HYDROGEN hands on video from MKBHD

[David Grigorian]

I have my fingers crossed for a Leica M mount.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

This also affects ones choice between Al and Ti as weight / stress factors for module/lens attachment.

Probably you'd want to support everything from the lens anyway, not from the HYDROGEN since it will be quite lightweight...

 

[Mike Finegan]

yes metabones (or similar) for the phone! Maybe pancake prime lenses
Wonder how much that mount will be :0

 

[Aaron michaels]

This may be their version of the Black Magic pocket cam but more advanced.

 

[Eric Lange]

it sounds like the 'hologram' is kind of like a multi-directional 3d effect, instead of stereo-view it looks 3d from all angles. pretty cool really, although i'm not sure what kind of format to deliver in. you could shoot four cameras, or manually convert it by filling/painting the background, which can be tedious. there are also automatic and semi-automatic conversions, none of which i know to be available commercially, but i might be wrong. the main problem with stereo 3d is if you're not looking at it just the right way, the effect doesn't work, and this seems to resolve that shortcoming. but i don't think we're going to see princess leia popping out of it anytime soon.

Appologies for length but seems the same perceptual questions keep popping up again and again... and Paulherrin is a very smart guy, so maybe worth some dis-ambiguation here ...

It seems to be a 4 channel (+?) autostereoscopic display (glasses free) that basically solves all the knarly artifacts of previous autostereoscopic (glasses free) displays; i.e. eliminates low res imagery and knarly moiré patterns. Also HYDROGEN by all accounts seems to be very silky and flawless and bright... / AMAZING.

The closest analogy I can think of in terms of how the holographic/multi 3d effect is experienced, would be to think of the pane of glass on the front as almost a compact portal to another dimension... With this type of display +ve and -ve display parallax of stereoscopic and 3d features should be possible. I.e. while gazing at the surface of the display it is possible to simultaneously see (perceive) 3d complex features (of an object or scene) both above the plane of the display and below. Also it's important to stress that the plane of the screen in a lot of instances is not noticeable... So not so much of a hotel lobby effect or objects in a "Fish Tank" effect when in 3d 4view+ holographic viewing mode, but much better than that.

Depending on content creation and software control and other goodies (as mentioned before), you can have scenes and objects that appear above the plane of the screen, below the screen or both simultaneously. You can even have things that recede to an infinitely far background (if need be). [Without getting too involved here, there are a few situations where you don't want parallaxes and perceived depths above and below the screen to compete with each other too much in extreme cases, but other wise there's a LOT creatively and technically that can be done]. Personally I'm super happy that the acquisition of high quality two view to 4 view + stereo imagery and the like is being recognized as a superior alternative to dimensionalization techniques from 2d imagery.. Phew! .. It's taken long enough for other's to realize that... And it seems that RED want to provide tools that enable people to attain world class imagery and better, in this particular domain... Something I applaud; Big time!

[How things appear]:

So simple mental wordy analogy, imagine looking straight down on top of a beer or soda can (as displayed on your HYDROGEN ) . So you see and perceive the raised rim and edge of the top of the can as well as the relief differences of the ring-pull/tab etc. Imagine the top of the can stands out of the screen (as perceived) looking flat on to the display. Now imagine tipping the device 15 degrees down on its left edge... Then you get to see a different stereo pair (but maybe composed of one shot from the previous before tilted view). That second stereo view shows the beer-can as imaged and displayed revealing the can's right hand flanking cylindrical surface (in perspective consistent with a 15 degree tilt), a surface that was previously occluded when the device/HYDROGEN was in an un-tilted state. Similarly if you tilt the device to the right about 15 degrees you then see the left hand flanking side of the beer can receding into or towards the screen, and the top of the can appears as an mild ellipse, but the fine 3d features of the top of the can would still be perceivable. This is what gives you the "look around the object" effect and feel (and in fact you ARE looking around the object... (Within gross limits) BUT crucially its autostereoscopic so it appears as if its really there, not just a trick of "Fudging" perspectives two dimensionally as in some 2d displays that try to "fake" a 3d-ish-like 2 1/2D perception through computed perspective shifting. [Technical term: computed 2d motion parallax; for 2d "fudging" effect, NOT what HYDROGEN is doing ;-) ].

Clear as mud.

However, if you tilt the screen to a more oblique angle like 60 degrees then the zones for stereoscopic and 3d/holographic perception may "Drop out"... or just not be available to your eyes at very steep angles? [Perhaps?]. That's OK as 99.9999% of applications require one to look at the screen YKWIM? (rather than having 3d imagery when NOT looking at the screen lol).

Also, however Stereo/3d / 4 view stereographics etc. are actually very tolerant of a high degree of tilt (in theory) as the 3d/stereoscopic image effectively "Shears" (almost imperceptibly and without apparent distortion) to meet you eyes... And you see it in perceivable 3d... Follows you around the room (if you like).

On the other hand if you tilt such a device 45 degrees-ish (tilt down on left side) you are not going to see holographic objects that make it past the left hand edge that are designed to stand out of the screen... I.e. the 4 view holographic/stereoscopic image of the beer can standing 100% out of the screen may not make it completely past the left edge (of the screen) as viewed. So that's if you like the edge or "Frame" of the " Portal " (using VR-"speak"). Depending on how it shears and depending on the collimated viewing volume/space... So that's why it is so tricky to explain as there are a combination of several complex effects all acting simultaneously on each other. However I have no doubt that HYDROGEN is very natural and effortless to use and view.




Long story short you will be able to see and perceive a hell of lot but if you turn the device side on to it's slimmest profile you won't see a laser holographic image that stands in three dimensional space off the screen. I think Phil H and others have made that point., but is ten thousand times better than fudged 2d (real time) perspective shifting illusion. HYDROGEN creates and displays objects and scenes that are three dimensionally fully perceivable in every sense to the full capability of the human visual system to perceive three dimensional "Entities".


So it's better than a "fish tank" analogy as objects can appear above and below the surface of the screen simultaneously and in a lot of instances the plane of the screen will not be perceived... So that's why I say it's like peering into a "Portal" from a different dimension so things can "come out" of this portal as well as recede into the distance. AND you can tilt the display or look from more oblique angles to have different imagery presented to your eyes that correspond with that viewing position... (to give you the "look-around" experience). So it gives another 3d perceivable viewpoint of an object or scene revealing previously occluded/hidden features that are consistent with that particular 3d viewing position and angle. Much like VR or real life.

 

[Les Hillis]

That makes sense Eric. The 3-D (4-view) illusion still has to fit within the rectangular surface of the screen, but when angling the device, the screen surface may be less prominent to the eye than the image displayed upon it, creating the illusion of content appearing above the screen (while still remaining within the limits of the actual rectangular screen).

I imagine the content creators would be able to adjust the extent of that depth effect though, so they could in fact make it more of a window/fish-bowl/beneath-the-surface type effect if they want to.

My take away from the Marques Brownlee preview of the prototype holographic display, is that it seems they still need to up the processing power or optimize something to get the holographic effect working perfectly smooth and stutter-free when viewing real-time content, like in games for example. The comment from Marques Brownlee about the holographic mode on the prototype display having light-bleed around the edges of the screen also stood out to me. It would have been good if he'd gotten some assurance from RED that those issues would be overcome before the device gets out of prototyping.

 

[Elsie N]

Appologies for length but seems the same perceptual questions keep popping up again and again... and Paulherrin is a very smart guy, so maybe worth some dis-ambiguation here ...

It seems to be a 4 channel (+?) autostereoscopic display (glasses free) that basically solves all the knarly artifacts of previous autostereoscopic (glasses free) displays; i.e. eliminates low res imagery and knarly moiré patterns. Also HYDROGEN by all accounts seems to be very silky and flawless and bright... / AMAZING.

The closest analogy I can think of in terms of how the holographic/multi 3d effect is experienced, would be to think of the pane of glass on the front as almost a compact portal to another dimension... With this type of display +ve and -ve display parallax of stereoscopic and 3d features should be possible. I.e. while gazing at the surface of the display it is possible to simultaneously see (perceive) 3d complex features (of an object or scene) both above the plane of the display and below. Also it's important to stress that the plane of the screen in a lot of instances is not noticeable... So not so much of a hotel lobby effect or objects in a "Fish Tank" effect when in 3d 4view+ holographic viewing mode, but much better than that.

Depending on content creation and software control and other goodies (as mentioned before), you can have scenes and objects that appear above the plane of the screen, below the screen or both simultaneously. You can even have things that recede to an infinitely far background (if need be). [Without getting too involved here, there are a few situations where you don't want parallaxes and perceived depths above and below the screen to compete with each other too much in extreme cases, but other wise there's a LOT creatively and technically that can be done]. Personally I'm super happy that the acquisition of high quality two view to 4 view + stereo imagery and the like is being recognized as a superior alternative to dimensionalization techniques from 2d imagery.. Phew! .. It's taken long enough for other's to realize that... And it seems that RED want to provide tools that enable people to attain world class imagery and better, in this particular domain... Something I applaud; Big time!

[How things appear]:

So simple mental wordy analogy, imagine looking straight down on top of a beer or soda can (as displayed on your HYDROGEN ) . So you see and perceive the raised rim and edge of the top of the can as well as the relief differences of the ring-pull/tab etc. Imagine the top of the can stands out of the screen (as perceived) looking flat on to the display. Now imagine tipping the device 15 degrees down on its left edge... Then you get to see a different stereo pair (but maybe composed of one shot from the previous before tilted view). That second stereo view shows the beer-can as imaged and displayed revealing the can's right hand flanking cylindrical surface (in perspective consistent with a 15 degree tilt), a surface that was previously occluded when the device/HYDROGEN was in an un-tilted state. Similarly if you tilt the device to the right about 15 degrees you then see the left hand flanking side of the beer can receding into or towards the screen, and the top of the can appears as an mild ellipse, but the fine 3d features of the top of the can would still be perceivable. This is what gives you the "look around the object" effect and feel (and in fact you ARE looking around the object... (Within gross limits) BUT crucially its autostereoscopic so it appears as if its really there, not just a trick of "Fudging" perspectives two dimensionally as in some 2d displays that try to "fake" a 3d-ish-like 2 1/2D perception through computed perspective shifting. [Technical term: computed 2d motion parallax; for 2d "fudging" effect, NOT what HYDROGEN is doing ;-) ].

Clear as mud.

However, if you tilt the screen to a more oblique angle like 60 degrees then the zones for stereoscopic and 3d/holographic perception may "Drop out"... or just not be available to your eyes at very steep angles? [Perhaps?]. That's OK as 99.9999% of applications require one to look at the screen YKWIM? (rather than having 3d imagery when NOT looking at the screen lol).

Also, however Stereo/3d / 4 view stereographics etc. are actually very tolerant of a high degree of tilt (in theory) as the 3d/stereoscopic image effectively "Shears" (almost imperceptibly and without apparent distortion) to meet you eyes... And you see it in perceivable 3d... Follows you around the room (if you like).

On the other hand if you tilt such a device 45 degrees-ish (tilt down on left side) you are not going to see holographic objects that make it past the left hand edge that are designed to stand out of the screen... I.e. the 4 view holographic/stereoscopic image of the beer can standing 100% out of the screen may not make it completely past the left edge (of the screen) as viewed. So that's if you like the edge or "Frame" of the " Portal " (using VR-"speak"). Depending on how it shears and depending on the collimated viewing volume/space... So that's why it is so tricky to explain as there are a combination of several complex effects all acting simultaneously on each other. However I have no doubt that HYDROGEN is very natural and effortless to use and view.




Long story short you will be able to see and perceive a hell of lot but if you turn the device side on to it's slimmest profile you won't see a laser holographic image that stands in three dimensional space off the screen. I think Phil H and others have made that point., but is ten thousand times better than fudged 2d (real time) perspective shifting illusion. HYDROGEN creates and displays objects and scenes that are three dimensionally fully perceivable in every sense to the full capability of the human visual system to perceive three dimensional "Entities".


So it's better than a "fish tank" analogy as objects can appear above and below the surface of the screen simultaneously and in a lot of instances the plane of the screen will not be perceived... So that's why I say it's like peering into a "Portal" from a different dimension so things can "come out" of this portal as well as recede into the distance. AND you can tilt the display or look from more oblique angles to have different imagery presented to your eyes that correspond with that viewing position... (to give you the "look-around" experience). So it gives another 3d perceivable viewpoint of an object or scene revealing previously occluded/hidden features that are consistent with that particular 3d viewing position and angle. Much like VR or real life.

Very well explained Eric.

As you seem to have Deep Mind Knowledge of how this is going to work, when you ken how this is going to be exhibited outside of the confines of the Hydrogen unit, please do a similar post on that topic.

Also, would like to know how many cameras are required to achieve the effect you describe. Shirley one camera would not be able to acquire all the data to produce the effect as stated (Sorry, I meant Eric '-) so I'm expecting a minimum of two but alternatively for better results... 4 or 5? And if that be true, one Hydrogen to rule them all?

OBTW, you would make a great moderator for a HYDROGEN section of REDuser, unless that would put too much of a burden of political correctness on you.

 

[Eric Lange]

That makes sense Eric. The 3-D (4-view) illusion still has to fit within the rectangular surface of the screen, but when angling the device, the screen surface may be less prominent to the eye than the image displayed upon it, creating the illusion of content appearing above the screen (while still remaining within the limits of the actual rectangular screen).

I imagine the content creators would be able to adjust the extent of that depth effect though, so they could in fact make it more of a window/fish-bowl/beneath-the-surface type effect if they want to.

My take away from the Marques Brownlee preview of the prototype holographic display, is that it seems they still need to up the processing power or optimize something to get the holographic effect working perfectly smooth and stutter-free when viewing real-time content, like in games for example. The comment from Marques Brownlee about the holographic mode on the prototype display having light-bleed around the edges of the screen also stood out to me. It would have been good if he'd gotten some assurance from RED that those issues would be overcome before the device gets out of prototyping.

Les (writes): "I imagine the content creators would be able to adjust the extent of that depth effect though, so they could in fact make it more of a window/fish-bowl/beneath-the-surface type effect if they want to."

Indeed YES... There are a plethora of techniques to handle that "We" have a good solutions for that too.

Les (writes) : "My take away from the Marques Brownlee preview of the prototype holographic display, is that it seems they still need to up the processing power or optimize something to get the holographic effect working perfectly smooth and stutter-free when viewing real-time content, like in games for example. "



My impression (from the Marques Brownlee youtube vid) was that the 3d/holographic effect works fine... Or as it should but the software/demo application has a few minor-ish wrinkles to be ironed out (i.e. not a long lasting problem but might be more software /App based) rather than the source of "stuttering" being caused by lack of on board "Rendering ability" dropping the frame rate on the hardware side. There's a number of ways to cure/iron that all out... And the look around capability should not be hindered by 3d rendering capability for pre-canned sequences. But I do agree if we are doing real time 3d rendering and stereo viewing and you want three separate stereo views then theoretically rendering three stereo pairs (six images) would be more time consuming than rendering just one stereo pair... But with eye tracking software/methods and the like, even that particular problem can be eliminated. I'm not too worried .

Les: " The comment from Marques Brownlee about the holographic mode on the prototype display having light-bleed around the edges of the screen also stood out to me. "

I guess I'm twisted, I was kinda jazzed about the so called "Light bleed" as it means that the screen light output is really freaking high ! Lol so I was like "Awesome! "... So MUCH light !!!

The Holographic effect / is purported to be very clean / very minimal/zero cross talk.

Les: "It would have been good if he'd gotten some assurance from RED that those issues would be overcome before the device gets out of prototyping".

I think RED and team RED Jim and Jarred and many others are probably quite a bit further along with things. It seems from more recent statements... BUT I also think they develop different capabilities in parallel and then make everything join up and come together in the last few furlongs... I tend to use the same approach and that can be more efficient and creates less waste in terms of time resources and project development but can also make it more of a white knuckle ride (frankly takes courage and confidence to adopt that approach but they certainly have the experience to pull that off (in terms of project management), and that white knuckle ride provides good " Fuel" for a hell of a development "Buzz" (not for the faint of heart or not so committed individual, all of team RED are super committed to what they do (it's not just a pay check and punch in and punch out (like some outfits YKWIM?))) . I think things will be OK and to a high standard.

I'm not too worried about the amount of processing/rendering power on board, again we have techniques to deal with that quite well, AND the device could theoretically be used as a "Dumb" terminal/display for another processing and rendering engine sandwiched onto it. Seems Jim has planned to enable all kinds of capabilities to be bolted on or literally sandwiched/stacked onto the HYDROGEN.

Also the display of 3 or 4 view stereo* (without glasses) should not require any special 3d rendering capability on the phone. I.e. 4 view captured content should not require extra 3d rendering capability to peer around the sides of the pre-captured data set or scene.


Basic (on board) texture rendering capability might be handy to know at some point, or "Equivalent" texture capability. Remember some game engines and devices also have specialized chips that compute just the physics "Engine" of things for high frame rate complex interaction and in some cases these can be implemented in SW alone... So there are a hundred reasons why a prototype holo-display would perform differently from the final product in a simulated game type scenario.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


*[One thing I'm not clear on is if they /RED /Team Jannard implemented auto-stereo holographic viewing when the device is turned into a portrait (vertical orientation)... I would suspect not but again I could be 100% dead wrong about that ].

 

[Peter Majtan]

You can generate .h4v (holographic 4-View) by shooting 4 cameras (we are building solutions from consumer to professional), or by converting 3D to .h4v (very easy), or converting 2D to 3D (very hard) and then to .h4v.

Jim

Jim, I do not mean to steer a s***storm here, but wouldn't "converting 3D to .h4v (very easy), or converting 2D to 3D (very hard) and then to .h4v" be the same as up-scalling HD/2K to 4K - i.e. "fake"? Those of us who have seen 3D content generated from 2D know how fake it looks. Knowing how obsessed you are about image quality - I am surprised that you would even suggest this. Maybe I am missing something here...

:sifone: Peter

 

[Les Hillis]

I agree Eric, there would be ways to make sure the holographic content runs smoothly, even if the current prototype isn't quite there. I was just wondering whether the light-bleed might be the result of some insurmountable aspect of the holographic technology though. Will just wait and see I guess, don't want to make a big deal out of it.

Peter, they've mentioned elsewhere the best holographic results are obtained via content captured specifically for the holographic format, and that they're working on a range of equipment people can use to do that.

I think Jim's calling the 2D to 3D to .h4v process 'very hard' is in accord with your own impression of how fake the end result can look. It doesn't sound like something he'd be encouraging, but at the same time, how would you prevent people doing it? Do you think maybe RED should stipulate that .h4v content distributed on their site has to meet a certain standard, one which probably won't be achievable via 2D conversion?

 

[Eric Lange]

Millenials + HYDROGEN

Millenials + HYDROGEN

My "Concern" (such that is is) from watching Marques Brownlee's video is how "Millennials" will respond to HYDROGEN? (Assuming it functions exactly as it should) + even better and unforeseen functionality + concerted effort for content creation and 3rd party development?

At least MB did make the point that the display can be switched from 3d to 2d easily... Which he stressed was significant.

It's a chicken and egg kind of thing... If the market is perceived to be there, then content creators and software and hardware developers will put a lot of time and resources behind it to make it a success...

On the other hand if content creators and developers are not clear on the market or are not able to create a new demand and market on the HYDROGEN platform then that can result in "Millennials" and other market segments and users not connecting with HYDROGEN (platform) in the way they might have?

My hunch is that it won't take long to shake that all out especially by those committed to making things a success. What makes these kind of things fun is that it's not always possible to predict a total runaway success/smash hit with a long and sustained arc. Something that branches out to be very significant and forever changes the way we do things? [Paraphrasing what Jim Jannard said very early on about "Changing the way we do things... " Implying everyone/everybody?

? (again ) ? (shrugging shoulders)...

 

[Eric Lange]

I agree Eric, there would be ways to make sure the holographic content runs smoothly, even if the current prototype isn't quite there. I was just wondering whether the light-bleed might be the result of some insurmountable aspect of the holographic technology though. Will just wait and see I guess, don't want to make a big deal out of it.

Peter, they've mentioned elsewhere the best holographic results are obtained via content captured specifically for the holographic format, and that they're working on a range of equipment people can use to do that.

I think Jim's calling the 2D to 3D to .h4v process 'very hard' is in accord with your own impression of how fake the end result can look. It doesn't sound like something he'd be encouraging, but at the same time, how would you prevent people doing it? Do you think maybe RED should stipulate that .h4v content distributed on their site has to meet a certain standard, one which probably won't be achievable via 2D conversion?

Light bleeds ... No problem, just ship a free roll of gaffer's tape ("Gaffa"/tape ) to any millennial under the age of 26. You know the expensive stuff not the duckt tape (Duck-tape) black knock off... "For the real movie making experience you can plaster your equipment with Gaffer's tape to make it work properly just like the real movie makers... ".



I don't know a certain amount of grunge appeals to me just to give some of those 'Apple heads" the finger... [My wife is already talking about getting me the I-phone 8... you just can't win, lol ;-)].

 

[Les Hillis]

My "Concern" (such that is is) from watching Marques Brownlee's video is how "Millennials" will respond to HYDROGEN? (Assuming it functions exactly as it should) + even better and unforeseen functionality + concerted effort for content creation and 3rd party development?

At least MB did make the point that the display can be switched from 3d to 2d easily... Which he stressed was significant.

It's a chicken and egg kind of thing... If the market is perceived to be there, then content creators and software and hardware developers will put a lot of time and resources behind it to make it a success...

On the other hand if content creators and developers are not clear on the market or are not able to create a new demand and market on the HYDROGEN platform then that can result in "Millennials" and other market segments and users not connecting with HYDROGEN (platform) in the way they might have?

My hunch is that it won't take long to shake that all out especially by those committed to making things a success. What makes these kind of things fun is that it's not always possible to predict a total runaway success/smash hit with a long and sustained arc. Something that branches out to be very significant and forever changes the way we do things? [Paraphrasing what Jim Jannard said very early on about "Changing the way we do things... " Implying everyone/everybody?

? (again ) ? (shrugging shoulders)...

RED can't please everyone (neither can anyone else), the question is whether there's enough of a market for what they're offering to at least stay in the game and provide an alternative to what everyone else is (currently) doing. I think there is such a market, and it could be a user-base that increases as the Hydrogen One proves itself useful and/or desirable as a tool and/or entertainment device.

But, I think even if the Hydrogen One takes off, it will just breed imitators and RED will still remain as a quality alternative to the mass-marketed products. I don't see RED abandoning or watering down Hydrogen functionality or quality and churning out compromised products in order to dominate the mass market that's (imo) currently stagnating under style-over-substance, the safety of the familiar, and wasteful incremental advances in technology.

Here's a layman's simplified assessment of why some people will and won't be interested in the Hydrogen One.

Why some people won't buy it -

Cost (they just don't have the money), physicality of the object (it's too big and/or heavy), appearance (the outer design/style/aesthetic is off-putting or otherwise unsuitable for the end-user), functionality (it doesn't have the individual or groups preferred operating system or compatibility with their preferred software, or it has too many other features included that are of no use to them), sense of value (its cost, physicality, appearance and functionality don't line up as an overall value proposition, even though it may still have or do some things the individual or group wants).

Why some people will buy it -

Physicality of the object (it's big enough to have a large screen and speakers and is rugged enough to enable rougher handling than more delicate phones), appearance (the comparatively rugged/utilitarian/industrial design/style is aesthetically pleasing or of no consequence to the end user), functionality (it has enough capabilities or features to make it useful or desirable to the individual or group), sense of value (its cost, physicality, appearance and functionality line up as an overall value proposition, even though it may not have or do every thing the individual or group wants/needs).

Based on what has been revealed so far, the Hydrogen One is too expensive, too big, too 'ugly', and not running the right OS for some people to buy into it. Some of those potential end-users could still end up getting one if those perceived negatives are countered by as yet undetermined features/functions/capabilities that those potential end-users deem valuable.

So, until the complete functionality is revealed, it's still too early to tell for sure where the Hydrogen One will end up in the smart-phone market.

Seeing the Hydrogen One as the base unit of a modular system of add-ons only complicates the matter, with its future dependent upon as yet even less clearly defined functionality.

 

[Eric Lange]

RED can't please everyone (neither can anyone else), the question is whether there's enough of a market for what they're offering to at least stay in the game and provide an alternative to what everyone else is (currently) doing. I think there is such a market, and it could be a user-base that increases as the Hydrogen One proves itself useful and/or desirable as a tool and/or entertainment device.

But, I think even if the Hydrogen One takes off, it will just breed imitators and RED will still remain as a quality alternative to the mass-marketed products. I don't see RED abandoning or watering down Hydrogen functionality or quality and churning out compromised products in order to dominate the mass market that's (imo) currently stagnating under style-over-substance, the safety of the familiar, and wasteful incremental advances in technology.

Here's a layman's simplified assessment of why some people will and won't be interested in the Hydrogen One.

Why some people won't buy it -

Cost (they just don't have the money), physicality of the object (it's too big and/or heavy), appearance (the outer design/style/aesthetic is off-putting or otherwise unsuitable for the end-user), functionality (it doesn't have the individual or groups preferred operating system or compatibility with their preferred software, or it has too many other features included that are of no use to them), sense of value (its cost, physicality, appearance and functionality don't line up as an overall value proposition, even though it may still have or do some things the individual or group wants).

Why some people will buy it -

Physicality of the object (it's big enough to have a large screen and speakers and is rugged enough to enable rougher handling than more delicate phones), appearance (the comparatively rugged/utilitarian/industrial design/style is aesthetically pleasing or of no consequence to the end user), functionality (it has enough capabilities or features to make it useful or desirable to the individual or group), sense of value (its cost, physicality, appearance and functionality line up as an overall value proposition, even though it may not have or do every thing the individual or group wants/needs).

Based on what has been revealed so far, the Hydrogen One is too expensive, too big, too 'ugly', and not running the right OS for some people to buy into it. Some of those potential end-users could still end up getting one if those perceived negatives are countered by as yet undetermined features/functions/capabilities that those potential end-users deem valuable.

So, until the complete functionality is revealed, it's still too early to tell for sure where the Hydrogen One will end up in the smart-phone market.

Seeing the Hydrogen One as the base unit of a modular system of add-ons only complicates the matter, with its future dependent upon as yet even less clearly defined functionality.

@Les I agree with a lot of what you wrote here...

In the old days we (commonly) had the "Phenomenon" of what would described as a "Killer Application" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application

Usually interpreted as a piece of software that is so very desirable that folks will buy the (usually expensive) hardware just to run the software or application , or killer application/killerApp.

The capabilities of the HYDROGEN as a device or set of devices is one thing, but the Applications and software that you run on it may be another thing entirely....

So I'm wondering if there is a "Killer Application/Killer App" that Jim Jannard hasn't mentioned yet.... Given that he uses terms like "Remorse"; kinda like turning "Buyer's remorse" on its head and saying you will have "Remorse" from "Not buying"...

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


I think I am being a bit slow or dense here... App culture has turned some of the software industry on its head...

So If you develop an App based upon existing technological capabilities (that one may have spent millions on), and then do a minor yet extremely focused "Pivot" to migrate certain capabilities to a portable device (like HYDROGEN)... If you spend $250k to $500K to implement said migration and only ten thousand users adopt your App @$10 (unit price/download) then you basically loose between $150K to $400K on such a venture? On the other hand charging $100 for an App (might be unprecedented) but not super likely that ten thousand Hydrogen users (assuming near killer app status) might do that, so optimistically that would be $1000,000.00 ($1M)- profit of $500K BUT you have the overhead/infra-structure of supporting ten thousand users?

It's going to be interesting to find the appropriate balance points as complex and sophisticated software is expensive to support. Most very successful Apps are very very simple (like Snap-chat) and yet have a user base of many millions of people... Having very simple and crude apps may or may not be HYDROGEN's "Wheel house" but on the other hand more sophisticated Apps and associated software are necessarily going to have to cost more (and may not be that popular). Apple's model is to spend many billions on Software development so they can sell their hardware.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/267346/average-apple-app-store-price-app/

^^^ Average price of an Apple App download is $1, Game App download (rougly) 50c averaged volume of sales equates to 89 cents /App purchase/download.

 

[Les Hillis]

Killer apps, and/or in this case killer modules.

Killer apps (not just ones that become very popular) are by definition tied to the hardware they run on, either via exclusive licensing or directly as a result of being dependent upon what the hardware can do.

Holographic content, and the H3O surround audio are (I think) the only Hydrogen One-exclusive features that have been mentioned so far, not counting modular hardware add-ons. So I'd assume any Hydrogen One-specific killer app would have to be related to those hardware-enabled features.

Of those, the H3O stereo > surround audio conversion would be free (?), the hardware modules would be expensive, and the holographic content would range from free (shot and shared by end-users) to expensive (niche apps and games and high-quality hard-to-shoot content).

If the whole system and viability of the hardware is in fact dependent upon the killer app model, or sophisticated and expensive to develop and support software, then I guess it could conceivably die on the vine if that content doesn't eventuate. But is that the actual case, or is there something else going on here?

I'm of the opinion that what RED are putting together here is a multi-faceted platform that could take off in several directions, allowing it to continue on even if some of it's potentials aren't fulfilled, for whatever reason.

 

[L. Langer]

Most Millenials won't buy it. It's too expensive and isn't appealing to them. iPhones are their phone for a few specific reasons that we need not go into and HYDROGEN just doesn't line up with their needs, so I don't think we should really be asking ourselves that question. What we should be asking is what can we add to the device to make it more useful/appealing to us. More to the point, why are we getting a phone instead of a tablet and will there be a tablet down the line? A 10-inch HYDROGEN tablet with the usual RED brick-like construction and use of the modules would be very good in my opinion.

 

[Elsie N]

Most Millenials won't buy it. It's too expensive and isn't appealing to them. iPhones are their phone for a few specific reasons that we need not go into and HYDROGEN just doesn't line up with their needs, so I don't think we should really be asking ourselves that question. What we should be asking is what can we add to the device to make it more useful/appealing to us. More to the point, why are we getting a phone instead of a tablet and will there be a tablet down the line? A 10-inch HYDROGEN tablet with the usual RED brick-like construction and use of the modules would be very good in my opinion.

I think (hoping) this will be addressed by the patent filing for the multi-lens light field-like camera. It is possible this could become a snap on module that lets the Hydrogen 1 base unit power the module or it could be a stand-a-lone. Nothing that I can see that would preclude a large module... except maybe interfering with using the base as a phone when the module is attached.

This way, one unit plus multi-lens module could capture .h4v "goodage."

EDIT: In re: the multi-lens module or stand-alone, would that require multiple sensors? If so, a series or parallel array of mini-Helium sensors would be in order unless there is a way to pipe the lens data to a central sensor.

The possibilities are :emote_head_explode:

 

[Eric Lange]

Most Millenials won't buy it. It's too expensive and isn't appealing to them. iPhones are their phone for a few specific reasons that we need not go into and HYDROGEN just doesn't line up with their needs, so I don't think we should really be asking ourselves that question. What we should be asking is what can we add to the device to make it more useful/appealing to us. More to the point, why are we getting a phone instead of a tablet and will there be a tablet down the line? A 10-inch HYDROGEN tablet with the usual RED brick-like construction and use of the modules would be very good in my opinion.

Yeah... if you are a 3rd party developer with tech and IP in this area that can indeed bring enhanced value to such a platform one would need to gauge how much $ one would loose on such a proposition? (The viability of whole eco-sytem is really important for such a product to succeed IMO).

@L. Langer I do understand what you are saying as to serving our more specialized sub-market with various types of tools SW/HW.


So Jim Jannard gave the venerable MKBHD the prototypes / mockups to show the world for the first time in the flesh on YouTube. (MB is a young "Chap" and his audience is also correspondingly young).

So I would say that Jim is after a pretty damn large market... And something to target the young with also... A bunch of 40 year olds in the Phone-camera and phone/game/ media market may not be such a financial or business incentive? Remember we need a ten year arc (or thereabouts) and the 40 somethings then become 50 somethings... ?

Personally , for HYDROGEN to be a real success I think it would be fairly critical to target and do right by the "Young" and engage the "Young" as much as possible... As they are the one's with the disposable income that have time to explore and create, develop skills for photography and new media techniques such as Holo-capture and display as well as games and other new forms of visual communication.

The one term that really sticks out is Jim Jannard's concept of "Cinematic phone camera" ? What is that? Exactly, or what is meant by that more precisely ? (I'm paraphrasing here, but will find exact quote from MKBHD).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


After watching MKBHD youtube video for about the sixth time I feel a lot more "Chill" about what he said and I feel more that actually his comments and observations and various statements were really quite positive.

[I think also joining two dots here between what Jim said about dimensionalizing 2d content for 4 view stereo and what MKBHD said about what he was looking at seems to match up, so I'm guessing MKBHD was not looking at data sets from native 4 view stereo/holo type capture system].

 

[Eric Lange]

Pocket Cinema Camera ? ... ?

Pocket Cinema Camera ? ... ?

OK at about 4:14/5:54

Mr Brownlee states the following...

"... And then as a pocket cinema camera, HYDROGEN is actually even more interesting... Jim made it clear he feels this can and will be the future of small form factor cinema... You can see that as being true... "... [And then he talks about Red HELIUM sensor as being better than other mirrorless type formats etc. etc.].

So I'm thinking that a lot of this has to do with what folks have been talking about a "RED-Channel" (if I have that right)..?


So what in this context what is a "Pocket Cinema Camera"..?

Using vague logic here obviously you don't have $100M production that has "Pocket cinema cameras" mounted on standard tripods on the 007 stage at Pinewood?

So the idea has to be that one is saying to the young ... "Hey, you can shoot with this device in your pocket that uses the same types of sensor* that was used to shoot "Guardians, Transformers, AVATAR... Hobbit, BC Saul , etc. etc. ".

So that presents things much more as a gateway to creation** and a very sophisticated level of creation where $ is not so much of a barrier.

That has to be pitched to the young that wish to embrace and explore all these things and make their mark in their way.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


*There are so many excellent movies and documentaries that were shot on 16mm that I SOOOO wished were shot on 35 mm (and equivalent) just so your eyes could take in more of what was really there...

** I really think there is the possibility to out-Apple Apple on the "Providing tools for creation" front. Rather than comparisons, just a total run-around.

 

[Les Hillis]

Eric, Marques said he saw some 2D-converted content and some content shot natively for holographic display, as well as some gaming content. He only mentioned the gaming content as having some stuttering.

About the viability of the ecosystem, how many Hydrogen One app-downloading end-users do you think it would take to make independent third-party software development for the platform worthwhile/profitable/viable?

Edit - In reference to your other post, until proven otherwise, I'm assuming the Hydrogen One with modules will end up on high budget shoots, at least to the same extent that the BlackMagic camera's have.