David Bridges
Following my experience with the Android XR smart glasses, I was eagerly looking forward to exploring Google Beam. This innovative technology is a compact and commercialized adaptation of the ambitious Project Starline, which focuses on creating immersive 3D video calling experiences. Google’s efforts in developing this remarkable technology have spanned several years, and numerous users have expressed their awe at the ability to engage in video calls that feel as if the person is truly present in the room. I finally had the chance to experience this technology firsthand at Google I/O 2025. While I found it impressive, the experience also highlighted that it isn’t a flawless imitation of being with someone in real life.
To clarify, the ability of Google to transform a series of 2D videos into a coherent 3D representation of a person using a sophisticated AI neural network is genuinely remarkable. The lifelike presence of the individual on the screen creates an illusion that they are sitting just across the table from you. During my demonstration, which utilized the older version of Project Starline rather than the more compact model currently being developed by HP, I interacted with a friendly individual named Jerome, who was streamed from Seattle, Washington to my setup in Mountain View, California. As he extended his hand for an apple, my instinct was to reach out and grab it. The interaction felt so real that when the demo concluded, we exchanged high-fives without a second thought. Throughout our brief conversation, we maintained eye contact, shared smiles, and laughed together, creating a sense of normalcy that was quite unexpected.
Despite the brevity of my demonstration, the limitations of the current iteration of 3D video calling technology became glaringly apparent as I settled in front of the TV booth. When Jerome’s image appeared, I noticed a subtle yet persistent jitter in the 3D rendering, which was reminiscent of slightly unstable TV scanlines. This imperfection was evident throughout our interaction, and I found myself fixated on it as it detracted from the overall experience. Such technical issues highlight how even the most advanced technologies have room for improvement.
Another notable limitation I observed was related to the camera tracking and viewing angle. The system performed optimally only when I was sitting directly in front of the screen. If I adjusted my position even slightly to the left or right, Jerome’s image would darken and distort, significantly affecting the clarity of the experience. Even with the touted 8K resolution, the light field display still appeared somewhat grainy. Additionally, I realized that attempting to “look around” Jerome’s body revealed nothing but an empty, particle-like space behind him. This is understandable, as Beam/Starline captures only the front and sides of a person’s image, leaving the back angles unrecorded. This limitation is similar to viewing a portrait mode photo where the back of the subject remains unseen.
This is too cool: iPhone Portrait mode…exploded into depth layers pic.twitter.com/oA8FicilWG
— Ray Wong (@raywongy) November 22, 2018
I also harbor some skepticism regarding how well Beam performs in suboptimal lighting conditions. The room I was in featured well-diffused lighting, which likely enhanced the quality of the experience. However, I suspect that dimmer lighting could lead to a noticeable degradation in image quality, resulting in increased image noise and loss of detail that would hinder communication.
It’s important to mention that my conversation with Jerome was actually my second attempt at experiencing this technology. My first demo was with a person named Ryan, but the session was cut short when the system crashed, freezing his image. I had to be transferred to Jerome for a functional demo. While technical glitches can occur in any video call platform, the seamless nature of face-to-face interactions remains unmatched.
Given that the units I interacted with were still branded as Project Starline, with cameras and speaker modules mounted on the sides of the screen rather than integrated into it, it remains unclear whether Google Beam represents a more refined product. My expectations were high, anticipating the overwhelming sensation that others had described. However, the experience felt so organic that it didn’t quite elicit the same level of astonishment from me. Despite my reputation for becoming excited about groundbreaking technology, perhaps the absence of a shock factor is a hidden benefit. It suggests that the Beam/Starline technology has largely succeeded in minimizing distractions, allowing for authentic and meaningful communication between users.
Daniel Mercer
