leap-separating-magi... and scroll down to the Appendix at the bottom.

Basically you have multiple fibers going in a circle each with their center of origin it becomes impossible to get them to act like a single image for use in near eye optic.

What the layman would not understand is that this is very different from image stitching on a projection screen that in part relies on the light being diffused/randomized by the screen. In the case of near eye optics, there is no way to get the multiple projector image collimated AND seamlessly put together.

It is yet another example of a good con has to seem believable.

[UncleEntity]

> Basically you have multiple fibers going in a circle each with their center of origin it becomes impossible to get them to act like a single image for use in near eye optic.

Why would they go in a circle when all they need to do is provide a single wavelength on a single axis? A single axis movement seems to be enough, no?

> In the case of near eye optics, there is no way to get the multiple projector image collimated AND seamlessly put together.

Unless they did something completely crazy and invented a method to do this. And maybe with this "invention" they built a demo and showed it to a few folks who were like "hey, this really works, I think I'll write an article about it and get published in Rolling Stone" or "Dude, take my money, please."

Reminds me of another story (definitely true and not about bumblebees). Henry Ford wanted a V8 engine block made out of a single casting and all the engineers said it wasn't possible. So what to do? Turns out throwing a shitton of money at a secret project lead to the answer and the flathead ford V8 engine was the result.

[yorwba]

> Why would they go in a circle when all they need to do is provide a single wavelength on a single axis?

Going in a circle (really a trochoid) is actually a pretty smart way to scan a 2D surface with a single light ray, you basically just rotate the vibrating fiber's plane of vibration around an axis to produce a cone of light. If you wanted to have only a single axis movement, you'd need many more fibers, one for each row of pixels.

>> In the case of near eye optics, there is no way to get the multiple projector image collimated AND seamlessly put together.

> Unless they did something completely crazy and invented a method to do this.

Did you read kguttag's argument on the matter? The reason this doesn't work is because the optics for collimation depend on the incoming angle of the light, so it must happen close enough to the light sources that the different light cones do not overlap. Then the light still expands within the optics before it gets straightened out, so there needs to be some gap for tolerance. So either they end up with some stray light rays that go into undesirable directions, or there is a gap at the border between the different regions.

Now maybe they showed a demo of this with visible artifacts to people and they were still blown away. Most likely they also told them that there was still room for improvement, while leaving open where exactly the fundamental limits are. Maybe they will release the imperfect version of their product than can actually be built, and people will still love it despite not living up to the marketing.

The problem is not that Magic Leap's ideas are completely useless or impossible to implement, just that they are significantly overhyping the expected capabilities of the finished product.

[mojomark]

@yorwba - You are correct, of course the fiber scan retinal display is feasible (albeit certainly very difficult to implement in an array for a wide FOV AR display). Please don't subscribe to the nonsense issued in the subject blog.

For proof of concept, one need only look at the fiber scan endoscope demos:

https://youtu.be/1UF9fJtZHAY

This is essentially the same technology, but operated in reverse (i.e. using the scanning fiber as a camera vice an image projector).

[jfaat]

Had to look that saying up [0], but it seems like it’s just a made-up thing to help people who aren’t scientists cope with that fact.

[0] https://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

[rubidium]

Not disagreeing that the saying may be made up, but Scientist != engineer.

This is Especially applicable here in photonics and sight.

Most engineering works in approximations that get taught as rules. One needs to be very careful of the assumptions they're making about the physical world and eyesight when discussing AR.

[na85]

>Scientist != engineer

Evaluates to false. Engineering is applied science, and thus all engineers are in fact scientists.

[alasdair_]

Arithmetic is applied mathematics, and thus all kindergartners are mathematicians.

[drcode]

I agree you make great points- Thank you for writing up these posts!

[sytelus]

But... they had done demos to many investors and at least one journalist who were convinced to give them money and write article. They have already announced that there will be product in 2018. What do you think they demoed and what the actual product will be?

[URSpider94]

I have trusted acquaintances who have seen their demos. They are reportedly beautiful. But, they are also reportedly tied to extremely large and complex optical benches.

Most optics experts don’t dispute that you can deliver the experience they are promising - they dispute that you can do it in a product with cost and size that is compatible with any kind of volume manufacturing.