Retinal-Scanning Screen Prototypes

two turntables and a microphone by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 08:47 · Score: 0

three leds and a mirror.

Ah, progress... ;-)

Re:two turntables and a microphone by lukesl · 2002-02-12 10:34 · Score: 1

Two turntables and a microphone refers to Beck's penis. Three LEDs and a mirror sounds like something out of medical genetics textbook.

At long last! by pokeyburro · 2002-02-12 08:49 · Score: 1

Now I can finally throw away that huge, clunky flat LCD that's hogging up my desk.

--
Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.

Oooh, more health warnings. by Cruciform · 2002-02-12 08:50 · Score: 2

Now we'll not only hear about cell phones causing brain cancer, now the press will be warning us that we could put our eyes out.

Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by Triv · 2002-02-12 08:59 · Score: 1

Now we'll not only hear about cell phones causing brain cancer, now the press will be warning us that we could put our eyes out.

Not until someone actually DOES and sues the manufacturer for millions of dollars. Remember McDonalds and the lawsuit that required them to put "Warning! Coffee is extremely hot! Drink with caution!" on their coffee cups?

Triv
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by Cruciform · 2002-02-12 09:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Heh, maybe we need to put warning stickers on consumers as well. If the person fails a few basic tests, they get a sticker that says "Warning, this consumer is extremely stupid. Do not sell any sharp, hard, pointy, hot, cold or easily swallowed items to this individual."
or maybe "Warning, this individual litigates over own stupidity. Symptoms include rash of complaints, with persistent ambulance chasers."
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by ErikTheRed · 2002-02-12 09:07 · Score: 2

I don't think ya'll read the article. The light is emitted by three LEDs driven by a (presumably) portable power source (battery), probably not bright enough to cause any sort of eye damage. You must have been thinking about lasers or something...

--

Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:16 · Score: 0

now that's a good fucking idea, mod this shit up
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · 2002-02-12 09:35 · Score: 2

Heh, maybe we need to put warning stickers on consumers as well

Check out comedian Bill Engvall's album "Here's Your Sign", where he makes that very point.

If we gave all the stupid people signs that said "I'm stupid" then we'd know better than to deal with them.

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by Aexia · 2002-02-12 09:37 · Score: 3, Informative

>>Not until someone actually DOES and sues the manufacturer for millions of dollars. Remember McDonalds and the lawsuit that required them to put "Warning! Coffee is extremely hot! Drink with caution!" on their coffee cups?

Do you remember that the woman got third degree burns, needed skin grafts, spent a couple weeks in intensive care and offered to settle for ~$20K in hospital fees?

Do you remember that McDonald's rebuffed that offer?

Do you remember McDonald's having received hundreds of complaints in the past about the coffee temperature?

Do you remember that after losing the trial, McDonald's lowered the coffee temperature to something consumable by human beings?

Or do you only remember how the media characterized the case?
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by TheTomcat · 2002-02-12 09:47 · Score: 1

We'd run out of signs.
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by Triv · 2002-02-12 10:02 · Score: 1

Ouch.

(bows humbly)

You're right. It's amazing how, in the long run especially, the media impression drowns out the facts, contorts the whole thing into a sound-byte.

That was the most direct response to a post I've ever recieved that wasn't a flame. I appreciate it.

Triv
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by ncc74656 · 2002-02-12 10:04 · Score: 2

Not until someone actually DOES and sues the manufacturer for millions of dollars. Remember McDonalds and the lawsuit that required them to put "Warning! Coffee is extremely hot! Drink with caution!" on their coffee cups?

Do you remember that the woman got third degree burns, needed skin grafts, spent a couple weeks in intensive care and offered to settle for ~$20K in hospital fees?

If she hadn't been a moron, she wouldn't have put herself in a situation where all that medical treatment was necessary. Coffee is hot; a hot liquid spilled on clothing that you're wearing is generally a Bad Thing. Most reasonable people would conclude from these facts that coffee should be handled carefully so that you don't spill it on yourself. In a car, it'd be a good idea to keep it in a cupholder when you're not drinking it, not between your legs where the cup can tip over or be crushed. This isn't exactly rocket science, folks.
If stupidity were fatal, it would cut back drastically on so-called "overpopulation"...

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by GreyPoopon · 2002-02-12 10:09 · Score: 1

Or do you only remember how the media characterized the case?
Which really makes me angry. I spent months walking around using that case as an example for "stupid lawsuits" until somebody initimately familiar with it actually told me the facts. Personally, I think the people in the media who obviously characterized the case in such a sensational manner should have been required to be that woman's personal slaves for the rest of her life.

--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by GreyPoopon · 2002-02-12 10:19 · Score: 1
If she hadn't been a moron, she wouldn't have put herself in a situation where all that medical treatment was necessary.
Ah, yet another person who is unaware of the facts.
1. Liebeck was not driving the car. Her grandson was. The car was stopped so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. The contents spilled onto her lap while she was attempting to remove the lid.
2. There were more than 700 claims by people burned by McDonalds coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some of them involved third-degree burns. Note, these are CLAIMS, not INCIDENTS.
3. Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. McDonalds actively enforced a requirement that their coffee be kept at 185 degrees +/- 5. The temperature at which it is poured is absolutely not fit for human consumption. It will burn.
4. Any food substance served at 140 degrees or above represents a burn hazard.
5. Liquids at 180 degrees will cause third-degree burns in 2 - 7 seconds.
Now, was she really a moron?
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by Seanasy · 2002-02-12 10:37 · Score: 2

You're obviously of superior intelligence.

There. Is that what you wanted? A little external confirmation.

The world would be a better place if everyone were as smart as you. You've never done anything so stupid in your life. Wow, gee, I wish there were more people like you.

Happy yet? I could go on if you really need it.
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by JabberWokky · 2002-02-12 11:02 · Score: 2

Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. McDonalds actively enforced a requirement that their coffee be kept at 185 degrees +/- 5. The temperature at which it is poured is absolutely not fit for human consumption. It will burn.
It is also considered by many many people in the world to be the "proper" way to make coffee, a fact which is bourne out through labratory tests that show many of the essential flavors and oils are not drawn from the bean at lower temperatures. Very simple.
Many very very common things that we do (often for enjoyment) are fantastically dangerous. They are also part of life. Choice and intelligent handling of oneself will eliminate most accidents; the rest are just part of living in an universe with no certainty.
--
Evan

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by ConceptJunkie · 2002-02-12 11:20 · Score: 2

McDonald's would not have kept their coffee so hot unless it helped sales. Sales only increase when the customer _prefers_ whatever variable is being changed, unless a monopoly is involved (see, this being /., I gotta slip some MS-bashing in however tenuous the connection). Needless to say, McDonald's did this because customers preferred it, even if indirectly. I don't drink coffee, so I don't know why, but I would guess because it helps keep the product warm until the customer is ready to consume it.

Was this woman a moron? Probably not, after she's apparently capable of hiring a decent lawyer. Is it a shame she was injured? Sure. No one should be hurt. Was McDonald's a jerk about it all? McDonald's is a huge faceless corporation. Duh! If a huge corporation isn't a total jerk and willing to go to the mat over any case however fatuous, every halfwit in America will be dialing whatever lawyer advertises during Jerry Springer and lawsuits would become the country's leading industry, instead of just one of the country's leading industries.

I dunno about you, but someone who manages to spill enough coffee on herself to cause that much injury should take her clumsiness into consideration. I'm a complete spaz, so I make sure when I'm handling something hot or sharp or radioactive or CowboyNeal, to take extra precautions like not opening it over my lap, or sticking it in my eye or trying to juggle it. But that's just me.

If it takes warnings on the coffee cups for a certain percentage of the population to realize that, then so be it. We already have warnings for practically every stupid behavior that could conceivably be taken with a product already because there are always twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty who are more than willing to award the Litigation Lottery to some schmuck who happens to be stupid or clumsy or excessively unlucky.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by charon_on_acheron · 2002-02-12 11:26 · Score: 1

"Now, was she really a moron?"

Yes.

Doesn't matter who was driving, or that they were stopped. She spilled very hot liquid in her lap, because she was a moron who tried to open a cup of that very hot liquid while holding it in/over her lap.

And I know several people who still use coffee pots to make coffee. Not those coffee-makers that warm up the water as it pours it over the grounds, and not the microwave to make warm water to spoon instant coffee into. Real percolating coffee pots. Guess what makes it percolate. Boiling water inside the coffee pot, which releases oxygen, which is captured by an inverted funnel to be sent up a vertical pipe to the top of the coffee pot, pushing the boiling-hot water above it up that same pipe, said water to be splashed over the coffee grounds. The important detail here is if the water is not boiling, this doesn't work. So that water is well over 200 degree Fahrenheit, possibly over 212 degrees, since it has coffee matter dissolved in it, and this can raise the boiling point by several degrees.

And people take this boiling pot off the heat, pour the coffee into their cup, and drink it. They usually manage to do this without sueing anyone.

So 700 people burned by McDonald's coffee in a decade is not worth worrying about, considering how many millions of cups of coffee they served that didn't cause burns.

Now if there are people burned because the lid wasn't on tight, and the coffee spilled out, or the cup collapsed when the person held it, that would be worthy of sueing. But not because this lady thought removing the lid from very hot coffee was a good idea.
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by Cruciform · 2002-02-12 11:46 · Score: 2

I read it :) But that's why I mentioned the media blowing it out of proportion quickly enough. Just like West Nile Virus... Kills 3 people in North America and it's on the front page of every newspaper. Never mind that it's rare, not as fatal as a lot of other contagions, etc.

Personally I like the idea of having a cell phone or a PDA that would let me check my messages, and then hold it up to my eye to view the attached screenshots or presentation someone sent me.

Just not while I'm coming home at rush hour. :)
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by Cruciform · 2002-02-12 11:48 · Score: 2

Do you remember that the person got coffee at a drive thru window and put it between their legs?

Tip: Don't drink coffee and drive. You might think your Mario Andretti, but there's already enough distracted dummies on the road.

Tip2: Don't put hot water between your legs.
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by ncc74656 · 2002-02-12 12:07 · Score: 2

Liebeck was not driving the car. Her grandson was. The car was stopped so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. The contents spilled onto her lap while she was attempting to remove the lid.

So she's a klutz. I'm a bit fumble-fingered sometimes myself. I generally avoid doing things where that could end up being a problem.
There were more than 700 claims by people burned by McDonalds coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some of them involved third-degree burns. Note, these are CLAIMS, not INCIDENTS.

...and this proves what, exactly? Anybody can file a lawsuit; that doesn't imply that any of those suits have any merit.
Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. McDonalds actively enforced a requirement that their coffee be kept at 185 degrees +/- 5. The temperature at which it is poured is absolutely not fit for human consumption. It will burn.

This has already been addressed by another poster...proper extraction requires elevated temperatures. If it's too hot to drink right away, you let it cool down a bit. Again, this isn't rocket science.
Any food substance served at 140 degrees or above represents a burn hazard.

If true, that makes every food a burn waiting to happen as food served below that temperature presents a greater risk of food spoilage. As much as participants in the Litigation Lottery might hate to admit it, you can't completely eliminate risk. Simple risk analysis usually indicates the better course of action; personally, I'd rather not eat spoiled food.

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by Xerithane · 2002-02-12 12:14 · Score: 2

The thing that irritates me about frivilous lawsuits, is not only that they exist, but that lawsuits and lawyers have such a tainted name that if you do have a valid cause because a company does to some to harm you, it's looked down upon to sue.

I remember years ago, I sat down and there was the TV show 'Wings' on. The characters were suing someone or something, and they have the comic-relief-foreigner say, "You have to sue! It's the american way!"

What we need is if you are suing somebody because of your own stupidity, not only will the case be dismissed but you lose the right to future lawsuits even if it's valid or not. Or maybe penalize the lawyers for it too, if they represent in a lawsuit based upon the stupidity of the person or party then they get disbarred or something.

Yes, this is now off-topic. This just seemed more worthwhile than responding to the article which is pretty much, "ooh flashy things!" and doesn't require much conversation.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 21:02 · Score: 0

Hmm, you obviously have not been paying attention. She wasn't driving and the car was stopped.
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by JimPooley · 2002-02-13 00:39 · Score: 2

Good job it wasn't tea.
To make tea, you pour BOILING water on the tea. Not just hot, but boiling!
It has to be boiling, or you don't get the flavour from the tealeaves.

--

"Information wants to be paid"
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by GreyPoopon · 2002-02-13 05:19 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure this whole thread is going to get marked OT pretty soon....
McDonald's would not have kept their coffee so hot unless it helped sales.
Unfortunately, subsequent surveys have said otherwise. It appears that many people felt their coffee was too hot. I think the issue is that the temperature they were required to keep it at (after brewing) was too high. To McDonald's credit, their perception was that people were intending to purchase the coffee and drink it AFTER they arrived at work. Surveys have shown otherwise. Most people purchase it to drink it on the way to work.
I dunno about you, but someone who manages to spill enough coffee on herself to cause that much injury should take her clumsiness into consideration.
It doesn't take all that much coffee to cause that kind of injury. I think part of the problem may be in the fact that the cup is usually either paper or styrofoam. If the lid is off (or being pulled off) and your grip slips, the cup isn't rigid enough to catch it safely. Any attempt usually destroys the cup, thus making sure that the ENTIRE contents end up in your lap.
...take extra precautions like not opening it over my lap....
Agreed. But I actually asked myself whether or not I had done this. Prior to this whole case, I can't say I was very careful about things like that at the time. My guess is that I'm not in the minority. Maybe her experience will help keep the rest of us from doing something so stupid.
If it takes warnings on the coffee cups for a certain percentage of the population to realize that, then so be it.
Yeah, and some of those warnings out there are downright silly. But I guess sometimes we need a warning or two to point out things we might otherwise have just not even considered, even though it should be obvious. The only problem is, how many people actually READ the cup? Oh well.

--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by GreyPoopon · 2002-02-13 05:25 · Score: 1

It is also considered by many many people in the world to be the "proper" way to make coffee, a fact which is bourne out through labratory tests that show many of the essential flavors and oils are not drawn from the bean at lower temperatures. Very simple.
Agreed. Actually, most modern coffee makers heat the water to boiling. I think the problem is that McDonalds actively enforced a rule that the coffee had to be KEPT at a temperature of 185 degrees. As I said earlier, it was to their credit that they incorrectly assumed most people were buying the coffee to take to work (or that's what they said). Surveys revealed that most people buy the coffee to drink while driving. Since the incident, they have decreased the "storage" temperature to something a little safer.
Many very very common things that we do (often for enjoyment) are fantastically dangerous.
Agreed, and many times we overregulate these kinds of things. It's ridiculous that I have to take out an umbrella insurance policy to keep a thief from suing me if he/she hurts himself while breaking into my house. I think in this case that she was stupid for opening a cup of hot liquid over her lap. McDonalds was stupid to serve the coffee so hot that it was almost guaranteed to cause a third degree burn.

--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by JabberWokky · 2002-02-13 07:11 · Score: 2

McDonalds was stupid to serve the coffee so hot that it was almost guaranteed to cause a third degree burn.
If I was talking to work, I'd rather have the option of being able to choose a place that served it really hot so it was hot when I got to the office. As it is, McDonalds was the place to stop for coffee for long trips because it would stay hot for a long time or it would heat your cold coffee. Nowadays, IHOP seems to have the hottest coffee around. Dunkin Donuts serves at a lower temperature.
By blaming the temperature, you're removing choice - effective legislating by creating a precident of liability. Maybe we should only have butane torches be available at Home Depot and require licenses for aceteline?
And twice they have tried to move from the current 18 and over spraypaint law (hell, I used to buy spraypaint on a monthly basis when I was a preteen/teenager... up until I got an airbrush) to having to sign a form for a reason for buying it (now that I make stage props for Rocky Horror, I'd *love* to fill some of those out).
--
Evan

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by GreyPoopon · 2002-02-13 07:27 · Score: 1

And twice they have tried to move from the current 18 and over spraypaint law
I didn't realize there WAS an 18 and over spraypaint law. When did they put that one in?

--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by ConceptJunkie · 2002-02-13 07:41 · Score: 2

Yeah, and some of those warnings out there are downright silly. But I guess sometimes we need a warning or two to point out things we might otherwise have just not even considered, even though it should be obvious. The only problem is, how many people actually READ the cup? Oh well.

Well, actually the warnings are only there to help the corporation from being sued. Nobody anywhere reads those warnings or assumes that anyone else reads them. A coworker of mine was putting together a large metal media cart today, which of course is emblazoned with warning labels in that silly pictogram language that we are increasingly inflicted with, when I suggested that the government should approve and issue a standard disclaimer sticker that reads:

Warning! The government has determined that if you do something stupid, you might be injured or killed.

Then we wouldn't have to have companies vandalizing all of our products with multiple labels, some of which, like the anooying and distracting airbag warnings on my car's sun visor, are designed to be not removeable.

Yeesh!

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by JabberWokky · 2002-02-13 07:42 · Score: 2

I didn't realize there WAS an 18 and over spraypaint law. When did they put that one in?
Many years ago. Of course, your laws where you live might differ from the laws where I live. Over here, my neighbors and I are allowed to buy alcohol both in stores and in bars (unlike several places throughout the middle of the United States), and are allowed to do U-turns anywhere we want, turn right on a red light, and we have no emissions testing. But you can't buy spraypaint if you're under 18.
Florida - I'm sure your local legislation has a slew of odd laws as well, as seen from various moral viewpoints.
--
Evan

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by Aexia · 2002-02-14 12:49 · Score: 2

>Do you remember that the person got coffee at a drive thru window and put it between their legs?

Do you remember that she wasn't the driver and the car was stopped?
Re:Oooh, more health warnings. by tricorn · 2002-02-19 12:43 · Score: 1

Boiling water releases oxygen? Funny, I always thought it was the vaporized water (also known as steam, for the technically inclined) that caused water to boil, not oxygen!

Boiling water cools off fairly rapidly when poured into an uncovered ceramic cup. Much more rapidly than when poured into a styrofoam cup and covered with a lid. It also doesn't crush and spill when you try to take off the lid. Trying to compare home use of a coffee maker with serving coffee in a take-out container is foolish.

Effects on eyes by JohnBE · 2002-02-12 08:51 · Score: 0

Is there any research on the long term effects of using these devices on they eyes and eye muscles?

--
e4 e5

Re:Effects on eyes by PowerTroll+5000 · 2002-02-12 08:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Probably not, since Microvision just developed the prototype.

But I see where you're coming from with the idea, no pun intended. Ever try to focus on a close up object? It's rather difficult, so I figure eyestrain would be a factor.

Also, the article is somewhat light on the specifics on usage, how close to the eye, power usage (current and intended market), etc.

--
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
Re:Effects on eyes by JohnBE · 2002-02-12 09:00 · Score: 1, Funny

I certainly suffered from eye strain when using VR helmets. I wonder if the low entropy of the eyes will weaken the movement of muscles.

Someone could 0wn your box and turn up the lights.

--
e4 e5
Re:Effects on eyes by ConceptJunkie · 2002-02-12 09:00 · Score: 2

Just because the projecting device is close to your eyes doesn't mean your eyes have to focus close. I'm sure the angle of the projection is such that your eyes can comfortably focus at a (virtual) distance of 18" or so.

Have you ever used a ViewMaster?

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

Hold it to your eye? by PhotoGuy · 2002-02-12 08:54 · Score: 2

Major usability issue here, if you have to hold the thing right in front of your eye to view it. Cell phones are dangerous enough with people holding them to their ears, can you imagine the pileups if folks started holding them in front of one eye while driving.

Seems to me this would be more applicable to VR goggles, or head's up displays.

-me

--
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.

Re:Hold it to your eye? by HCase · 2002-02-12 09:02 · Score: 1

easy solution. don't use it while driving. unless its a hud of some sort it doesn't need to be between you and the road.
Re:Hold it to your eye? by hamjudo · 2002-02-12 09:22 · Score: 2

Seems to me this would be more applicable to VR goggles, or head's up displays.
What a coincidence, those devices seem to make up the rest of Microvision's product line.
Once they figured out how to scan the mirror fast and accurately enough, there are all sorts of uses. Bummer, most of them seem to be out of my price range for at least the next year, probably three.
You can tell it's not ready for primetime, the Spectrum color display system has a two pound piece that mounts on your head, tethered to a 40 pound box. I want one anyway.
Re:Hold it to your eye? by PaulGibson · 2002-02-12 09:24 · Score: 2, Informative

I looked at their web page (link topic post) and it seems that this is a device that straps to your head and a screen ends up in front of your eye. The screen does not interupt vision, but draws on top of what your eye is seeing. This indeed is a wearable head up display, and could be used for everything from driving to finding a needle in a haystack. One way to make this interesting technology useless is to mount it into a device that is not attached to your head. Like a toaster. Or a cell phone.
it would be interesting to see if this technology could work in reverse as well. Read the information from the retina that the eye is seeing, and then access usefull and pertinant information. For instance, you are looking at the night stars, and the computer locates and displays an astronomy chart over them, helping you to find and name constellations.
Re:Hold it to your eye? by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · 2002-02-12 10:05 · Score: 2

Or, just where to hit someone so that you'll kill them.

Perhaps a biofeedback mood-scanning system that prints out suggestions for terrible things to say in arguments?

--
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Re:Hold it to your eye? by Mudslayre · 2002-02-12 11:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

The only problem with the projecting would be the fact that the system is designed for transmittion into the eye rather than reception from the eye. I'm quite willing to assume that the protype was designed to minimize weight and power consumption and is not capable of receiving information like that. But it'd sure be cool - a definately worth the added weight if they integrated some additional technology to allow the device to read where your attention was.

--
Warning: you suc :P
Re:Hold it to your eye? by Loki_1929 · 2002-02-12 18:54 · Score: 1

This shouldn't be an issue. I have a Panasonic BM-ET 100US Authenticam (retinal scanner) and I usually sit about 20" away while authenticating. It takes roughly a second to three seconds to find and capture my retina, and I'm never anywhere near it.

--
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

Re:Iris scanning is the more modern method by ConceptJunkie · 2002-02-12 08:55 · Score: 2

Ummm... we're not talking about scanning the retina for identification. This is a new kind of display.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

Re:Jag gjorde det dude!.. by sonicattack · 2002-02-12 08:56 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I sacrifice my karma on the altar of gratitude.

Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 08:56 · Score: 3, Funny

that read that and saw "Macrovision" instead of "Microvision?" For a minute, I thought I was going to have to submit to a retinal scan to watch fair use disabled tapes and DVDs!

~~~

Re:Iris scanning is the more modern method by shadow303 · 2002-02-12 08:56 · Score: 1

Read the article. This has nothing to do with identification- it is about projecting an image onto the retina for viewing.

--
I've got a mind like a steel trap - it's got an animal's foot stuck in it.

Re:Iris scanning is the more modern method by MalcalypseTheYounger · 2002-02-12 08:56 · Score: 1

Interesting information, to bad it has nothing to do with the article.

Re:Iris scanning is the more modern method by TheGreatGraySkwid · 2002-02-12 08:57 · Score: 1

Next time try reading the article, mate.

This isn't talking about retinal scanning for secure identification purposes, it's talking about using a scanning laser to project images directly onto the retina.

--
The Humblest Mollusk on the Net

MVIS stock price drops on news by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 08:57 · Score: 1, Funny

MVIS stock price drops on news that another infeasible and unwanted technology was developed by the company.

"Why would anyone want to look like a dork holding a cell phone in front of their face to read their computer screen?" asked one attendee of the press conference.

"We will be able to produce hundreds of thousands of units every year!" claimed Microvision's CEO.

Skeptics remain skeptical, though, with no evidence that wearable computing ever taking off. "This is just another gimmick technology," said another attendee, "if I was really interested in computing, I'd carry a laptop or palm-sized computer. I certainly wouldn't hold a cell phone in front of my face. How would I type?"

Microvision is the leader in cell phone-based retinal scanning screens.

Re:MVIS stock price drops on news by Quixadhal · 2002-02-12 09:40 · Score: 1

Woah! Maybe we can link these with the cuecat somehow??? That way I can have a wearable linux box that can scan the barcodes at the store and automatically translate them into real prices!
Re:MVIS stock price drops on news by Com2Kid · 2002-02-12 10:45 · Score: 2

Why a cuecat? Microvision plans to soon offer a wireless barcode scanner

On the other hand, this very well might be were all of those 'destoryed' cuecats are going too. :) Chop off the tail, add an RF transmitter and. . . .:)

--
Need help treating your acne? Come here!

Re:Iris scanning is the more modern method by Zeinfeld · 2002-02-12 08:57 · Score: 2

Akk, wrong way round, this is not retinal scan this is retinal projection!

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/

Re:Iris scanning is the more modern method by PhotoGuy · 2002-02-12 08:57 · Score: 2

Ummm, this isn't eye-scanning in the traditional sense (looking at your iris/retina for security/identification purposes), but as a display.

"Retinal scanning" is a confusing term for this article to use; they mean the transmitted image is scanned across your retina as the mirror moves, so you can see the image, not so it can see your eye.

Hmmmm. If they can project it on to your eye bright enough, I wonder if with a bit of modification they could project it onto the airplane seat in front of you. A tiny projector for travel would be very cool :-)

-me

--
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.

"Identify for retina scan..." by josquint · 2002-02-12 08:57 · Score: 0, Redundant

"Kirk, Admiral James T."

.

Forget Cell phones... by ratajik · 2002-02-12 08:59 · Score: 1

Nice for Cell phones, but it sure seems like this has some massive applications for any portable type of computer. With the size of laptops coming down each year, I would imagine being able to, in effect, get rid of the display could REALLY reduce them. Imagine having a 1 ghz machine, large about of storage (IBM micro-drives come to mind), and a tiny display you can "peek" into, that would fit in your pocket. Or having a notebook size display on a Pilot. Very cool...

Re:Forget Cell phones... by Uberminky · 2002-02-12 09:10 · Score: 2

Or having a notebook size display on a Pilot
Yeah... that would be so cool.
(What the heck?!?!?)

--
The streets shall flow with the blood of the Guberminky.
Re:Forget Cell phones... by ehikory · 2002-02-12 09:40 · Score: 1

Rather than a pilot, try either the Panasonic Toughbook 07 or one of the machines from Saint Song. These provide modern (Pentium) processors, decent HD space, etc: as much as most notebooks and many light desktops. The problem is power: most machines require a fair amount of power (54W draw for the Cappaccino Gx1), which means a *lot* of batteries.
Re:Forget Cell phones... by BdosError · 2002-02-12 09:40 · Score: 1

Once again, I have to ask how this largely redundant comment got moderated as 2? Or is this some karma laden user who gets to post crap at an inflated level?

--
Complexity is Easy. Simplicity is Hard.
Re:Forget Cell phones... by ncc74656 · 2002-02-12 10:11 · Score: 2

Once again, I have to ask how this largely redundant comment got moderated as 2?

It wasn't.
Or is this some karma laden user who gets to post crap at an inflated level?

You're jealous, aren't you? Perhaps if you posted worthy comments instead of bitching about why others' posts are rated higher than yours, you might get +1 posting yourself.

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:Forget Cell phones... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 15:15 · Score: 0

That post wasn't redundant in any way. I was making a sarcastic comment to emphasize the fact that the statement to which I was replying appears to make little sense. (A laptop screen on a Pilot? What the heck does that mean?)
Now, regarding your comment about it getting moderated to +2. The other poster is correct, nobody moderated it at all. I simply forgot to check the "No Score +1 Bonus" box before posting (I would have, had I remembered. I'm frankly against the bonus, myself, but I can't find a way to turn it off). If you know of a global way to set this on by default (which I'm guessing you don't based on the fact that you didn't appear to know about it at all), please let me know, as I am too busy gaining buttloads of karma to care. Muawahahahahahaha!!!!! Or something. It's all a big conspiracy, man. Me, the Feds, Taco... we have secret meetings every week to discuss our hidden agendas and how to push them on you, The Little Guy. Or something....

Re:Iris scanning is the more modern method by flink · 2002-02-12 08:59 · Score: 1

You may want to take a closer look at the article. It's about retinal scanning displays, not biometrics. The laser paints an image on your retina , creating an overlaid HUD.

This is a PROJECTOR, not a scanner by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

Retinal scanning is when you read the retina, not when you present things for the retina to scan.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=scan

Re:This is a PROJECTOR, not a scanner by skroz · 2002-02-12 09:31 · Score: 2

The term "retinal scanning display" comes from the fact that the beam (from lasers or LEDs) "scans" across your retina much like electron guns scan aross the back of a CRT. Not exactly the same, the good enough for an analogy.

--
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.

Portable DVD, Yes; Portable Phone, No by TheMatt · 2002-02-12 09:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Okay, I can see this as a new type of Glasstron like system for portable DVD players (has to be cheaper than the 8" LCD on current ones). But in no way should this be in a cell phone. I can barely walk and talk on one of those, but walk, talk, and view a movie, I'd hurt people. In a car, I'd be a moving traffic violation.

One other question, what about those of us with glasses, can the system work around that, or will I have to start wearing a monocle like Mr. Peanut?

--

Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!

Re:Portable DVD, Yes; Portable Phone, No by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:04 · Score: 0

dare to be different. follow the peanut.
Re:Portable DVD, Yes; Portable Phone, No by TheMatt · 2002-02-12 09:22 · Score: 1

I should! I can get a top hat and cane easily from a friend. Now, where to buy a prescription monocle...

And here is another question, what about epileptics that respond to flashing lights? I'm thinking this bugger will have government warnings up the wazoo about that. "Let's move the flashing LEDs as close the eye as we can..."

--
Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!
Re:Portable DVD, Yes; Portable Phone, No by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 10:29 · Score: 0

Not like Mr. Peanut, probably more like Colonel Klink.

Brings to mind Diamond Age by Suicyco · 2002-02-12 09:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Anyone remember the advertising in Diamond Age where images were broadcast directly into the eyes of passersby on the street? I can imagine this on a scale where these are placed in strategic locations in supermarkets, on the street, heck even the freeway. Scary, that you could have images directly placed onto your retina that are beyond your control (other then closing your eyes) Talk about mucking with reality, but then there's a whole new market for special sun glasses that reflect this kind of bombardment... Oakley Ad Blockers!

Re:Brings to mind Diamond Age by IAgreeWithThisPost · 2002-02-12 09:15 · Score: 0

that's sweet, chief. You get right on that.

--
security through obscurity = modding down anti-linux posts so maybe noone will see them
Re:Brings to mind Diamond Age by Wire+Tap · 2002-02-12 09:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, one of the people mentioned (when Stephenson was going on about this technology) killed himself BECAUSE the ads were present even when he closed his eyes.

--
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
Re:Brings to mind Diamond Age by Galvatron · 2002-02-12 09:32 · Score: 2

How's that different from how things work now? The lasers would need LOS to your retina for this to work, and if they have LOS to your retina, then you would still be able to see a bilboard placed in the same spot.

I guess they might be able to make the ad look BIGGER then they could otherwise.

--
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Re:Brings to mind Diamond Age by Suicyco · 2002-02-12 11:11 · Score: 2

It could also be 3 dimensional and would only be limited to your entire current line of sight. A tiny laser tracking your eyes on a billboard could make it appear that a car is about to smash into you via your peripheral vision, or put something 2 feet in front of you when the laser is actually 100 yards away. It could place a person walking towards you that would be indistinguishable from the real thing. That is much more then a 2d billboard could ever do. And much more intrusive.
Re:Brings to mind Diamond Age by 5KVGhost · 2002-02-12 16:14 · Score: 1

"Talk about mucking with reality, but then there's a whole new market for special sun glasses that reflect this kind of bombardment... Oakley Ad Blockers!"

Yeah, but looking at all those big OBEY, CONSUME, and PROCREATE billboards would get pretty dull.
Re:Brings to mind Diamond Age by trumpetplayer · 2002-02-12 21:07 · Score: 1

Pretty much like the junkbuster..
Re:Brings to mind Diamond Age by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-13 03:41 · Score: 0

Not very likely since you need to have a pretty precise alignment between the "projecting" lasers and your eye - at least in the sens that it needs to be directly exactly at your eye for the effect to work. This may work for a split second, but not long enough for you to make sense of it (conciously or unconciously ala subliminal messages) You couldn't catch this out of the corner of your eye for instance, and that's part of how billboards and ads work. In order to truly project an image directly into someone's head you would need to monkey about with the quantum computer we all have in our heads (think nano-tubules, quantum entanglement of chemical transport molecules or individual atoms in the nanotubules)

but still pretty cool

Re:Iris scanning is the more modern method by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:01 · Score: 0

well...then it's a good thing the title is Retinal-Scanning Screen Prototypes innit?

Super VGA by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:02 · Score: 0

Is super VGA not 1024x768, this was my understanding, however the artical cites SVGA as being 800x600

Re:Super VGA by Zurk · 2002-02-12 09:17 · Score: 2, Informative

nope. here's the official list :
Herc/MDA 80 x 25 text
CGA 320 x 200
EGA 640 x 350
VGA 640 x 480
SVGA 800 x 600
XGA 1024 x 768
SXGA 1280 x 1024
UXGA 1600 x 1200
Re:Super VGA by Destoo · 2002-02-12 09:21 · Score: 0, Redundant

QVGA/CGA 320x240
VGA 640x480
SVGA 800x600
XGA 1024x768
SXGA 1280x1024
SXGA+ 1400x1200
UXGA 1600x1200
VXGA 1920x1440
DXGA 2048x1536

official list from where, Zurk?
this one is from here.

--
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
Re:Super VGA by PaulGibson · 2002-02-12 09:44 · Score: 1

Back when I went to college, I bought an IBM PS/2 Model 30. This baby was screaming (8086 8MHz), and I got the 20MB hard drive, instead of the 2 floppy drives, all for a cool $3500. It came with MCGA graphics. What was that? I remember that it also came with Windows 2.0, which came with a cool Othello game called reversi. This was about the last version of Windows (tm) that I enjoyed using by the way.
So, why does this MCGA not show up on the list? I was quite proud of this machine until my roomate showed up with the model 50. That sucker was a 286 running at 16Hz. WOW.
I also had a Beta.
Re:Super VGA by jhantin · 2002-02-12 10:20 · Score: 1

MCGA was an odd one: 320x200 256 color (fitting nicely into 64000 bytes of video memory). The VGA is capable of emulating this mode, but can only use 64k of its 256k video memory for it; to use the full 256k, planar interleaving (aka Mode X) is required.

--
...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k

Great for Singles Bars! by iforgotmyfirstlogon · 2002-02-12 09:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Now you can just superimpose a cute face and slender figure instead of having to drink one into place! Think of the cost savings!

- Freed

--
"Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love." -Turkish Proverb

Re:Great for Singles Bars! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:09 · Score: 0

This is an augmented reality head set. You're thinking of virtual reality.

Sheesh by Reality+Master+101 · 2002-02-12 09:04 · Score: 2

and I'm not quite sure I want to beta test this one,

That's like saying you don't want to test a View Master 3D toy because you're afraid they might have put a search-light-power light bulb inside.

Do you really think they're putting a 1 watt laser in this thing?

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.

Re:Sheesh by ErikTheRed · 2002-02-12 09:10 · Score: 2

Do you really think they're putting a 1 watt laser in this thing?

From a press release six months from now:

"Well, the main thing preventing us from mass-deployment at this point is the large holes being burned through the skulls of our beta testers. We hope to have this problem resolved soon...

This release may contain forward-looking statements and other such bullshit..."

--

Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Re:Sheesh by dstone · 2002-02-12 09:24 · Score: 2

Power isn't the only thing that can damage or cause discomfort, eye strain, headaches, seizures, etc. Research and even a few things that made it to mass-consumption have shown that rapidly flashing or rythmically scanning a "safe" (read: low-power) light can be dangerous. Additional dangers are possible in a stereoscopic scenario, where you can present fields that cause the eyes to converge or diverge on a target too much. (And this is under pure software control!) If you watched the strobing-eye robots in Japan or were a developer for the Nintendo Virtual Boy, you'll know what I'm talking about!

My point is that burning away the retinal surface isn't the only thing to be concerned about.
Re:Sheesh by lukesl · 2002-02-12 10:54 · Score: 1

Research and even a few things that made it to mass-consumption have shown that rapidly flashing or rythmically scanning a "safe" (read: low- power) light can be dangerous.

It's true that flashing lights can cause seizures, but those have to be flashing extremely slowly relative to video displays (something like 4Hz). This is a different situation than scanning, which is what goes on in a CRT. If the refresh rate is high enough, the photoreceptor cells in your retina can't tell that it's different from a continuous light source. LEDs are certainly fast enough to implement insane refresh rates--the limitation lies in the scanning apparatus itself (doing the faster of the scan axes). Doing it mechanically with a vibrating mirror (like it sounds like they're doing) can be difficult because at high speeds the mirror will want to oscillate sinusoidally, which can be corrected in various ways but would be a pain in the ass. I'm not sure what the limitation is on how fast they can be used without that type of correction, but there are more exotic things like acoustooptic deflectors you can use that don't have these limitations.

Laser light / Normal light by Renraku · 2002-02-12 09:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

Any kind of light ultimately damages the eye. Some types do more damage than others. Lasers, notorious for being high power and having the ability to easily blind people have gotten a bad rep. Low-power lasers do very little harm, probably less harm than a few minutes outdoors on a bright Winter day. I believe they are doing this now, or will be starting to, paint images on the retina directly using a laser for flight and other types of training.

--
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?

Re:Laser light / Normal light by WolfWithoutAClause · 2002-02-12 10:25 · Score: 3, Informative

> Any kind of light ultimately damages the eye.

As far as I can tell, that's not actually correct. UV and the bluer light frequencies cause damage, but provided the intensity isn't too high the lower frequencies cause no known damage.

In this case there is no reason the intensity would be sufficient to cause any damage.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:Laser light / Normal light by mesocyclone · 2002-02-12 10:59 · Score: 3, Funny

Renraku emitted:

Any kind of light ultimately damages the eye

So what are we to do? Apparently we must keep our eyes tightly shut, from birth, except in complete darkness. Otherwise the light will damage them!
Sigh!

--
The only good weather is bad weather.

Now... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:06 · Score: 1, Funny

If I could just get this sewn in my eyeball, along with the IBM Microdrive inside my armpit, and the firewire port on my ass,...

I guess I'd need a driver.

This has been done before.... by Creedo · 2002-02-12 09:09 · Score: 1

I remember reading about a system virtually identical to this several years ago(maybe the same company, even). I was big into VR then, and I thought that this would be a hell of a way to create an immersive system.

Creedo

--
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.

Re:This has been done before.... by cosmosis · 2002-02-12 09:17 · Score: 2

This is the same company. Their long-term goal is to be the premier provider for displays for virtual and especially augmented reality systems.

--
www.enthea.org
Re:This has been done before.... by technomancerX · 2002-02-12 09:24 · Score: 2

It's the same company... the company came out U of Washington's HIT Lab... unfortunately the company is (or was) a scam... they negotiated an exclusive licens for the tech from the HIT Lab, IPOed, and then the founders both sold all of their stock and took off, basically leaving a promising idea tied up in a hollow shell of a company...
The problem is that the technology requires incredibly small, precise optics that move at high speed... this can be done, but they have yet to produce anything durable enough for consumer use...

--
.technomancer
Re:This has been done before.... by HughsOnFirst · 2002-02-12 10:26 · Score: 1

Reflection Technology had a display called the ``Private Eye'', and nintendo used somthing like it in the virtualboy. Seemed "durable enough for consumer use" , didn't sell so well though. I wish I had one. This was about ten years ago did Reflection Technology become Microvision ?
Re:This has been done before.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 23:30 · Score: 0

TI has been making the mirror chips for around 10 years now. They are in high end presentation projectors.

Misreading by 3141 · 2002-02-12 09:10 · Score: 1

I thought it said three LEADS and a mirror. That would have been impressive.

Very cool... by jasno · 2002-02-12 09:10 · Score: 2

Now what i'd like to see is this technology applied to creating a cheap display for consumer devices. I used to design consumer products (cordless, not cell, phones) and we were very interested in adding advanced features, but the cost of the LCD was always prohibitive.

What about increasing the intensity of the LEDs (Laser diodes perhaps?) and scanning a small portion of the wall adjacent to the device. Most people (the the US anyway) have fairly smooth, white walls. The only drawback would be getting it bright enough to be seen in a light room.

--

http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/

Re:Very cool... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:17 · Score: 0

Congratulations, you've reinvented the video projector! Please proceed to the USPTO to claim your prize.
Re:Very cool... by jhantin · 2002-02-12 10:31 · Score: 1

Congratulations, you've reinvented the video projector! Please proceed to the USPTO to claim your prize.

A scanning projector with a reasonably powered laser sounds like it might be just the ticket for brighter displays. One of the major headaches with current projection video systems is that projected CRTs need to be driven so hard that they burn in very rapidly. The big difficulty may be moving the horizontal scan mirror quickly and accurately enough -- for 640x480 at 85Hz refresh, you're looking at 43 KHz horizontal sync!

--
...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k

Simple fix by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:11 · Score: 0

Just walk around blindfolded.

YEAY, Another Microvision Press Release by technomancerX · 2002-02-12 09:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Microvision puts out a press release roughly once per year AND NEVER RELEASES ANY DAMN PRODUCTS. They've been working on making this technology work since ~1993 and still have nothing to show for it. It's vapor, move along.

1998 - Retinal Display - 1280 x 1024 resolution
2000 - New Device Could Overcome Low Vision
2001 - Eyeballing the Future of Retina Scanning Lasers

--
.technomancer

SNL by Mondrames · 2002-02-12 09:14 · Score: 2

Reminds me of the "Jeffrey's" Sketch with P. Brosnan - Will Farrel whips out his email pager -
He wears it on his finger, and it is the size of a matchbox. To read it he needs to put on magnifiying glasses and move the screen from side to side.

Really the only funny part of the sketch.

Scanning, like your TV, not like Star Trek. by raygundan · 2002-02-12 09:17 · Score: 1

Scanning, in the sense that the gun in your television scans as it draws the picture. As in "scanlines".

It's so cool by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:17 · Score: 0

I sure want to be seen wearing one of these around campus. I'll be the coolest guy around.

Women will flock to me and people will pay me thousands of dollars to wire their networks for them. I just feel so bad for the jocks who can't use technology as advanced as a pencil, when the geeks take over the world it will be they who will be scrounging for women.

The geek shall inherit the earth!

Re:It's so cool by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:21 · Score: 0

nope. you'd just look like a dork.

One Word: by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:18 · Score: 0

Snowcrash!

Cool.......oh CRAP Im BLIND ! by CDWert · 2002-02-12 09:18 · Score: 2

This sounds cool, and Im glad someone is on this track, in 20 years people will be sayign (as they do with TV) , 'People used to think this would hurt their eyes' , like my mom used to say about the TV.

I always love the sci-fi flicks where they have something like this on a thin stick near their eye, walking around in a dark smokey ship hold. a good slap upside the head and , ouch. no more eye.

Or the IBM commercial....same thing.

Im not so worried about the reitanl scanning effects, lasers(no not the little led jobbers), arcs, you name it and Ive looked at it. I can still see, I may have had vison problems for a day or so after some of the incidents but it healed(I know I understand some dont).

What Im WORRIED about is having something the size of a frigging pencil 1 inch from my eye, that sounds scarrier than potential retinal damage.

--
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........

metaverse by xonos · 2002-02-12 09:19 · Score: 1

when can i log into the Metaverse?

(from Snowcrash for those who do not know the reference)

Screen saver by Overphiend · 2002-02-12 09:20 · Score: 2, Funny

Just dont forget to turn on the screen saver, I would hate to have to look at a negitave of the same web page for the rest of my life.

Re:Screen saver by jjares · 2002-02-12 09:58 · Score: 1

Worse, imagine looking at the same X10 advertisement for the rest of your life!

Looks like glasses not a problem. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2002-02-12 09:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

One other question, what about those of us with glasses, can the system work around that, or will I have to start wearing a monocle like Mr. Peanut?

If the marketing sketches of the optic path accurately show the geometry of the system, you'd be able to see in focus without your glasses. (But your iris would have to be in the correct spot, i.e. you're looking in the right direction, or the image will disappear.)

The focus issue occurs because the light from a given real-world "pixel" arrives as a wide, essentially colimated (rays essentially parallel) beam, and your lens has to focus the light hitting it all over its surface down to a point, or a very small patch, on the retina. If your lens is less than perfect or not currently adjusted correctly, light from one real-world pixel striking different parts of it arrive at different spots on the retina, rather than all at one spot, defocusing the image.

Most displays illuminate the whole retina with a broad beam, allowing you to move your eye or head about and still see the image, but requiring your lens or lens-plus-glasses system to focus properly. This system MAY hit your eye with a narrow beam, which would reduce or eliminate the need for the lens to focus accurately.

But it would also require your eye to be in exactly the right spot, within the size of your pupil as viewed through your eye's lens. Eye motion would make you lose the image. So I suspect the display actually spreads out the light on its way to your eye, and you'd still need the glasses.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Re:Looks like glasses not a problem. by TheMatt · 2002-02-12 09:28 · Score: 1

...you'd be able to see in focus without your glasses

Ah, but my problem is that I need the glasses, I am quite blind and so if I decided to buy one of these as a stylish HUD or video viewer, I'd be half blind.

That's not a bad thing if I'm sitting down, but if I'm walking across campus looking cool with one of these babies on my head, I need the other eye.

--
Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!
Re:Looks like glasses not a problem. by mbessey · 2002-02-12 09:44 · Score: 2

Ah, but my problem is that I need the glasses, I am quite blind and so if I decided to buy one of these as a stylish HUD or video viewer, I'd be half blind.

No problemo. You just hook this display into a digital video camera, and the movie will be overlaid over the "real world" data.

-Mark
Re:Looks like glasses not a problem. by TheMatt · 2002-02-12 10:04 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm seeing it...I'm seeing it. Heck, if I could get that working, I wouldn't need glasses. I could just get two of these and replace them. The GavCam taken to it's limit.

"Don't hit me! I'm wearing projectors!"

--
Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!

Augmented Reality Folks by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

The real gem of this technology is that it will eventually lead to full heads-up augmented reality computing.

Imagine walking down a street or park, and projected out in front of you is all types of interactive data about whats going on. You could be hiking, and with the assistance of GPS and this retinal display, a live top map could be projected over your field of vision, giving you great insight and clues as to where you are going. Better still, such GIS information such as water, underground pipes, etc would be available for full viewing just as if you had x-ray vision.

For doctors, full 3D PET/CAT scan data could be overlayed in vivid detail right on top of the patient as the doctor operates. The doctor could see in complete detail exactly what she was doing as she made the incision.

I don't know about you but MicroVision Technologies is a stock I'm going to buy, they are going to be huge.

Re:Augmented Reality Folks by bbqdeath · 2002-02-12 10:27 · Score: 1

Ah, GPS data that's within 15 meters of being correct and updated at 1 Hz. Or, presumably, it will get more accurate and use inertial sensing to perform more frequent position and angle adjustment. Another improvement over my current GPS, of course, is that it will actually work when hiking in the woods; currently I am careful to use my compass in tandem with my GPS to perform more accurate navigation in wooded areas.

Where I see this being most useful for me personally is gaming and eventually laptops, once a suitable replacement for the keyboard is found. For gaming, I see me kicking back in a la-z-boy in my sweats in a dark room with just keyboard and mouse, exploding my buddies into bits. And when the keyboard and mouse are replaced with a more direct, just-as-efficient, less space-hogging equivalent, if they ever are, I can finally have a PC to perform even the humblest of tasks anytime, anywhere, without having to choose between lugging and setting the laptop or squinting and poking at the handheld.

Hurrah for the cool dudes who live down the street from me in Bothell, though! Makes me want to ride my bicycle down and ask for a tour.
Re:Augmented Reality Folks by charon_on_acheron · 2002-02-12 11:29 · Score: 1

"I can finally have a PC to perform even the humblest of tasks anytime, anywhere, "

Wait, that's why I got a wife. ;^)
Re:Augmented Reality Folks by RDskutter · 2002-02-13 03:03 · Score: 1

What you are describing sounds like the YOU ARE HERE program that Hiro uses in Snowcrash with the blueprints of the ship overlayed on his goggles.

I had one of those! by SpiceWare · 2002-02-12 09:24 · Score: 2

Microvision was the first hand held video game system with cartridges.

Oh, wait - that's a different Microvision :-)

It's not cell phones, stupid! by infinite9 · 2002-02-12 09:25 · Score: 2

While this may be a killer app, it certainly won't be for cell phones. I see the main market for this to be the replacement of active matrix notebook displays. If they can get the resolution to 1024x768, you can take that fold-up keyboard for palms and mix them with a small computer brick. The brick stays inside the bag and uses a possible wireless connection to the headset and keyboard. You could also replace desktop displays with this thing. Use some kind of shield to black out room light and you'll have a very emmersive heads up display. Wearable computers as well, maybe that's the cell phone angle. This reminds me of that ST:TNG episode where everyone was getting high on that head-moutned video game. Cool stuff.

--
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.

Can you say hazardous? by john82 · 2002-02-12 09:26 · Score: 1

Here in DC we just had several highway fatalities because someone was talking on her cell phone and crossed the median into the path of a minivan.

Obviously the answer is to use a phone that urges you to hold it in front of your face for even greater distraction.

Very bad idea.

If it's bright enough... by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2002-02-12 09:26 · Score: 2

Do you really think they're putting a 1 watt laser in this thing?

Doesn't matter if it's a laser or a diode, one watt or one milliwatt. If it's bright enough to paint a visible picture it's bright enough to fry the spot that's illuminated if the scanning stops with the beam on.

So they'll need a safety interlock of some sort to cut off or dim the light source if the scanning stops, or make the amount of light emitted dependent on the actual motion of the mirror, unless they can guarantee that the scanning failure modes all deflect the light away from the eye.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Now hackers can have more fun. by drink85cent · 2002-02-12 09:27 · Score: 1

Hackers will now be able to write malicious code to flash bright white light into the users eyes and blind them.

At last! by infinite9 · 2002-02-12 09:28 · Score: 2

At last! Pr0n on the morning train commute and no one will know... well, as long as I keep my coat on my lap anyway.

--
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.

Re:Now... (deja vu) by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:29 · Score: 0

didnt you post this same reponse earlier?

Skip sewing it to your ey and plug right into the old nerve endings if you go that far.

And watch out for which port you plug that new digital camera into...

What about deformed retinas? by Twister002 · 2002-02-12 09:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most nearsightedness and farsightedness is caused by the eye, and consequently the retina, not being in the correct shape.The image is formed either too far ahead or behind the retina.

I read the article but I didn't see any mention of how the beam would project on malformed retinas. If you are farsighted and you use this Microvision system, will the image appear to be deformed as well? Will it look like you are sitting too close to the movie theater screen?

--
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman

Re:What about deformed retinas? by Jerf · 2002-02-12 09:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Here's a thought; this sort of thing could replace current eye exam methodologies, or at least supplement them.

Rather then asking a series of binary questions, "Is this... or this... better?", give the examinee some control over the process and do things like "Twist this knob until the line is in focus."

Where this could become really useful is in the more exotically deformed eyes... 'normal' near-/far-sightedness is identified plenty well by current methodologies, but imagine someone with spherical distortion being able to fiddle with the knobs until they see things correctly, and letting the computer figure out what the settings are. Or perhaps "Make this line so it doesn't curve."

One could theorectically do some of this with just a screen, but this technology might allow better control over precise focus and other similar precise controls that might make this significantly better then current practice.

I'm not an optamologist, just a nerd rambling, so perhaps this is already being looked into.
Re:What about deformed retinas? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 10:08 · Score: 0

Maybe since these LEDs are being projected on to a mirror, that the mirror could be adjustable? This would take care of focus. I understand that depth isn't the only thing you have to focus but no two eyeballs are exacly the same shape. What happens is your brain will get used to it and it will look ok.
Re:What about deformed retinas? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 10:10 · Score: 0

oh, and since this device would need to be "mounted" to your head somehow and since noone's heads are the same size/shape it needs to be adjustable for this reason.
Re:What about deformed retinas? by Christopher+Thomas · 2002-02-12 10:41 · Score: 2

Most nearsightedness [allaboutvision.com] and farsightedness [allaboutvision.com] is caused by the eye, and consequently the retina, not being in the correct shape.The image is formed either too far ahead or behind the retina.

I read the article but I didn't see any mention of how the beam would project on malformed retinas.

As long as the rays from the scanner converge on one point near the surface of your eye, this problem should be greatly reduced.

Take an old-fashioned camera, and set the aperture to something wide (low F number). Then play with the focus. Focus has to be very finely adjusted.

Now set the aperture to something narrow (high F number). Much more of the scene looks sharp - imaging is less sensitive to focus.

I'm told that retina-scanning projectors produce much the same effect (haven't tried one myself, unfortunately).
Re:What about deformed retinas? by Palidine · 2002-02-12 11:38 · Score: 1

right, except of course that nearsightedness and farsightedness are cause by your eye's lens being unable to correctly focus the light....

and of course any light entering your eye has to go through said lens.

people who can't see distant things clearly would be unaffected. people who can't see near things should not be affected.

course, if the device is smart enough to project directly through the exact center of your lens, there would be no problem for anyone b/c the light would travel in a straight line. in which case, only retinal malformation will effect your ability to see the image correctly.

-me
Re:What about deformed retinas? by Twister002 · 2002-02-12 12:08 · Score: 1

Which also brings up another point that wasn't mentioned in the article.

How will the light be affected by corrective lenses. Glasses could be removed obviously if necessary, but contacts may not. Any kind of corneal resurfacing could affect the transmission of light through it as well.

--
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman

Mod it down....+2 whore by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 09:30 · Score: 0

Read the subject. This is not a post at 2 comment. Karma whoring.

OLD Technology... by X86Daddy · 2002-02-12 09:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

...well, when it comes to this arena anyway.

MIT's 'borgs have been using prototype retinal scanning displays from various companies that have offered them for at least half a decade.

Back around '97 I was really interested in wearables, but the availability of this type of display was always a problem, and all the suppliers that the MIT crew had listed no longer sold the devices (and they were only selling them as dev-kits anyway)

Read up on MIT's "Lizzy." The most popular display back then was a single LED (red) scanning display, with 320x240 resolution, but it was the same exact technology.

Re:OLD Technology... by DerProfi · 2002-02-12 09:47 · Score: 1

Nope, I think this is different. This supposedly builds the image pixel by pixel DIRECTLY onto the retina without relying on an intermediate viewing surface. The displays used by the MIT borgs are all variations on the projection TV theme, which is old technology indeed.

--

3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!

How to keep the image steady, though? by DerProfi · 2002-02-12 09:38 · Score: 1

It's one thing to put an image up onto a screen which the eye can scan while the brain quietly does its own meatware version of Sony Steadyshot. But wouldn't countering small projector vibrations and eye movements be darned tricky? Does this require the projection unit to be clamped to the skull while the eyes are immobilzed with a Clockwork Orangesque device? Or is the thing smart enough to continuously vary where it projects each frame? Naturally, I'm skeptical...

--

3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!

What about bodily functions? by eaddict · 2002-02-12 09:40 · Score: 2

What happens if I sneeze? What if I develop pick-eye? What if my contact pops out since I didn't blink?

--
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter

Is this another vaporware company? by quan74 · 2002-02-12 09:43 · Score: 0

Can anyone point me to where you can actually find some of their technology in use? From their press release page press release page all I see are things like:
Microvision demonstrates prototype X at unheard of conference.
Microvision scores $10B contract to develop M for the army.
Microvision reports N Quarter results.
Microvision ships (ok so they actually built something) prototype Z. (but does it work).

Just curious if they've actually built anything other than a prototype in the last 12 years.....

Not the first "scanning" display. by segfaultdot · 2002-02-12 09:51 · Score: 1

One of the first "TV's" was a device called a Televisor. The technology to present a visual matrix (CRT or LCD or whatever) was not there yet, so the Baird Televisor used a single light and a spinning disk with holes cut in it in a spiral pattern. This made the effect of a dot which moved down vertically to form a line, and those lines moved from left to right to form an image. It took advantage of the human eye's "persistance of vision" to trick the viewer into believing that he/she is viewing a moving image, instead of a dot running fast vertically and horizontally.

Re:eyes...Remember Nintendo VIRTUAL BOY? by RedCard · 2002-02-12 10:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, the technology seems basically identical to Nintendo's virtual boy, but with three leds (red, green, & blue) instead of virtual boy's one (red).

Same concept: a flashing LED is scanned by an oscillating mirror, and you hold the whole thing up close to your eyes.

The Virtual Boy came with an automatic-pause feature, wherein it FORCED you to take a break every 15 minutes. Additionally, a strong warning was stuck right on the machine... it was NOT to be used by young children, because PERMANENT EYE DAMAGE could occur.

Yikes.

WALL-sized displays with this? Scalability? by RedCard · 2002-02-12 10:10 · Score: 1

Everyone seems to be missing the point (including the original company) of a technology like this that's capable of delivering high resolution.

It seems to me that you could EASILY increase the brightness of this system by using more powerful LEDs/Lasers, and have the whole contraption project a wall-sized image at high res.

This has the potential to be a heckuva lot cheaper than current bigscreen and even projection TVs, plus it could be made so light that you could hang it on the wall without ripping out the plasterboard!

You get the idea...

::yawns:: by Com2Kid · 2002-02-12 10:11 · Score: 1

One of my optic nerves never fully developed (the other one mostly developed, close enough. :) ).

I have already stated else where in other /. discussions as to how this can find some cool uses (blink your eyes, have a map of the area around you appear, great for those long road trips and such. :) Catch your bearings while stopping at a restroom. ), but all in all

I WANT SOME NEW OPTIC NERVES DAMNIT.

Or optic nerve regrowth. Or what ever works. Seriously, I just want some damn depth perception! :)

--
Need help treating your acne? Come here!

hm... by prmths · 2002-02-12 10:19 · Score: 1

is it just me or does this sound like a super-scaled down projection TV with a higher resolution?

--
p r m t h s

I need one of these... by wedg · 2002-02-12 10:22 · Score: 1

...for my bedroom, so I can identify the girl when I wake up in the morning.

--
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;

Re:WALL-sized displays with this? Scalability? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 10:27 · Score: 0

This system sounds an awful lot like the DLP (digital light processing) stuff that TI has been messing with for years. Uses micromechanical mirrors to put the image on screen. You can find DLP projectors and rear-projection TVs in most consumer electronics stores.

Re:eyes...Remember Nintendo VIRTUAL BOY? by JohnBE · 2002-02-12 10:36 · Score: 0

Yipes indeed. I wonder if we'll see law suits about any gaming tech, particularly vibrating handsets etc.. I don't think we had the virtual boy in the UK.

--
e4 e5

Be skeptical: this product violates basic optics by Dr.+Zowie · 2002-02-12 10:40 · Score: 2

Your eye is a simple camera. The cornea-and-lens assembly on the front has the job of mapping incoming angle of light to particular positions on your retina. That's how you distinguish the angle of incoming light. To generate an image on your retina, you have to change the angle at which light is incident on your eye (provided that the eye is focused properly). Since light travels in straight lines, the only way to do that is to have it arrive from different places outside your eye.

Their little scanning laser thingie can scan a beam across your eye, sure, but if your eye is focused properly the position of the final spot on your retina is independent of where the beam comes into your eye. If the spot position depended on which part of your pupil the beam passed through, then your eye wouldn't be in focus -- normally light from a given object (like the screen you're staring at now) comes through all parts of your pupil simultaneously, so the sharpness of what you see depends critically on your lens getting the job done right. So it doesn't matter how they scan their little mirror-and-laser gismo, they aren't scanning the bright spot on your retina -- they're just shining a blinkenlight at your eye.

And, yes, this argument applies to the cool gizmos in Diamond Age, too. They just don't work.

Now, if you defocus your eye, deliberately NOT looking at the projector gizmo, the system might be able to work. Try it now: hold your thumb right in front of your eye. (Take off your glasses if you have to.) The edge of your thumb looks fuzzy, right? That's because light from the edge of your thumb is passing through several parts of your pupil, and your lens is NOT set correctly to focus that light onto your retina: light from different parts of the pupil hits the retina in different places.

That opens up a nice little loophole: if you deliberately defocus your eye, then the Microvision gizmo could conceivably use that defocus to map position on your pupil to position on the image, and project a nice image on your retina directly. That works in principle, but in practice is neither small nor cheap: they'd have to have some kind of machine vision to track your pupil, at the very least, and that kind of stuff is still expensive.

I wonder if that site is one of those FTC trolls?

The beta testing reminds me of simpsons quote by Kasmiur · 2002-02-12 10:51 · Score: 1

"Sure its great for 10 years but then your eyes fall out"
-Future ned flanders

--
-THIS SPACE FOR RENT!

screensavers? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 10:51 · Score: 0

i hope the also developed some screensavers for this technology. don't want to have my desktop permanently burned onto my eye... :)

Re:eyes...Remember Nintendo VIRTUAL BOY? by JatTDB · 2002-02-12 11:03 · Score: 2

You don't know true video game joy until you stand up for the first time after an hour or two (only pansies leave the automatic pause on!) of Red Alarm on a Virtual Boy and stumble your way around the house.

Damn, I wish that system would have taken off...I could use more games for it.

--
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."

Microvision is the real deal by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 11:15 · Score: 1, Informative

While working for them briefly in 1998 I had the opportunity to test the 800 x 600 VGA retinal display and it was impressive.

They don't over hype their technology as much as they should and most of their efforts are in military contracts Vs consumer electronics.

In 1998 Microvision's business plan listed the consumer electronics market as 10 to 15 years away from using their technology in any form.

They focus on military, aviation and medical applications. The coolest thing about retinal displays is that you can paint images on the retina without disrupting your normal field of vision. This, for example, would allow a doctor to have all your vital signs imaged on the retina while they performed an operation, or a pilot to view flight and/or weapons data without taking their eyes off the sky.

Microvision bought the technology/patents from the University of Washington. The majority of employees that work there spent many years in academics (Optical-Physics PhDs). As a result the company culture is very unique and unfortunately slow paced.

They focus on improving the resolution, testing the ergonomics, and in addition, MEMS (Microelectromechanical Systems) work. The military research contracts pay their bills but don't necessarily make them rich. They know their technology will rule them all...just not for another decade. For now it is all about research and patents.

Microvision will never manufacture any form of their product in mass quantities regardless of what their press releases may say. If wearable computer and smart-phone manufacturers think they know how to implement Microvision's technology for the NBT then by all means they'll help make a prototype and sell them a license to build millions of gadgets.

Re:Now... (deja vu) by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 11:19 · Score: 0

That was "my" first on that...
I smell a good poll here.

okay, so now how do you change your password? by matman · 2002-02-12 11:19 · Score: 2

So, apart from pairing the retinal scan with some kind of changable secret (say a password, etc), what happens when someone compromises the 'electronic version' of your retina? You can't really change your retina. Same goes for other biometrics.

What's really needed ... by chris_sawtell · 2002-02-12 11:22 · Score: 1

... is for the 'phone to look deep into the owner's eyes to scan the retina, verify the user and enable the 'phone. This would fix the plague of cell-phone muggings. TV adverts via cell-phone - purgatory. Not for me thanks ever so!

oops (typo) by Palidine · 2002-02-12 11:42 · Score: 1

crap, that should have read:

people who can't see near things WOULD be affected.

Head mounted displays! by Alsee · 2002-02-12 11:50 · Score: 2

Once they get this tech small enough, it sounds perfect for creating head mounted displays approaching an ordinary pair of sunglasses.

This could be an important step towards wearable computing!

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Rectal scanners... by The+Panther! · 2002-02-12 11:55 · Score: 0, Offtopic

...yeah, my employer installed rectal scanners a while back. They seem to work fine, but there's always one or two real assholes who spend a lot of time using them.

--
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.

I work there... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 12:04 · Score: 0

I couldn't stay out of this one. This particular prototype was a full color cell phone demonstrator. It may be somewhat inconvienent to hold a phone up to your face, but you have to admit that a 21" virtual display might be nice... Of course resolution needs to be increased, of course it will be a year or two before you see the cell phone product. However, we do have a SVGA heads up product that began shipping this year. It is a monocrome red see through display that is bright enough to use in full sunlight. It's basically the same thing that the main chick was wearing in the begining of Final Fantasy (sprits within). It is being targeted for things like medical (surgury) and aircraft repair where you want to be looking at what you're working on while also having some data in your field of view (heart rate, schematics, whatever). It's a little spendy at the momment, so we aren't going for the general market, but you could do it in a binoccular setup to get 3D rendering or whatever. And I know you all probably will dissagree, but for an augmented reality display, you really only want monochrome anyhow. Full color images would block your view of the world and reduce functionality. Of course, we have a variety of full color prototypes. The goal is mobile computing, and anything else you can think of where you want a big bright display that doesn't take up any space. Ford, among others, is looking at using the technology in cars for in dash displays etc. Some of it is described at our web site, www.mvis.com. It works. It's cool. Don't knock it...

Re:Be skeptical: this product violates basic optic by egomaniac · 2002-02-12 12:17 · Score: 2

Sorry, but ... what the hell are you talking about?

Viewmasters, camera viewfinders, LCD goggles, and dozens of other devices project an image onto your eye from a small distance in front of it. The image is sharp and in focus, and in fact your eye focuses on it as if it were actually a certain distance away from your face.

If your objects held any water at all, *none* of these devices would be possible. Are you suggesting that 21st century optics technology is incapable of making light enter your eyeball at the right angle?

--
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck

The research by echoSpades · 2002-02-12 12:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Since there seem to be a ton of unthought-out posts on this I thought I'd lend some words. Although it's at the risk of only skimming most of the posts as I don't have the time.

The research for this, or at least the bulk of it, is being done at the University of Washington in the Human Interface Technology Lab (HITL). I've been to a presentation by the guy who heads the project and it actually is pretty cool. I first heard about it long ago. Another post said Microvision started talking about it in 1993 and I think that's about when I first heard about it. There's a large chunk of funding coming from the military, of course, and they'll have the first crack at it if not already. Also, Microvision had either a small prototype or a simulation of one at a job fair that I attend in the last year and it was pretty dang sweet I have to say. The prototypes that are at the UW (yes, they have in fact built them) use diode lasers in stead of LEDs. Truly, the diode lasers are fine as they put far less light in your eye than ambient light does but LEDs are more public-masses friendly. Anyway, the UW page for this is hitl.washington.edu/research/vrd/. They've probably got more technical details than Microvision does.

--
"They're either a benefit or a hazard. If they're a benefit, they're not my problem." --Deckard

Re:The research by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 12:28 · Score: 0

The HIT Lab is using the same technology but they are on a different path from Microvision. They are focusing on low vision aids and similar applications. There is little or no colaboration at this point between the two. By the end of this year, Microvision should be in low volume production of their NOMAD personal display unit. This is the monocrome, see-through head mounted display I mentioned in my other post. Again, this is a real technogy, and it really works.

Re:WALL-sized displays with this? Scalability? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 12:30 · Score: 0

That is how the expensive models of projector already work, kinda. You know, the ones with three lenses...only they have a red green and cyan lightsource converging on the projection area, instead of having a little mirror do it for them.

I work there... Repost by k'Silas · 2002-02-12 12:35 · Score: 2, Informative

I'll repost this, since the "anonymous coward" stuff tends to get ignored. This particular prototype was a full color cell phone demonstrator. It may be somewhat inconvienent to hold a phone up to your face, but you have to admit that a 21" virtual display might be nice... Of course resolution needs to be increased, of course it will be a year or two before you see the cell phone product. However, we do have a SVGA heads up product that began shipping this year. It is a monocrome red see through display that is bright enough to use in full sunlight. It's basically the same thing that the main chick was wearing in the begining of Final Fantasy (sprits within). It is being targeted for things like medical (surgury) and aircraft repair where you want to be looking at what you're working on while also having some data in your field of view (heart rate, schematics, whatever). It's a little spendy at the momment, so we aren't going for the general market, but you could do it in a binoccular setup to get 3D rendering or whatever. And I know you all probably will dissagree, but for an augmented reality display, you really only want monochrome anyhow. Full color images would block your view of the world and reduce functionality. Of course, we have a variety of full color prototypes. The goal is mobile computing, and anything else you can think of where you want a big bright display that doesn't take up any space. Ford, among others, is looking at using the technology in cars for in dash displays etc. Some of it is described at our web site, www.mvis.com. It works. It's cool. Don't knock it...

Re:I work there... Repost by kramerj · 2002-02-12 20:24 · Score: 1

I got a demo of the Full Color display where I work now.. We do aviation software for the Pocket PC, and it would be a great matchup to use in a airplane, where you don't want your focus concentrated on a pocketpc screen, rather on your real instruments and out the windows if your not flying by instruments.. All these slashdot weenies that have said its vapor, we got to check it out here, they really do have working prototypes.. the only problems, and they are working on them, is that certain colors don't naturally show up correctly (magenta for example), because the background noise factor plays down the color, even when it is a LOT brighter than the rest of the colors.. anyhow, it does work, and I got to see a demo first hand.. Thanks Microvision...

Jay

--
"What's this script do? unzip ; touch ; finger ; mount ; gasp ; yes ; umount ; sleep Hint for the answer: not everyth

Re:Be skeptical: this product violates basic optic by Dr.+Zowie · 2002-02-12 12:36 · Score: 2

No, no, those devices all work on a different principle. They send light into your eye as (more-or-less) collimated beams!

Take your simple Viewmaster. Holding a viewmaster slide right up against your eye illuminates different parts of your pupil with different bits of image -- light passes from the sun or the room lights or whatever through the slide and onto your eye, so there's a little image of the slide projected onto your pupil. What do you see? A blurry mess.

Now stick the Viewmaster slide into the viewer. Lenses in the viewer convert the positional information on the slide into angular information that your eye can process. What do you see? A nice picture of a dinosaur, or whatever.

The point is that the image can only be as big as the apparent size of the lens in the viewmaster. These guys have lots of graphics showing tiny lenses projecting into your eye from far away. That can't work the way that they say. The lens has to be able to get "at" all the different angles coming out of your eye.

It seems to me that they have a sort of (but not very) interesting technology and they're hyping it as the Next Big Thing. But the Big Thinginess comes from applications that are physically impossible. You don't need a laser diode and a scanning mirror to make a ViewMaster work, and there are very nice VR goggles and such that use conventional (if small) LCD displays.

Re:Be skeptical: this product violates basic optic by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 12:38 · Score: 0

You have no clue as to how the targeting systems in an Apache helicopter work, do you?

Re:Be skeptical: this product violates basic optic by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 13:02 · Score: 0

The point is that the image can only be as big as the apparent size of the lens in the viewmaster.

You don't have a clue about you're talking about. This technology has been around for a couple of years, both at Microvision and before that in research labs at the University of Washington. It's not a scam.

I suppose it's "physically impossible" for my LCD projector to produce a 10 foot image, considering that the lens is only about 3" across?

Re:Be skeptical: this product violates basic optic by Dr.+Zowie · 2002-02-12 13:16 · Score: 2

No, not at all. Your LCD projector works by mapping pixels to angle. Each pixel in the image goes out at a different angle, so it hits the screen at a different place.

But the screen is a crucial part of the LCD projector system. If you try to beam images straight into your eye with the projector, what do you see? Try it sometime -- stand in front of the screen. You see a bright lens that looks really tiny, because it's only 3" across and halfway across the room.

The only way to project images directly into your eye is with a lens whose apparent size is larger than the image you want to project (``apparent'' because you can use a close, small lens like a camera viewfinder, or a large, distant lens like those old Fresnel-lens projection televisions...)

If these guys are relying on you to hold their tiny 3" screen up to your head, they've just reinvented viewfinders, which is no big deal. If they want you to project images on the wall, they've just reinvented projectors, also no big deal. They seem to be claiming that they've invented something else entirely -- a screenless projector, if you will, like the interface that Hiro uses in The Diamond Age, but without the cool shades to scatter the light into his eyes. That's not possible, for the reasons I described (apparently not too clearly) above.

Re:Be skeptical: this product violates basic optic by Dr.+Zowie · 2002-02-12 13:23 · Score: 2

Actually, I do. They use a clear hologram to project light into your eye. The hologram is clear so that you can see through it. It also scatters light into your eye. The light comes from a lens or laser that's mounted on the dashboard or the ceiling or something. The hologram isn't what does the projection -- it just scatters the light back to the pilot.

The important point is that different pixels have to come from different places, so that they could get into the pilot's eye at different angles (so that they'd hit different parts of the pilot's retina). You still can't beat the apparent-size-of-the-last-optic problem, because light travels in straight lines when it's not interacting with optics.

Re:Be skeptical: this product violates basic optic by k'Silas · 2002-02-12 13:27 · Score: 2, Informative

You've got it exactly. It's a screenless projector (or your retina is the screen), though it does have a lense to bounce it into your eye (or at least the head mounted ones do). The cell phone prototype sets the focus depth with a physical stop that you set against your head. The head mounted product, has a depth of field adjustment (as you mentioned) so you can set the image focus to match your preffered field of view. I believe (though I'm not sure) that the focus plane can be from about 2 feet and out. The NOMAD product is designed to be used while working on something, so the focus is usually very close. It really works quite well, and I haven't used the newest models.

Re:Be skeptical: this product violates basic optic by Dr.+Zowie · 2002-02-12 13:32 · Score: 2

Gotcha. I don't mind claims that it's a cool new way of making a head-mounted display, that's fine. But it's not nearly as cool as the sight would have you believe (or as most Slashdotters seem to believe). Imagine having to hold your cell phone RIGHT UP TO YOUR EYE to see the display in it. Yuck.

But the "concepts" PDF on the site shows lots of applications where the graphics just hang in space, near a small-looking projector. (Check out the one with the Cessna dashboard, or the sports-car ``concept'' image). That's misleading and physically impossible, and that's what I'm complaining about.

Re:Be skeptical: this product violates basic optic by k'Silas · 2002-02-12 13:42 · Score: 2, Informative

I have to admit that I haven't looked at the web site details in a while, and you've got to realize that the marketing guys do run amok on occasion, but it is hard to draw pictures of what's going on.

The concept is not that an image will hang in the air (like you said, impossible). However, if there is an exit pupil in the dash and you look at it, you will see what appears to be a large screen superimposed onto you view of the dashboard. If you make the focus of the image significantly different than the where the dash is, you will only see the image (think looking through a screen door, you only see the screen if you focus on it.).

I think the real probem with this thread is that it started on the cell phone prototype, which has some flaws (being a first gen prototype and all).
The real products that we make are all head mounted displays.

reminds me of this ST:TNG episode... by deander2 · 2002-02-12 13:45 · Score: 2

where Riker brings back a head mounted thing from Risa (sp?) that projects an image right into your eyes. They called it "just a game", but it wound up enslaving the entire ship.

One of the few (if not the only) Wesley episodes I thought was good, and he got a hot girl to boot. ;-)

--
http://kered.org

Re:reminds me of this ST:TNG episode... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-13 08:31 · Score: 0

"The Game".

The "hot girl" was Ashley Judd.

Re:Be skeptical: this product violates basic optic by Dr.+Zowie · 2002-02-12 16:56 · Score: 2

Cool. Thanks for the info.

Cheers,
Craig

Re:WALL-sized displays with this? Scalability? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 21:21 · Score: 0

This is exactly how they work. Digital mirror though only 2 positions. Funny thing is that the reason the technology has not been adopted is that its to expensive.

Re:Iris scanning is the more modern method by Anonymous Coward · 2002-02-12 23:14 · Score: 0

Strange - I remember Zeinfeld (is that how it's spelled) as being funny, pleasant, and always with a new angle!

Perception and /. by TheConfusedOne · 2002-02-13 02:03 · Score: 1

>>Or optic nerve regrowth. Or what ever works. Seriously, I just want some damn depth perception! :)

I think you really need to look elsewhere to perceive either real or imagined depth.

--
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.

Never say never by Strange+Ranger · 2002-02-13 02:43 · Score: 1

Microvision ships first Nomad Personal Display Systems

"The company is targeting applications for workers in four vertical markets -- industrial, aerospace, medical, and military -- that enable customers to keep information in front of people engaged in manual tasks or on the move, noted Rick Rutkowski, Microvision CEO. The first shipments reflect the diverse applications for the Nomad system that Microvision is developing with customers and partners:

Stryker Leibinger (a division of Stryker Corporation) will couple the Nomad system with a surgical workstation. The display will provide surgeons with a see-through display so they can visualize the surgical field while viewing targeting and guidance information provided by the workstation. The system has the potential to improve accuracy and decrease operative time."

--

Operator, give me the number for 911!

Pure 100% vaporware by jdoeii · 2002-02-13 03:44 · Score: 1

Take a look at the market (ticker MVIS). When the news was announced the stock gained about $1. Then in the next day it lost it all. The market thinks it's all BS.

Here is the page where they describe the would be product http://www.mvis.com/prod_microdisplay.htm
It has nothing but marketing talk and a dated "Concept" document.

The page for investors has some info on future products. The microdisplay is not listed there. Obviously, it's not going to be released in foreseable future.

Slashdot Mirror

Retinal-Scanning Screen Prototypes

193 comments