Slashdot Mirror
Retinal-Scanning Screen Prototypes
Troed writes: "Microvision demonstrated a prototype display that uses three leds and a mirror to display SVGA
graphics from something small enough to be put into cellphones." Not
a lot of technical details, but what's there looks good. It'll be
a few years at best before the prototypes turn into real products, and
I'm not quite sure I want to beta test this one, but I sure can't
wait for when they are ready for prime time.
~~~
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!
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!
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."
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?
.technomancer
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
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
...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.
>>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?