The best AR glasses of CES 2024 (so far)

Jan 12, 2024
1
1
10
Same 1080p microLED "too low res" head mounted displays, same birdpath with display prism right in the center of your field of view, same crappy Fov at 45-50°. This CES is a total disaster for AR glasses, the only model that proposes waveguide + standalone is the RayNeo X2, but the resolution and FoV are ... prehistoric

Where are the 1440p models ? where are the 4K models ? where are the 70-80° FoV models ? where are the high-res waveguive models ? Why everything presented at this CES share the same spec than 3 years old AR glasses ?

Lumus won XR awards 2023 "best AR solution" and its Z-Lens 2D waveguide technology was introduced at CES 2023... 1 year ago. 2k per eye, 50 to 70° FOV, allowing thin and light high-end AR glasses, and all we saw at CES 2024 are the same 1080p Birdpath models we know since 3 years.

I am very disapointed, and very surprised not to read anything on this subject concerning what was presented to this C.E.S
 
  • Like
Reactions: shalte81
Jan 20, 2024
1
0
10
Same 1080p microLED "too low res" head mounted displays, same birdpath with display prism right in the center of your field of view, same crappy Fov at 45-50°. This CES is a total disaster for AR glasses, the only model that proposes waveguide + standalone is the RayNeo X2, but the resolution and FoV are ... prehistoric

Where are the 1440p models ? where are the 4K models ? where are the 70-80° FoV models ? where are the high-res waveguive models ? Why everything presented at this CES share the same spec than 3 years old AR glasses ?

Lumus won XR awards 2023 "best AR solution" and its Z-Lens 2D waveguide technology was introduced at CES 2023... 1 year ago. 2k per eye, 50 to 70° FOV, allowing thin and light high-end AR glasses, and all we saw at CES 2024 are the same 1080p Birdpath models we know since 3 years.

I am very disapointed, and very surprised not to read anything on this subject concerning what was presented to this C.E.S
I'm with you 100%. I am beyond frustrated to the point that I've decided to check out of AR altogether for some years. At that point, I'll evaluate the options on the market to see if the following requirements are satisfied:

1. Lightweight and comfortable. Must be light enough to wear only with stems (no head straps!) for long hours of work.
2. High resolution and high FOV. Must be transparent (technology similar to waveguide). No birdbath, and no VR goggles with computer vision passthrough. Must be capable of hosting multiple high-resolution virtual displays for simultaneous viewing.
3. Must support some efficient, standardized protocol for getting virtual display data from my devices to the glasses. No proprietary, half-baked wireless garbage software, no pegging my GPU with user-space encoding, etc. display overhead which should be handled by dedicated, non-user space hardware.

I huge part of this effort could be expedited by explaining to the Qualcomm, Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Meta, etc. CEOs that they aren't going to fully dominate this new market just as they have never fully dominated any previous markets, and then locking them in a room without food or water until they agree to standards and protocols for efficient AR. 🤣