What he's seeing is coming through the cameras. He's not looking at reality with an overlaid display. The glasses he is using are not see-through, they are displays. That's a very different experience from augmented reality and reduces your viewing to HD quality.
That also explains why at the beginning of the video we see him put on the glasses and there's no transition to seeing what he sees through them.
I hardly see that as even a problem :)
prescription displays? Sounds like a big profit winner.
We already use Fly By Wire Vision in some cases, even with the engineering drawbacks of current devices: namely night vision for the military.
A useful wearable augmented reality experience would require a retinal scanning display, which is presumably what Google's prototypes use. Brother has been showing off a product like this, but it has been nothing more than expo fodder for the last few years: http://www.brother.com/en/news/2010/airscouter/
Retinal scanning display. Hm… I wonder how good this really looks? I didn't find a review video by a independent party. So I remain doubtful as long as I don't experience it myself.
I'm wondering whether the reason that Google's glasses only use a small display in the corner of one eye is that the see-through image quality is simply not good enough to justify covering the wearer's entire field of view. If you look at the photos of Sergey Brin wearing them, they are not very transparent, at least from the angle the photos were taken: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/6/2929927/google-project-glas...
What about that HNers who lamented that a Google wearable will be plastered with ads, what if it reduced the overall number of ads you saw?
>"it's definitely not a new phenomenon"
Agreed 100%, but Google and Apple could push it into mainstream...and for most people, I'm guessing that it'd be their first encounter with AR / VR.
I think they're trying to ensure the phrases don't cross over with regularly used phrases
And user feedback doesn't even mean that much when you're trying to build an entirely new product category (ok, maybe the basic idea existed for a long time, but I think we can all agree their concept of the AR glasses is a lot more modern and practical, and might actually turn into a popular commercial product if they do it right).
The linked video and the comments it generates are an excellent example of this.
That being said, this is a perfect example of how Google entirely screwed up with this. This would have been the ultimate keynote release to Google IO. Not saying that it won't still be, but now other competitors have a great idea to build off of. Google should have just been quiet until this product was at least to a manufacturing stage.
In the case of something that has a developer culture around it (say, a chumby or something) you have a higher number of developers ready to go 'at the start' since they've had time to think about killer apps.
One could point at how early-stage multiplayer videogames are developed for a good counterexample.
A world where people hack together cool things using Google tech, or hack together cool things a bit like Google tech, or hack together cool things better than Google tech.
Your confidence is overwhelming.
I also don't think the representation in the Glass demo video is accurate: I'd expect the images it projects to add to the background rather than replace it entirely. I don't think they could make an "opaque" projection if they wanted to.
That being said, there are still a great deal of Computer Vision problems that will need to be solved to successfully implement "Strong AR". The video was a nice proof of concept, but that's what the Google video was too.
In any case, pretty cool 'prototype'!
At the very least, he puts the glasses on his face, but the camera is filming from above his head...
Clean, simple, it just works and flies off the desktop when its not needed.