Download as PDF, PPTX
![Augmented Reality Definition
Defining Characteristics [Azuma 97]
Combines Real and Virtual Images
- Both can be seen at the same time
Interactive in real-time
- The virtual content can be interacted with
Registered in 3D
- Virtual objects appear fixed in space](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/svr2011keynote-110525065015-phpapp02/75/SVR2011-Keynote-4-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byMark Billinghurst
SVR2011 Keynote
This document discusses research directions in augmented reality. It begins with definitions and examples of AR. There is then a history of AR from the 1960s to present. Key areas of focus are identified as mobile phone AR, browser-based AR, and developing compelling AR experiences. The document concludes that AR is being commercialized rapidly and there are opportunities in developing technology, tools, applications, and experiences to build the future of AR.
More Related Content
![Coded Agents – with UiPath SDK + LangGraph [Virtual Hands-on Workshop]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/codedagentsdeck-251215155422-5497c599-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
SVR2011 Keynote
- 1. Research Directions in AugmentedReality Mark Billinghurst The HIT Lab NZ University of Canterbury
- 4. Augmented Reality Definition DefiningCharacteristics [Azuma 97] Combines Real and Virtual Images - Both can be seen at the same time Interactive in real-time - The virtual content can be interacted with Registered in 3D - Virtual objects appear fixed in space
- 5. Augmented Reality Examples Put AR pictures here
- 6.
- 7. Virtual Reality Immersive VR Head mounted display, gloves Separation from the real world
- 8. AR vs VR VirtualReality: Replaces Reality Scene Generation: requires realistic images Display Device: fully immersive, wide FOV Tracking and Sensing: low accuracy is okay Augmented Reality: Enhances Reality Scene Generation: minimal rendering okay Display Device: non-immersive, small FOV Tracking and Sensing: high accuracy needed
- 9. Milgram’s Reality-Virtuality continuum Mixed Reality Real Augmented Augmented Virtual Environment Reality (AR) Virtuality (AV) Environment Reality - Virtuality (RV) Continuum
- 10.
- 11. AR Beginnings 1960’s: Sutherland/ Sproull’s first HMD system was see- through
- 12. 1960 - 80’s:US Air Force SuperCockpit (T. Furness)
- 13. Early 1990’s: Boeingcoined the term “AR.” Wire harness assembly application begun (T. Caudell, D. Mizell). Early to mid 1990’s: UNC ultrasound visualization project Early 1990’s: Boeing coined the term “AR.” Wire harness assembly application begun (T. Caudell, D. Mizell). 1994 - : UNC Research Motion stabilized display, Hybrid tracking, Ultrasound visualization
- 14. A Brief Historyof AR 1996: MIT Wearable Computing efforts 1998: Dedicated conferences begin Late 90’s: Collaboration, outdoor, interaction Late 90’s: Augmented sports broadcasts 1998 - 2001: Mixed Reality Systems Lab
- 15. History Summary 1960’s –80’s: Early Experimentation 1980’s – 90’s: Basic Research Tracking, displays 1995 – 2005: Tools/Applications Interaction, usability, theory 2005 - : Commercial Applications Games, Medical, Industry
- 16. Medical AR Trials Sauer et al. 2000 at Siemens Corporate Research, NJ Stereo video see through F. Sauer, Ali Khamene, S. Vogt: An Augmented Reality Navigation System with a Single-Camera Tracker: System Design and Needle Biopsy Phantom Trial, MICCAI 2002
- 18. AR Reaches Mainstream MIT Technology Review March 2007 list of the 10 most exciting technologies Economist Dec 6th 2007 Reality, only better
- 19. Virtual Reality, AugmentedReality
- 20. Esquire Magazine Dec 2009issue 12 pages AR content
- 21. Trend One: BrowserBased AR Adobe Flash + camera + 3D graphics High impact High marketing value Large potential install base 1.6 Billion web users Ease of development Lots of developers, mature tools Low cost of entry Browser, web camera
- 24. 1983 – StarWars
- 25. 1999: AR Faceto Face Collaboration
- 26. 1998: SGI O2 2008: Nokia N95 CPU: 300 Mhz CPU: 332 Mhz HDD; 9GB HDD; 8GB RAM: 512 mb RAM: 128 mb Camera: VGA 30fps Camera: VGA 30 fps Graphics: 500K poly/sec Graphics: 2m poly/sec
- 27. Trend Two: MobilePhone AR Mobile Phones camera, sensors processor display AR on Mobile Phones Simple graphics Optimized computer vision Collaborative Interaction
- 29. Collaborative AR AR Tennis Shared AR content Two user game Audio + haptic feedback Bluetooth networking
- 30. Location Aware Phones MotorolaDroid Nokia Navigator
- 31. 2009 - OutdoorInformation Overlay Mobile phone based Tag real world locations GPS + Compass input Overlay graphics data on live video Applications Travel guide, Advertising, etc Wikitude, Layar, Junaio, etc.. Android based, Public API released
- 32. Layar (www.layar.com) Location baseddata GPS + compass location Map + camera view AR Layers on real world Customized data Audio, 3D, 2D content Easy authoring Android, iPhone
- 33. Android AR Platform ArchitecturalApplication Loads 3D models a OBJ/MTL format Positions content in space GPS, compass Intuitive user interface toolkit to modify the model Connects to back end model database
- 34.
- 35. Client/Server Web Interface Add models Web application java and php server Android application Database server Postgres
- 36. $784 million USDin 2014
- 37. Summary Augmented Reality hasa long history going back to the 1960’s Interest in AR has exploded over the last two years and is being commercialized quickly AR is growing in a number of areas Mobile AR Web based AR Advertising experiences
- 38. Looking to theFuture
- 39. What’s Next? Sony CSL © 2004
- 40. “The product isno longer the basis of value. The experience is.” Venkat Ramaswamy The Future of Competition.
- 41. PS3 - Eyeof Judgement Computer Vision Tracking Card based battle game Collaborative AR October 24th 2007
- 43. Building Compelling ARExperiences experiences Usability applications Interaction tools Authoring components Tracking, Display Sony CSL © 2004
- 44.
- 45. Building Compelling ARExperiences experiences applications tools components Tracking, Display Sony CSL © 2004
- 46. Low Level ARLibraries ARToolKit Enhancements Occlusion Handling SSTT Simple Spatial Template Tracking Opira Robust Natural Feature Tracking
- 47.
- 48.
- 49. Building Compelling ARExperiences experiences applications tools Authoring components Tracking, Display Sony CSL © 2004
- 50. AR Authoring Software Libraries OSGART, Studierstube, MXRToolKit Plugin to existing software DART (Macromedia Director) Stand Alone AMIRE, etc Next Generation iaTAR (Tangible AR)
- 51. mARx Plug-in 3D StudioMax Plug-in Can model and view AR content at the same time
- 52. BuildAR http://www.buildar.co.nz/ Stand alone application Visualinterface for AR model viewing application Enables non-programmers to build AR scenes
- 53.
- 54. Building Compelling ARExperiences experiences applications Interaction tools Authoring components Tracking, Display Sony CSL © 2004
- 55. AR Design Principles InterfaceComponents Physical components Display elements - Visual/audio Interaction metaphors Physical Display Elements Interaction Elements Metaphor Input Output
- 56. Tangible User Interfaces(Ishii 97) Create digital shadows for physical objects Foreground graspable UI Background ambient interfaces
- 57. Tangible AR Metaphor ARovercomes limitation of TUIs enhance display possibilities merge task/display space provide public and private views TUI + AR = Tangible AR Apply TUI methods to AR interface design
- 58. Tangible AR DesignPrinciples Tangible AR Interfaces use TUI principles Physical controllers for moving virtual content Support for spatial 3D interaction techniques Support for multi-handed interaction Match object affordances to task requirements Support parallel activity with multiple objects Allow collaboration between multiple users
- 59. Case Study: 3DAR Lens Goal: Develop a lens based AR interface MagicLenses Developed at Xerox PARC in 1993 View a region of the workspace differently to the rest Overlap MagicLenses to create composite effects
- 60. 3D MagicLenses MagicLenses extendedto 3D (Veiga et. al. 96) Volumetric and flat lenses
- 61. AR Lens DesignPrinciples Physical Components Lens handle - Virtual lens attached to real object Display Elements Lens view - Reveal layers in dataset Interaction Metaphor Physically holding lens
- 62. 3D AR Lenses:Model Viewer Displays models made up of multiple parts Each part can be shown or hidden through the lens Allows the user to peer inside the model Maintains focus + context
- 63.
- 64. HMD vs HandheldAR Interface Wearable AR HandHeld AR Output: Display Input & Output Input
- 65. Handheld Interface Metaphors TangibleAR Lens Viewing Look through screen into AR scene Interact with screen to interact with AR content - Eg Invisible Train Tangible AR Lens Manipulation Select AR object and attach to device Use the motion of the device as input - Eg AR Lego
- 67. Next Interaction Techniques NaturalGestures Depth sensing Natural body input Multimodal Speech + gesture
- 68.
- 69. Building Compelling ARExperiences experiences Usability applications Interaction tools Authoring components Tracking, Display Sony CSL © 2004
- 70. Survey of ARPapers Edward Swan (2005) Surveyed major conference/journals (1992-2004) - Presence, ISMAR, ISWC, IEEE VR Summary 1104 total papers 266 AR papers 38 AR HCI papers (Interaction) 21 AR user studies Only 21 from 266 AR papers have formal user study (<8% of all AR papers)
- 71. Types of Experiments Perception How is virtual content perceived ? What perceptual cues are most important ? Interaction How can users interact with virtual content ? Which interaction techniques are most efficient ? Collaboration How is collaboration in AR interface different ? Which collaborative cues can be conveyed best ?
- 72. AR Browser Interface Layar(www.layar.com) show POI on real world Typical Interface Elements Live camera view Radar view Virtual graphics of POI 2D map view Information area
- 73. Navigation How useful isAR view for navigation ego- vs. exo-centric Experiment AR only Map only AR + map
- 74. Experiment Design Conditions AR: Using only an AR view 2D-map: Using only a top down 2D map view AR+2D-map: Using both an AR and 2D map view Measures Time to complete, Distance travelled User preference, subjective measures
- 75. Paths Walked three differentpaths walked around campus between buildings/under trees
- 76. Performance Measures AR+Map AR+Map Map Map AR AR 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Average Time Taken (sec) Average Distance Travelled (m) No difference between conditions
- 77.
- 78. User Feedback AR +Map easy to identify points of interest AR only hard to know where things were Liked being able to switch between modes AR+Map preferred best
- 79. Typical User Comments “Withthe AR mode, I didn’t know where any of the buildings were, a couple of times I went round in a circle because I didn’t know where things were.” “I found the map interface the best one to use because you are actually able to see the physical objects around you" “I used the map at the beginning to understand where the buildings were and the AR between each point”
- 80. Navigation Conclusion AR aloneprovides no improvement Lack of depth cues Difficult to create spatial awareness AR + Map preferred interface Map for creating mental mode AR for near navigation
- 81.
- 82. “We’re living inthe experience economy and the customer is the star of the show. If I’m going to spend thousands of dollars on something. I want the whole experience to be a fairy-tale” Milton Pedraza, The Luxury Institute Illustrative
- 83. Building Compelling ARExperiences experiences Usability applications Interaction tools Authoring components Tracking, Display Sony CSL © 2004
- 84. Conclusions AR is onthe verge of commercialization There are interesting research opportunities in Developing AR Component Technology Build Easy to Use Tools Identify Application Domains Develop Compelling AR Experiences
- 85. More Information • MarkBillinghurst – mark.billinghurst@hitlabnz.org • Websites – http://www.hitlabnz.org/ – http://artoolkit.sourceforge.net/ – http://www.osgart.org/ – http://www.hitlabnz.org/wiki/buildAR/