Better to invest in creating T-800s rather than try to put computer screens on human soldiers.

I'm talking about the military. Using one in other fields is probably a great idea, but before investing in military tech they need to first ensure they are useful in a wartime situation and not just a neat tool with far better applications. The problem in a live fire battle is high tech that's used in the field cannot require charging and must be extremely lightweight, soldiers already have to carry very heave weapons and supplies, even a tiny bit of weight can make the difference between life and death.

So given the extra weight and the inaccessibility of a charging method without also increasing weight, they will not find much use of worn tech like this in situations that they would be used. A better investment would be more remote drones and smart weapons that can be used from the safety of a bunker.

If you ask me the only purpose this could serve and actually work is with recon, specifically for artillery and sniper support. This doesn’t seem like something every infantryman should use. I bet you could get the quickest azimuth ever with that thing.

Pretty confident this was just a psyop

I'm sure those cables never snagged on anything.

😂😂😂

This guy really thought this and this are equally sharp.

Damn, no wonder you can't tell the difference between matte and glossy sharpness.

> "Subjectively, the panel offers excellent picture quality because even bright surfaces do not look grainy despite the matte coating."

Did you ever try to read the full sentence?

DESPITE THE MATTE COATING

Oh golly gee, I wonder why they needed to make that distinction, that too on literally every laptop with a matte panel.

> Subpixel array photos do not reflect actual graininess. I have never conceded that point, nor will I. You are the only one riding on it here.

> So now I'm supposed to argue points that go against my own claim and experience? Do you even know how arguments work?

Exactly lol. Simple physics dictates a grainier screen will have grainier subpixels by definition. There's no panel in the world that looks grainy but has completely sharp subpixels under a microscope.

You keep claiming all screens are matte by default, hence matte shouldn't have an effect on the graininess. And yet, you haven't managed to produce one matte screen that can match the sharpness of glossy panels, let alone exceed them in sharpness.

But then again you literally can't tell the difference, so you're incapable of arguing anything in the first place.

> They say that for literally every display that isn't a phone display with 500+ nit brightness. Try someone who doesn't know their lingo inside and out lmao. It's very clear from the photo that the display looks excellent outdoors.

So does the Macbook Air, so I guess matte doesn't do shit regarding reflections?

> Of course, it doesn't sit well with you to just admit it's as clear as the ones you've linked, there has to be a defect...

Yeah, only person who would claim that would be someone with very bad eyesight, someone who never bothered to open my links, or someone deliberately trolling. It's like saying 720p is equally sharp as 4k.

> No, sorry. "Sharpness" is determined only by resolution, and "perceived vibrancy" is snake oil.

Lol, that's why the Eve 4k with glossy was more sharp than the one with matte? One 4k was different resolution from other 4k?

Sharpness is determined by a lot of things, and the graininess of the screen coating is one of them.

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel there, buddy.

And as for "perceived" being snakeoil, diffused light is the same thing as non diffused light, eh?

Lol, do you even know how those metrics are measured? By literally sealing the display area being measured to prevent ambient light leakage.

By your logic setting the colorimeter 5 feet away from the display will give the exact same readings. Some "facts".

> The same "literally anyone" who tried to convince me that 1080p at 24" is "totally enough" and there's no point in trying to get a rare 1440p 24" monitor to increase actual sharpness? Yeah, I'll totally listen to those people.

And who exactly is claiming that? Making up arguments because no real ones available?

And as for your laughable "dug your own grave":

You: All panels are matte by default!!! Glossy is just layer over matte!!!

Article: Matte or glossy depends on the treatment of polarizer layer.

You: See I was right!!! You dug your own grave!!!

Looks like along with poor eyesight your also got poor reading comprehension, and in the end all you could do to salvage it is to say some matte screens are light enough to reach somewhat close to glossy screens, lol.

EDIT: Oh yeah, weren't you claiming "perception" was snake oil? Got on that train very quick when you found "light matte" is close to glossy in that regard lol.

The particular tech works perfectly at pitch black night: personal experience… you speaking as if you know this and I can tell you are as clueless as one can be about this tech. It’s weight aside, the things it can do blows your mind.

Nah, just shield the implant with lead foil, that should stop any outside interference

Yeah i started mounting my pvs14 behind my dot on my rifle.

I think the IVAS is super interesting. And it packs a helluva lot of sensor tech in a very small package.

However, it does not do well in low light. As is obvious from the pictures, it limits natural light, forcing the soldier to rely on the sensor systems earlier in the day than normal.
Even going into a halfdark building during the day can be an issue with shades.

Yes, you can use the light enhancing sensors, but it's still sucks to wear shades at night.

On top of that, the sensor system does not feature a normal gen3 etc. tube, so it relies purely on the CCD sensor. Old school NVG tubes (as used in PVS14/31) are still vastly superior to CCD's in the same package size.

In terms of being able to see in the dark, on scale from 0-1000, it's like this:
0-100: gen1 NVG,
100-300: Lowlight optimized CCD (small package, eg. Syonix)
200: Bad Gen2 NVG
500: Good Gen2 NVG
1000: Good Gen3 NVG
(This is a simplification. Generation does not correlate to SNR/Res so precisely in reality).

And this is why soldiers would complain. Even the pure night performance capability is serious step back. Especially when you consider the new 31 NVG's that have thermal overlay integrated (honestly this is a really good and usable product design).

> The laptops I listed all have much higher quality screen materials than laptops costing at least twice as much?

Again. Subpixel array photos do not reflect actual graininess. I have never conceded that point, nor will I. You are the only one riding on it here.

Here's what the HP ZBook Firefly 14 G9 review has to say: "Subjectively, the panel offers excellent picture quality because even bright surfaces do not look grainy despite the matte coating." And yet, its subpixel array looks like this. But go on and keep trying to convince me it's connected lol.

> Yes, because it completely counters your absurd claim of "all glossy is just glass over matte".

So now I'm supposed to argue points that go against my own claim and experience? Do you even know how arguments work?

> It is possible to use the screen outdoors, provided that the sun isn't overly bright.

They say that for literally every display that isn't a phone display with 500+ nit brightness. Try someone who doesn't know their lingo inside and out lmao. It's very clear from the photo that the display looks excellent outdoors.

> you can clearly see the graininess at the edges

Of course, it doesn't sit well with you to just admit it's as clear as the ones you've linked, there has to be a defect...

> In the end, glossy panels have more sharpness and perceived vibrancy than matte panels

No, sorry. "Sharpness" is determined only by resolution, and "perceived vibrancy" is snake oil. We have tools that return objective numbers (deltaE, colorspace coverage, brightness, PPI calculators), and anyone who wants to deal in facts will stick with them.

> Just as is common knowledge for literally anyone but you apparently.

The same "literally anyone" who tried to convince me that 1080p at 24" is "totally enough" and there's no point in trying to get a rare 1440p 24" monitor to increase actual sharpness? Yeah, I'll totally listen to those people.

Also, thanks for the article! So many great points to disprove your bullshit:

> Some displays use a very mild matte anti-glare treatment for the screen surface. They have a very low haze value of around 2-7%. This describes the level of diffusion of light by the screen surface, with most matte screen surfaces having a higher haze value of ~25% or above. Such displays can therefore be classified as glossy or ‘close to glossy’ as their light emission and reflection properties most closely align with a glossy surface that has an anti-reflective film.

So I was completely right and there are "in-between" screens.

> Some manufacturers offer a compromise between the two – a surface type that is sometimes dubbed ‘semi-glossy’ or that we’d usually classify as ‘very light’ matte. These surfaces are still matte but are roughened up either a little or a lot less, giving them a smoother appearance and making the diffusion of light weaker.

Yep, definitely seen that. In fact, lots of desktop monitors I've dealt with are like that. Including my current one. But since it doesn't have freaking glass, I never see any reflections at all.

> In the past, some manufacturers (most notably Apple with their earlier ‘LED Cinema Display’ series) chose to forgo any anti-reflective treatment and included highly reflective untreated glass as the outermost surface. This was done largely for aesthetic reasons as there is no advantage of this over a properly treated anti-reflective surface when it comes to image quality.

Whoops... they did use glass, and it was for aesthetic reasons...

> Disadvantages of a Glossy Screen: Potentially increased eyestrain due to difficulty focusing on image through reflections

Hey look, this guy really knows what he's talking about after all! Unlike you.

> It’s important to note that screen surface texture is also important and there are some models that buck the trends for ‘image smoothness’ expected from their haze values. Screen surface is a complex 3D structure with many layers and there’s a lot more to consider beyond a single haze value. Good examples would be some 23.6 – 27″ IPS-type ‘4K’ UHD (3840 x 2160) panels such as those used on the Dell P2415Q or ASUS PG27AQ. These are light matte anti-glare (relatively low haze value), which preserves image vibrancy and clarity, but don’t have a particularly smooth surface texture.

Would you look at that, nuance! Actual understanding that there are different materials utilized with different properties!

My dude, you just dug your own grave.

This. Using NVG correctly is a skillset. So many issues with alignment or fogging up if just given to people without training.

Lmao to lower cop lethality!

Form factor was a HUGE blunder imo. They tried to jump straight to the end goal, like this tech isn't challenging af and in its infancy.

Pretty dumb-ass idea. Pretty telling about the amount of money in the military industrial complex to try and make tactical AR with this level of tech. Also the dust in Afghanistan would have wrecked this. It killed so many toughbooks while there.

The goal would be to condense it into the visor of a helmet, having an IRL HUD would be extremely useful for navigation, aim, comms, etc.

Hell, as a volunteer Marine in the 2010's, we weren't given counterweights for them.

The title makes it sound like the soldiers hate it because it makes them “less lethal.” They hate it because it sucks.

> Almost as if actual graininess has nothing to do with matte and everything to do with low quality screen materials.

The laptops I listed all have much higher quality screen materials than laptops costing at least twice as much?

Surely even you think you're reaching.

> I never promised to deliver it.

Yes, because it completely counters your absurd claim of "all glossy is just glass over matte".

> All I've ever claimed is that even glossy screens can have a blurry subpixel array on those photos.

But they can also have sharp subpixel arrays, something almost non-existent on the matte ones. You seem to be avoiding this fact quite conveniently.

> But sure, here you go: Acer Aspire Vero AV14-51. Definitely a matte screen (see full review). What now?

Great. Let's look at the review again.

> It is possible to use the screen outdoors, provided that the sun isn't overly bright.

So by reducing the matte haze to improve the sharpness (still not fully, you can clearly see the graininess at the edges), you already lost the diffusion advantage, like what happens with all those "semigloss" and "2H" panels. Thanks for proving my point.

In the end, glossy panels have more sharpness and perceived vibrancy than matte panels, while matte panels are more usable in harsh lighting than glossy panels. Just as is common knowledge for literally anyone but you apparently.

While I’m sure they’re amazing, they’re just too frick’n expensive. How are people supposed to appreciate something like that?

And what are they supposed to do; play Beat Saber?

They’re amazing for the devs and the clients like aerospace and medical because they’re using bespoke software.

Until there’s a killer app, doesn’t matter how good the hardware is.

They've been too quick to throw this out. It'll be back. It's ultimately useful (in a smaller future form factor).

The AR would have to be adding more than it costs...

Step 1 would be minimum interference, that would excuse the least functionality (good for a new tech): minimize weight, easy to setup, don't occupy space that I need for other things (don't be in the way of a scope or helmet).

Step 2 would be to not compete with convention. Humans have great vision and great image recognition. Instead add things they don't have at all: birds eye view, thermal vision, or other live strategic detail (any strategic information best conveyed by image, that would take time to explain verbally). Otherwise your fighting an uphill battle of trying to be better at seeing than actual eyeballs, or more defensive than a dedicated helmet.

What's in that cover photo would need to be explosively powerful to justify itself.

AR is undeniably the future. Real time information overlaid on every soldiers vision that allows them to coordinate is too useful a capability to ignore.

Of course it is predicated on the technology being sufficiently mature for field use, which it clearly isn't yet. VR is great for training though.

> How convenient. Almost as if matte causes graininess by its nature, and glossy displays do not have "native matte" surfaces.

Almost as if actual graininess has nothing to do with matte and everything to do with low quality screen materials.

> Also that LG Gram, Zenbook and Vivobook are all 1080p, so that excuse won't fly either.

What excuse?

> Again, I'm waiting for that mythical matte panel with subpixels as clear as almost all the glossy laptop panels.

I never promised to deliver it. All I've ever claimed is that even glossy screens can have a blurry subpixel array on those photos. But sure, here you go: Acer Aspire Vero AV14-51. Definitely a matte screen (see full review). What now?

I actually work on these headsets and theyre pretty fucking epic actually. I'm surprised this was the outcome

I'm guessing 99% of people commenting in here have not tried the hololens 2 or the magic leap 2. The magic leap is the exact opposite of their first trash headset.

Just too late I guess