51‐5: Lightguide with Stair Micromirror Structure for Augmented Reality Glasses

Ryu, Jaeyeol; Muravev, Nikolay; Piskunov, Dmitry E.; Попов, М. В.; Anikanova, N. V.; Choi, Myongjo

doi:10.1002/sdtp.11743

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[1][2][3][4] To resemble the real world and be comfortably worn, an HMD is expected to provide a wide field of view (FOV), a compact volume, and full-parallax three-dimensional (3D) content. To achieve the goals, the optical combiner [5][6][7] and waveguide technologies [8][9][10][11][12] have made great success by folding the optical path to achieve compact volume and enabling the optical see-through function for AR applications. However, the two technologies are typically encountering great challenges in solving the so-called vergence-accommodation conflict (VAC) because the 3D content is usually generated with only binocular parallax but not full parallax.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Image formation modeling and analysis of near‐eye light field displays

Qin

Chou

et al. 2019

J Soc Info Display

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Near‐eye light field displays based on integral imaging through a microlens array provide attractive features like ultra‐compact volume and freedom of the vergence‐accommodation conflict to head‐mounted displays with virtual or augmented reality functions. To enable optimal design and analysis of such systems, it is desirable to have a physical model that incorporates all factors that affect the image formation, including diffraction, aberration, defocusing, and pixel size. Therefore, in this study, using the fundamental Huygens‐Fresnel principle and the Arizona eye model with adjustable accommodation, we develop an image formation model that can numerically calculate the retinal light field image with near‐perfect accuracy, and experimentally verify it with a prototype system. Next, based on this model, the visual resolution is analyzed for different field of views (FOVs). As a result, a rapid resolution decay with respect to FOV caused by off‐axis aberration is demonstrated. Finally, resolution variations as a function of image depth are analyzed based on systems with different central depth planes. Significantly, the resolution decay is revealed to plateau when the image depth is large enough, which is different from real‐image type light field displays.

show abstract