Talk:Augmented reality

Huh?

"For many of those interested in AR, one of its most important characteristics is the way in which it makes possible a transformation of the focus of interaction...."

Does this paragraph actually say anything? 74.194.27.5 12:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nop. Maybe it could be written as ...its most important characteristic is real time space orientation and (3D)rendering. Also another thing. Shouldn't references to AR libaries like ARtoolkit be included in the article? Whre is all the stuff about the papers published in the field? 3D AR reconstruction papers e.t.c... Soathana 20:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article reeks of drama and prose and lacking a lot of real information.

Definition of augmented reality

The TV overlay isn't a very good example for Augmented Reality since by some definitions it isn't AR at all. Ronald T. Azuma defined AR as systems which

Combine the virtual and the real
are interactive in real time
registered in 3D

This definition is now widely used in the research literature. The example only fulfills the first requirement, but not the other two. -- Daniel 12:20 22 August 2003 (UTC +2)

I've made improvements to earlier wording of the definition; key point that was not explicitly drawn forward is how the augmentation relates to the environment or elements of it. ---hthth (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann H. Benes (Marketing Team, Trivisio Prototyping GmbH: "Augmented Reality has to be defined according to a context, and not as an abstract notion as if it was a fact of nature and life. Augmented Reality is tool which allows one or many viewers to enhance their field of view with virtual elements usually generated by a computer. Talking about interactivity and stereoscopic imaging in order to define the basic elements of what is augmented reality is making the mistake that the requirements of some applications are the rules for identifying what is augmented reality and what is not. It is actually talking about complex goals of some applications to define something which is simple and requires none of that to be it. The rules for making Augmented Reality (AR) a widely adopted technology in the Business, Academic, and Public segments are:

Full interactivity in Real Time
Precise and ultra-rapid tracking
Stereoscopic imaging
Ultra Portable and Wireless
Full immersion experience

The term "Amplified Reality" may help those who have difficulty understanding the differences in what items are enhancing environments and those that are Augmented Reality. Amplified Reality refers to items such as color, shape, basic displays, etc., of everyday items. The painting of an arrow on a wall to assist a traveler, the display of time on a clock, a television broadcast, etc. Yes, these items enhance, or even augment our lives, but there has to be a way to distinguish the technology and Azuma's definition above is it for now.

History of augmented reality

I disagree with the invention of Augmented Reality: There are at least two groups who have published their work about augmented reality before: This group does medical AR, but they call it like that. Michael Bajura, Henry Fuchs, and Ryutarou Ohbuchi. Merging virtual objects with the real world: seeing ultrasound imagery within the patient. In Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pages 203-210. ACM Press, 1992.

Look at the title and the publication date: T.P. Caudell and D.V. Mizell. Augmented reality: An application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing technologyaugmented reality. In Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1992.

(Reply:) Well, the article states that the CACM issue *coined* the term, not that it was the first time the term was used. The above mentioned conference papers had very confidential distributions (a few hundreds copies at most, in pre-internet area), compared to the echo the CACM issue had: 120000 copies where printed, plus a distribution to all SIGGRAPH attendees (30000+) that year, plus an award for the best scientific magazine issue of the year, awarded by the american publication board that year too. That magazine issue was perhaps the most influential scientific magazine issue of the decade and started tens of research projects accross the world.... Granted, that was just when the www started to catch too, and it did shadow the domain quite quickly.

I think the CACM issue really started it all, just as Mark Weiser's paper "The computer of the XXIst century" in Sci. Am. 1991 started the field of ubiquitous computing, even though Xerox PARC had been working on the topic for about 10 years already.

In summary: I think the article is right on this portion of the history of augmented reality. Yet, it is quite clear there are two competing interpretations of the same concept in this article, which is quite unsettling.

(Reply:) Your use of "coined" is incorrect. Look it up here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coined. Based on the definition of the word, and the fact that Boeing researchers used the term "augmented reality" previously (see quote below), the history section should be revised.

"In 1990, a group of Boeing researchers proposed that a see-through virtual reality head-mounted display that was registered with the real world could be used as an aid in the manufacturing of airplanes by overlaying simple graphics on top of the real world. The term "Augmented Reality" was coined, and Boeing found that an ideal candidate for this technology was the Commercial Airplane Group's wireshop where wire harnesses are pre-fabricated before installing on airplanes." http://www.blu.org/cone/Notices/97-98/April/VR_Apr16.txt

History of AR is still incomplete

Although there is some debate about the origin of the terminology "augmented reality" (some people I know credit the term to T. P. Caudell and D. W. Mizell in their paper "Augmented reality: An application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes". Proc. IEEE Hawaii International Conf. on Systems Sciences, 1992) it is clear that the concept was not new by the mid 90s. It probably originates from Heads up Displays. One could argue that it was a sufficiently well-known concept that it cropped up in a number of films in the mid 80s (The Terminator; RoboCop).

I would argue that the seminal work in AR is by Ivan Sutherland who, in 1968, had built a working prototype system that consisted of:

An optical see-through head mounted display (to combine real with virtual)
Custom graphics hardware (to render graphics at 30fps)
A tracking system (mechanical; register graphics with the real world)

Although this system is credited as being the seminal virtual reality system, it is the seminal augmented reality system as well. To quote from the paper: "Half-silvered mirrors in the prisms through which the user looks allow him to see both the images from the cathode ray tubes and objects in the room simultaneously. Thus displayed material can be made either to hang disembodied in space or to coincide with maps, desk tops, walls, or the keys of a typewriter."

See Sutherland, I. "A Head-Mounted Three Dimensional Display." Proc. Fall Joint Computer Conference 1968, Thompson Books, Washington, DC, 1968, 757-764.

Although I'm not personally aware of any modern day applications that build directly on Sutherland's original work, I really believe that it should be discussed in this article.

(Reply) What about the Target Acquisition Designation Sight, Pilot Night Vision System mounted on the Apache helicopter? Does this count as a real life working AR system?

Many of the military flight applications are considered AR.

I will second the last contributor's attribution. I personally believe Sutherland's system was the first augmented reality, at least as commonly cited by academics. It fits the most restrictive definitions (3D graphics registered with the physical world viewed through a head-up display). Also, Sutherland's concepts were used as part of the Bell Helicopter Company's projects of that period and thus had further influence, as can be seen in the previous contributor's link:

http://www.sun.com/960710/feature3/alice.html

However, Myron Krueger's early works should also be considered augmented reality. See

Krueger M. "Artificial Reality II," Addison-Wesley 1991.

Krueger used laser projectors, computer vision, large screens, and many other techniques to create museum-style instalations in the 70s and 80s. His work directly influenced later augmented reality systems. For example,

C. Wren, F. Sparacino, A. Azarbayejani, T. Darrell, T. Starner, A. Kotani, C. Chao, M. Hlavac, K. Russell, A. Pentland. "Perceptive Spaces for Performance and Entertainment: Untethered Interaction Using Computer Vision and Audition," Applied Artificial Intelligence Journal, 1995.

The actual term "augmented reality" is hard to attribute to one person. Given their early publication and the discussion prior to their work in the 1992 paper, Tom Caudell and David Mizell were probably actively using the term in 1990 or 1991. Separately, Thad Starner used the term in a graduate fellowship application sent to the Department of Defense in 1990 to describe the work he wanted to do at the MIT Media Laboratory (which led to the MIT Wearable Computing Project). However, Feiner's and MacIntyre's papers and talks in the early 1990s were some of the most influential in getting other researchers to use the term (and probably led to many believing AR referred to head-up displays with 3D registered graphics - as opposed to less strict view that says even unregistered graphics still augment reality sufficiently to be called AR). The following three papers illustrate their work

Feiner, S., MacIntyre, B., and Seligmann, D. "Annotating the real world with knowledge-based graphics on see-through head-mounted display", Proc. of Graphics Interface 1992 pp. 78-85.

Feiner., S, MacIntyre, B., Haupt, M., and Solomon. E. "Windows on the world: 2D windows for 3D augmented reality", ACM Symp. on User Interface Software and Technology 1993, pp. 145-155.

Feiner, S., MacIntyre, B., and Seligmann D. "Knowledge-based augmented reality," Communications of the ACM 36 (7), 1993 pp. 52-62.

Note that this last paper is part of the issue of CACM that Wellner edited! However, saying that this CACM issue is what "coined" the term and attributing the term to Wellner, Mackay, and Gold is misleading. The actual articles in that journal issue were authored by many of the people working in the space at the time, including Azuma, Krueger, Feiner, MacIntyre, Wellner, Weiser, Fitzmaurice, Mackay, Gold, etc. The table of contents can be found at

http://portal.acm.org/toc.cfm?id=159544&type=issue&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=45127166&CFTOKEN=83786504

The entire issue may be entitled "Special issue on computer augmented environments: back to the real world," and it is a tribute to the editors' forethought to put it together, but such special issues of large circulation magazines like CACM or IEEE Computer are intended to gather a community of researchers interested in a particular specialty and give them a common forum in which to present their ideas to the larger computer science community. In other words, the term "augmented reality" was mostly accepted and commonly used by these researchers before this special issue.

Also of note, the current conference in this field is called the International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). Often the terms "mixed reality" and "augmented reality" are interchanged, though some may argue for a distinction between the two. Most other terms have fallen by the wayside.

I believe Ivan Sutherland is the original pioneer in AR too. See a video of his system in action.

The Reality-Virtuality Continuum would be useful here in helping with RE, AR, AV, VE, and a MRE.

(Reply) See the new page (stub) on the Virtuality Continuum.

The history point "15,000 BC: Lascaux cave drawings showed “virtual” images in a darkened cave that started the idea of enhancing the real world." seems irrelevant and unnecessary. --68.53.89.20 (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This history is as pretentious as the first sentence that begins it. For that matter, cut out the mention of the Z1 and anything before that. --22samurai (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

talk on location awareness

According to me, there's a part missing on location awareness; location awareness is essential for many AR systems, the system has to know where it is in order to augment the environment in a meaningful way. - Flip van den Berg

Maybe. The projection keyboards currently being sold could be considered AR. They are interactive in real time, and they overlay CG imagery on something in the real world (desktop, for example - and I would argue that the augmentation of reality doesn't necessarily have to be tied to a single fixed object; in this case the keyboard adds meaning to a class of real world objects: reasonably flat surfaces).

Does it make sense to have some reference to or link to the article on "locative art" - Scott Leslie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessman (talk • contribs) 06:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mixed Reality the same as Augmented Reality?

Often Augmented Reality is correctly used interchangeably with Mixed Reality, as that is exactly what the Mixed Reality in question is producing. However a Mixed Reality may also be used to describe an Augmented virtuality environment, and is therefore definitely not always the same thing. See Virtuality Continuum. — Russell freeeman (talk • contribs).

I dunno. It seems to me that from reading the article there is a slight difference between the two, perhaps enough to warrant a separate article. --Stux 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the same thing. They should be merged.

Cyborg

I've nixed the "membership in project cyborg". The user interface technology of Augmented Reality has only remotely to do with the biological merging of humans and machines, and it's distracting and, frankly, just plain wrong to present this article as "part of the series on cyborgs". Make it "part of the series on human/machine interfaces", and I'm fine with it.
Jutta 16:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pompous statement

"To describe the history of Augmented Reality is also to describe man's journey of adding to the natural world he was born in."

I think this is a bit of an overblown pompous statement. Why not "To describe the history of Music..." or ""To describe the history of Cheese Making" ? I think this sentence needs to go. Why not just a more straightforward introdcution for the history of AR? --mgaved 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the whole section is problematic. Cave drawings are not related to AR in any meaningful sense, as are most of the other "milestones". The way this sounds it could have been a flavour text that was used to make some irrelevant research paper more interesting.

That said, the whole article urgently needs a rewrite. First of all there should be a coherent introduction into the general idea of AR - instead of an unordered presentation of abstract, lofty ideas that were plucked from individual publications.

At the moment the article is not very helpful for people who don't already know about AR. Averell (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Augmented Reality

I have been trying to add a sub-catagory about mobile AR and it has been continously deleted. I am wondering why? Please let me know your complaints so I can find to include my information, as I feel it is relevent to the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterQuain (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I am trying to add please let me know any objections. to event history

2008: Media Power Inc. funds a five million dollar Mobile Augmented Reality research grant with Georgia Tech.

(reply)This funding does not belong to the history of AR. (yet) TheDarkKnight42 (talk)

to external links

Media Power Inc. - Mobile Augmented Reality

(reply)Media Power Inc. is a commercial company, it does not have to be listed first in the external links list, if at all. This company does not have published any AR demo, articles or papers, nor has announced any AR related product. TheDarkKnight42 (talk)

and as it's own section

Mobile Augmented Reality (mobile AR) is a collaboration between AR and mobile computing technology that you find on any mobile phone that is capable of an online connection. To operate mobile AR simply point a mobile phone camera at an object that has a recognized AR logo or shape on it and the cameras generated image will replace the logo or shape with 3D graphics while the rest of the real-world image remains the same. Mobile AR has limitless potential for use as there are over four billion mobile phones currently in existence and over nine-hundred million new mobile phones sold each year. The greatest proponent of developing this technology for the masses has been Media Power Inc. Media Power has funded grants to both University of Canterbury and Georgia Institute of Technology in order to further advance the technology. Magitech is the division of Media Power Inc. that is dedicated to finding new and innovative applications for mobile AR in a real life setting. (PeterQuain (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

(reply)This section could be fine without the links to the author's companies. TheDarkKnight42 (talk)

I will re-post the section without the links. However, I believe that it should be considered at least as an external link. The only place to get more information about this technology is on there site, which also provides links to the work the University of Canterbury and Georgia Tech. are doing on the subject. Please let me know if you think this would be acceptable.(PeterQuain (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

(reply)

Why don't you simply add links to both universities? Anyway, if you plan to add relevant links, don't do it on top of others, add your links at the bottom... TheDarkKnight42 (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply)Why can the funding not be considered part of the history? Also that doesn't explain why you removed the catagory about mobile AR.(PeterQuain (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

((reply)) History is about advance in the "state of the art", funding could be a cause of advance, but it is not in itself. TheDarkKnight42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply) History is defined in the wiki entry as To describe the history of Augmented Reality is also to describe man's journey of adding to the natural world he was born in. So if a man plants a seed and grows a tree how is that different from a company issuing grants to develop augmented reality.(PeterQuain (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

(reply) Media Power is viable as a link. if you go to the Magitech section it describes mobile AR further as well as telling applications, and where museum exhibits on the subject can be found. (PeterQuain (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment The material has been removed once again, as it fails to demonstrate notability beyond the company's funding of research. in order to stop this edit war, the text must remain out of the article until we can locate third-party references to establish notability. (Simply put, there are many, many different experiments, research projects, and so on. They are not notable in and of themselves, just because they exist. There has to be some demonstrated significance through recognition from the wider community.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply) Ckatz, what kind of references do you need? I am happy to come up with them but you are very vague as to what will suffice. Would you like articles, letters from professors or students at the University of Canterbury or Georgia Tech, Please let me know and I will get you the info you need.(PeterQuain (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

(Reply) I have reposted the article. Hopefully it is more appropriate now. Please see this link as a reference. http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/ad-watch-media-powers-augmented-reality/?biz=1&page=1 (PeterQuain (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Again, doesn't establish notability, as has been explained repeatedly. The article is nothing more than an interview with the proponent of the technology. If we were to trim out the non-encyclopedic text:

"Mobile Augmented Reality (mobile AR) is a collaboration between AR and mobile computing technology that you find on any mobile phone that is capable of an online connection. To operate mobile AR simply point a mobile phone camera at an object that has a recognized AR logo or shape on it and the cameras generated image will replace the logo or shape with 3D graphics while the rest of the real-world image remains the same. ~~Mobile AR has limitless potential for use as there are over four billion mobile phones currently in existence and over nine-hundred million new mobile phones sold each year.~~ ~~The greatest~~ proponents for research of this technology have been University of Canterbury and Georgia Institute of Technology. ~~Both schools have been issued grants from Media Power Inc., whose division Magitech is dedicated to providing new and innovative applications for mobile AR in a real life setting.~~"

Rewriting this, we could use:

"Mobile Augmented Reality, or "mobile AR", is a combination of AR and mobile computing technology on mobile phones capable of online connections. When the mobile phone's camera is pointed at an object with a recognized AR logo or shape on it, the logo or shape is replaced with 3D graphics while the rest of the real-world image remains the same. Proponents of research in this technology include the University of Canterbury and Georgia Institute of Technology."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply) I have put your edited version of the mobile AR article up. Also I have added an external link to an recent article as a reference. (PeterQuain (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

(Reply) While reviewing other pages I remembered a question I had about why Media Power couldn't be included in my entry. Please see the entry for Movie camera. If you scroll down the page it mentions several providers of movie cameras. Then at the bottom of the Sound Synchronization section it says, and I quote "The most popular 35 mm cameras in use today are Arriflex, Moviecam (now owned by the Arri Group), and Panavision models." This statement seems like almost exactly like the one I was trying to make about Media Power. Media Power is the largest mobile AR provider just like Arri and Panavision are the largest 35mm camera providers. That being said could you please tell me why they are different or allow me to add a sentence to the affect of "Currently the largest provider of Mobile AR is Media Power Inc." (PeterQuain (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There's no real reason to add the line. The notable information is about the technology. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply) Then why in the entry for Film cameras are Arri and Panavision mentioned as some of the "most populuar" film cameras? How is that different then what I am saying?(PeterQuain (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Logo phrasing was too limited. Also mobile AR is a broad subject with a lot of participant, of which University of Canterbury and Georgia Institute of Technology are not especially notable. Serg3d2 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about making a separate subsection for existing Mobile AR applications ? Seems already a some number of them here. BTW as the mobile AR seems fastest growing area may be it warrants it's own article. Serg3d2 (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Chung Lee

Do Johnny Chung Lee's Wii Remote demonstrations deserve some mention in the 'current applications' section? Many schools are now using his low-cost multi-point interactive whiteboards, and Intel and Electronic Arts have taken notice of his also low-cost head tracking system for desktop VR displays. SashaNein (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Representative Image is terrible

The image for this entry is a (badly drawn) mock-up of a system whose design goes against several general usability standards (you have to touch the visor to dial a number?). Come on, guys. There are enough serious and legitimate AR applications and projects out there to include an indicative picture. You know, something with fiducials, actual image overlays... a REAL AR project? I'm removing the picture; If someone wants to complain and bring it back, maybe they would better spend their time by finding a better image. --22samurai (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section?

THe history section seems to consist largely of irrelevant references. Does it really belong here as-is? Already removed the '15,000 BC lascaux cave art' reference which was just ridiculous. SOme of the others are marginally better, but not by much. -- 68.37.19.95 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technology section

Should be technology section moved into separate article? Serg3d2 (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Cleaning?

I was thinking of cleaning up this topic a bit. Currently it is full of references and links to companies working in this field, most of them not needed, and go far beyond the necessary usage examples. Any thoughts before I'm going on with my plan? Rouli (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't need tinkering, it needs resuscitation.

I came here seeking information. This article is truly jammed with information, but I have to say this is one lousy encyclopedia article. The only example of AR that most people know anything about is the yellow first-down marker of TV football. This helpful example, along with several other examples of current and coming uses of this staggering technology, first appears about three screens down, hidden behind a baffling time line and a list of notable researchers. Everything is piled in higgledy-piggledy and a complicated subject becomes incoherent.

Someone, not me, who knows the topic really needs to take this whole thing in hand, transform the kitchen-drawer approach into some kind of coherent narrative that would give a seeker, me, a handle on technology with mindblowing potential. Start with an OUTLINE. and rearrange what's already here and you'd automatically have a better article. The first section after the first para should be "examples and possibilities of AR".

Gee, maybe I will do it myself, but it would be better if the contributors already here did it. Ortolan88 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

* 2009: Microsoft announced Project Natal.

the Micerosoft project is not Augmented Reality. This is only facial and body recognition but this not equal to the AR process system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.4.236.133 (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitude - no article?

Why there is no Wikitude article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.126.251 (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is (not) AR?

An important distinction of Augmented Reality that is becoming muddled is that the term means that a live environment is being improved/augmented with technological overlays. A good example would be looking at a live picture of a street scene in front of you and having points of interest overlaid on the scene. The term is trendy at the moment and various advertisers and promoters are keen to jump on the bandwagon by calling everything involving some technology and video "augmented reality" ... for example, simply splicing a scene of a fan's recording of himself into a pre-recorded video of a band or allowing various is not augmenting reality, it's simply splicing scenes together/editing a video on behalf of a user. Nor is taking a pre-recorded video of an automobile and, in editing, adding tags to that video which point out various parts and features of the automobile. That's editing a video/film and has been done for many years. Were you to walk around the car with a video screen in front of you and if that screen added, in realtime, information to the sight picture you would have without the technology, that would be an example of augmented reality. BobKawanaka (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There still seems to be confusion on this. AR is augmenting a view of the live, real world for a user. This does not mean holding up a brochure or a key code to a webcam or splicing videos. Clearly there is a misperception about what this is from various marketing and promotion firms ... a cynic would argue that it is an intentional misperception. These firms want to assure their clients that they are tailoring "cutting-edge" campaigns for them and that includes claiming that they're the first to do AR etc. There is simply nothing AR about holding card to webcam and having one of several canned views appear in response to the angle at which the card is held ... one might equally type R for rotate or U for up and have a selected premade scene be presented. As for splicing videos, I am not trashing these bands but having a canned video of a band member showing up in a scene of my choosing is again not AR ... even if the scene were live, there is no INTERACTION of them to me, it is simply an overlay of a feed to a spot I choose, I could choose to splice in any number of videos or even live feeds to my desktop, it is no more AR than me choosing where to place a windowed feed of a football game on my desktop. Were the band members to see my desktop and be able to query/interact with it, that would be AR. If I were able to put myself in a live version of the band's studio and navigate around it and find out things about it, that would be AR. Curiously, if the studio were digitally replicated rather than live, this same application would no longer be AR ... because it's not longer "reality" that we'd be interacting with but a static snapshot of prior "reality". That may sound like semantics and philosophy but those are the salient features of augmenting reality. Technology is overlaying information onto a live scene that a user is viewing. BobKawanaka (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply) Opinion, not fact, and totally contrary to the definitions made in the article itself: "Augmented reality (AR) is a term for a live direct or indirect view of a physical real-world environment whose elements are merged with (or augmented by) virtual computer-generated imagery - creating a mixed reality", "Azuma's definition says that Augmented Reality combines real and virtual, is interactive in real time, is registered in 3D". The cases that I keep putting up that you keep removing EXACTLY meet the criteria of these definitions. There is no mention of needing to be interactive - this is your opinion and not the widely accepted fact. Is the very first example of the yellow "first down" line interactive? No. It may be placed in the real-world by variable information (i.e. by the number of yards on the field, instead of placement of a marker by a user in live view of a webcam), but the AR object isn't interactive. This example and those music examples I contributed are both based on a live direct view of a physical real-world environment whose elements are merged with or augmented by virtual computer-generated imagery. In the same paragraph there's an example of giant advertiser logos being placed on cricket and rugby pitches. Their placement is relative to a set position on a field, and not even variable based on outside forces. Are they interactive? No. Your argument is based on personal opinion and contrary not only to the definitions within the article, but also to the public opinion on the whole internet! Gizmodo, Engadget, Mashable, cnet, Wired and a whole swag of self-described Augmented Reality blogs like Augmented Planet, ARTimes, ARNewsroom, Augmentatious etc ALL widely accept the examples you keep deleting as Augmented Reality. I have undone your change and when I have a spare couple of hours will update the article with several more such as those created by augmented reality pioneers Boffswana (creators of the Living Sasquatch campaign), or the Doritos campaign, the Eminem campaign, or the postal service AR project and a whole bunch more that adhere to the criteria and definition of what is Augmented Reality as determined by the varied and learned contributors to this article and the intelligent Augmented Reality community - not you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.104.2 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly entitled to be as militant as you like. I'd prefer to convince you rather than argue but I suspect you've made up your mind without having read any of the underlying literature. I would point out that it's not my opinion, it's the computer software definition of what augmented reality is. Clearly the advertising and promotion community is keen to hijack the term for their own purposes. Maybe they'll be successful, they're certainly calling all manner of things AR these days with little regard to the computer science field. I find it curious that you refer to the "pioneers" of AR as adverstising and PR campaign firms and all of your examples are from that type of promotion. Wired, though not usually a reliable source by the wiki definition, generally gets it right when calling something AR. Doritoes? What in the first part of Azuma definition is "real" in the doritoes example? I see the virtual, a taped blink 182 performance ... what's the real? AR is an overlay of virtual on real ... you think waving a ticket you just printed in front of your webcam constitutes a real interaction with a taped event ... I don't ... nor do most of the other software engineers I know. We'll just have to see where consensus takes us. If more advertisers edit this page than software engineers, it will read your way and that's surely a possible outcome. BobKawanaka (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply) To clarify, not that it matters - I am not an advertiser. I think we're both arguing our case because we've made up our minds. I'm happy to have mine changed, but on grounds greater than your personal opinion. Show me some form of consensus from the AR community or the software engineers you say share your opinion to back it up. I'm actually referring to the definitions within the article itself and the wider AR community to justify my case.

See the definitions from some of AR's founding software engineers. Ronald Azuma says that "in Augmented Reality, the user can see the real world around him, with computer graphics superimposed or composited with the real world. Instead of replacing the real world, we supplement it. Ideally, it would seem to the user that the real and virtual objects coexisted."

In the example of the Doritos AR project, the "real world" is the live feed from a user's webcam, allowing him to "see the world around him". The Blink 182 performance on a 3D computer generated stage is the "computer graphics". When a user puts a marker in view of their webcam which shows their "real world", the "computer graphics" are "superimposed or composited with the real world" on top of the marker.

Additionally, the developer of ARToolkit, Dr. Hirokazu Kato, says "Augmented Reality (AR) applications are applications that involve the overlay of virtual imagery on the real world. For example, in the image to the right (http://www.hitl.washington.edu/artoolkit/images/nakaohome.jpg) a three-dimensional virtual character appears standing on a real card. When the user moves the card, the virtual character moves with it and appears attached to the real object."

In the example of the Lost Valentinos project, the "virtual imagery" is the full video performance of each individual band member, and when a marker is put in view of the webcam there is the effect of "overlay of virtual imagery on the real world". Indeed, when the user of the Lost Valentinos AR project moves their marker, "the virtual character moves with it and appears attached to the real object." I'm not doctoring their worlds to suit my argument - their exact definitions very clearly match the examples I'm defending.

Even if I'm totally wrong here, I've drawn upon enough reputable references to justify the position of allowing those examples of AR to remain within the article. Whether you agree with my argument or not, it is more responsible at this point to allow these examples to remain on the grounds that I am referring to actual wikipedia articles, definitions from the founding software engineers and the greater AR community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.100.102 (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Blairmacintyre edit

I reverted the edit "Removed time-dependent ephemera (e.g., current applications). Added university research pages.)" because 1) Wikipedia is not a collection of links. and 2) You deleted an entire section on specific applications without discussion here. I will assume good faith on your part. So let me explain in detail...

Don't provide external links to University Research Papers. Instead, give a synopsis of the research paper and it's importance to the topic, Augumented Reality, and properly refer to the University Paper. Read this: WP:NOTLINK.

Although the "Specific applications" section may be a bit time dependent, many of these applications are notable AR applications and are *not* likely to disappear quickly. I don't like the bulleted format and would prefer well developed prose instead. If you feel you need to delete something, it's a better idea to discuss it first. See WP:VANDAL

kgrr ^talk 01:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However "Specific applications" section is becoming more and more bloated, and there is no fair way to prune it. That is if to delete one, why not the other? All but couple have about the same notability. Here I concur with Blair - it would be better if this section removed completely, or it will grow bigger than the rest of the article. It could be moved to a new article - "Applications of Augmented Reality" Serg3d2 (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Specific Applications" is indeed becoming bloating. There is nothing wrong with editing out different products. We edit out text that is off-topic or redundant or bloated, editing out products to make the article manageable and readable is perfectly reasonable. It's not clear to me that anything other than a couple of notable specific apps need be listed and I would agree the bullet point format is overkill. BobKawanaka (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Near Eye Display System (NEDS)

The 33rd America's Cup is being run right now off the coast of Valencia, Spain. The skipper of the USA entrant, BMW Oracle Racing 90, James Spithill, was reported in a news report today to be using a "Near Eye Display System (NEDS)" in one of the two lenses of his sunglasses (reportedly, he monitors the technical information about the boat, generated from some 250 sensors, on this lens). Question, is this just a pretty standard HMD or is it a new technology with substantial performance and specification improvements? The BMW/Oracle team certainly has a very large budget and could afford to expand the HMD envelope here if they wanted to. N2e (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Researchers

Please don't add companies names here. Companies are not "researchers". Add names of actual scientist and references to their work which are and not original research. This section is not for products or companies.

Serg3d2 (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can Jurjen Caarls be mentioned, he made a AR-set, see http://www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=e2891a6c-1e87-4584-ac75-3e369197bed0