rlm@Hudson.Stanford.EDU (Robert L. Miller) (06/15/91)
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space
Hearing on
New Developments in Computer Technology: Virtual Reality
Wednesday, May 8, 1991, 9:30 a.m.
Room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building
What follows is my personal summary of the unedited videotape we are
making available. The comments I make here of the presentations are
paraphrased in an attempt to give a general sense of what transpired
at the hearing. I encourage others to read the testimony or view the
tape or contact the presentors directly before drawing his or her own
conclusions.
Videotape of Panel 1
Jaron Lanier, President, VPL Research
Dr. Fred Brooks, Prof., Computer Science, Univ. of North Carolina
Dr. Thomas A. Furness III, Prof., Univ. of Washington
(AUTHOR NOTE: The written statements of Panel 2, submitted by Dr.
Charles N. Brownstein, Acting Asst. Director of Computer and
Information Sciences and Engineering at the National Science
Foundation, and Dr. Lee B. Holcomb, Director of Information Sciences
and Human Factors Division, Office of Aeronautics, Exploration and
Technology (NASA), shall be included with the videotape. Providing
their video testimony at this time would raise the price of this
package above mortal affordability. Their papers are well written, and
during the hearing, were strongly challenged by Senator Gore due to
their low bandwidth of support for U.S. virtual reality technology)).
Senator Gore
Senator Gore ambles to introduce VR technology as an American asset. He
argues for its supported by the U.S. Government. Japan, he states, is
investing far more than we are in producing marketable applications
for VR. Unlike VCR technology, etc., he believes it is not to late
for the U.S. to capitalize on this technological invention and
resource.
Senator Presley(sp?)
Senator Presley is the ranking Republican member of the subcommittee.
He indicates the promise of VR and looks forward to hearing the
testimony of the panelists.
Jaron Lanier, VPL
Lanier, appended with suit and tie, pays homage to other members of
the panel. Among other introductories, he mentions VPL is dependent
on international trade. Their main users are off shore (cites
examples in Japan, Germany...) He then goes on to discuss the various
fields of research and application his company is currently involved
in. He further cites VPL applications in scientific visualization,
chemistry, medicine, entertainment, general simulation and training.
Lanier states it is important for the federal government to help VR
folks any way they can, but the only way for VR people to succeed, he
says, is to take full responsibility themselves. 'It is inappropriate
to fault the Japanese for doing a good job, and it is inappropriate to
expect salvation from Washington.' Lanier states he will succeed by
recognizing that. He then goes on to outline healthy interaction
between government and industry, and shows a tape of his latest system
in action (I would guess an order of magnitude in speed and resolution
over VPL's last system, it is seen on the hearing tape, but is taped
off a monitor at an angle and is thereby not optimum, but gives a good
idea). Lanier then fields questions from Senator Gore.
Dr. Frederick Brooks, University of North Carolina
Brooks, in classic Southern gentleman fashion and humor, starts by
mentioning Sutherland's 1965 speech where he said "The right way to
think about computer graphics is that the screen is a window through
which one looks into a virtual world. And the challenge is to make
the world look real, sound real, feel real and interact
realistically." Brooks adds "Sutherland said it would be ideal when
you shot an imaginary bullet and you felt it go through you." Brooks
said he wasn't convinced of that (all laughed) but states he has been
working on this technology ever since he heard that 1965 speech. He
goes on to talk about fundamental questions of VR research--primarily,
can we make virtual world systems good enough that they are useful?
Brooks shows a UNC video (taped about as well as VPL's) made by Warren
Robinette. He then shows various slides and talks about virtual world
projects and work at UNC. He concludes with notes on American
competitiveness, government funding, and where he/UNC sees this
technology going.
Dr. Tom Furness, University of Washington, formerly U.S.A.F.
Furness addresses the problems of interfacing a person to a complex
machine. Through slides and first hand knowledge, he provides the
example of a pilot and a fighter aircraft (cites and shows much of the
$100 million technology involved, such as the 'Darth Vader' helmet
display).
Furness then speaks about migrating this technology to the public.
Like UNC, the HIT Lab has identified specific project areas. Furness
speaks of design and manufacturing (projects sponsored by Boeing),
televirtuality ('virtue phone,' dial a place instead of number,
sponsored by U.S. West), and generic technologies such as virtual
retina display (a phased array of lasers scans a 4K x 4K display
directly on your retinas).
In summary, Furness suggests federal government help by establishing
the super-highway in the sky (I believe he is speaking of NREN, the
multi-gigabit National Research Network) and supporting its computing
and interface technology so that a coalition of government research
labs can port technology to companies that can make products of it.
This, Furness states, will help keep the U.S. at a competitive
advantage in the world.
Senator Gore and Senator Presley(sp?) then ask the panel questions:
How does the U.S. Government funding of this research compare to that
of Japan? (Lanier believes Japan is spending 10x more than the U.S.).
What are the educational aspects of this technology? (large
discussion) What are the Japanese and Europeans doing with this
technology and how are they doing it? (large discussion). How could
this technology be misused? Who invented VR? What are the funding
sources for American VR researchers and developers? Have you accepted
Japanese money? If not, why? How do you find out about new
developments in your field? What percentage of your system components
come from overseas? How would you compare the impact and diversity of
TV technology to that of VR technology? Could the users of this
technology be at a node on a super network? (Examples cited in the
U.S. and Germany) What are the issues of VR networking? Would a 5-10
gigabit national network in 1995 provide an edge for the U.S.?
Tape concludes here.
As for the technical aspects of the videotape itself, there are a
couple of 10 second or so intervals where the camera operator is
brain-dead. Other than that, the video and audio content are clear.
The tape we are providing goes two full hours and stops about 3
minutes short of the actual conclusion of discussion from panel 1.
You'll have to take it from me that nothing much was really missed in
those 3 minutes. (Still, for a complete record, we may be able to
economically fix that.)
Once again, how to get the tape:
For American, Canadian and Japanese (actually anyone with an NTSC VHS
VCR) interested in this tape, here's the process:
Send your mailing address and a check in U.S. dollars for $30 plus $5
shipping (payable to the Virtual Reality Film Doc.) to:
THE VIRTUAL REALITY FILM DOCUMENTARY
2330 Williams St.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Attn: Robert Miller
For a second opinion of the tape, contact Ben Delaney of the CyberEdge
Journal or Jim Kramer of Virtex and Stanford
(kramer@sunrise.stanford.edu). I screened the tape for them last
night. Kramer brought a tribal-size bag of chips.
Robert Miller