Slashdot Mirror
Laser HUD Projected on Retina
Ligur writes: "The scoop is at the Seattle P-I: 'This fall, Bothell-based Microvision Inc. plans to give people the same cybernetic experience that once existed only in a screenwriter's imagination.
Through a device called Nomad, people will be able to read information from a small, wearable computer that projects an image over their normal vision.'" Looks like they've come a long way in the past three years.
Anyone else worried about having a laser beam blasted at their retina?
"Hey Mike, let's go hack Fred's laser while he's out at lunch, we'll crank up the laser's output power..." teeheeheeee what a wheeze.
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
It would be interesting to see how this would be integrated with our current set of home devices. Right now it appears the cost is a bit too much for the average geek.
Still, this does sound like promising technology.
The problem that I have with their technology is that it seems to have a very narrow range of focus. Unless you're pretty still, it's out of focus. Unless there is some way to really anchor this unit to your head (like maybe some surgical implants!), I'm not really interested.
Sure, it's all fun and games until airport security starts ripping them off of people at the gates. Then we'll have starry-eyed cyborgs blundering into baggage racks and falling down all over the place :)
(yes, I feel sorry for the guy who got worked over by customs, but I also find the idea of confused cyborgs running into things very funny. So sue me.)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
How about my contact lenses? Will they get messed up by this?
Nothing like a piece of melting plastic in your eye to wake you up. I highly recommend it.
Sent from your iPad.
I hope this HUD doesn't have the same problem as old monocrhome monitors with burn-in. That would suck a lot.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
I think the important thing to remember is that they are shooting for something really usable in 5 years.
I would think this a bit optimistic if it weren't for how rapidly they have gotten this far.
All the posts about shortcomings miss the point. They know about those shortcoming but they may have many of them fixed in a much shorter timespan than anyone would have imagined even a few years ago.
The potential is astounding.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Wouldn't that mean your vision fades in and out if you watch a DVD? No thanks.
sulli
RTFJ.
Combine this with a wearable computer to project the naked bodies of porn stars over people we see every day. Now, instead of undressing the girl in marketing with my eyes I can undress her with my cyborg-eye.
This sounds a lot like several science fiction shows/movies. Isn't this how the Total Recall device worked? and I'm sure there were others.
Seems like every time I think an idea on a TV show is good, someone goes and invents it for real... I'm starting to think the only sci-fi ideas that I won't see in my lifetime are the ones that are actuall physically impossible.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
Way back in the day, the Bell System introduced one of the very first cordless phones under the name NOMAD. I remember seeing these at Bell Phone Center stores before the AT&T breakup in 1984. So yes, the name has been used for all sorts of things.
sulli
RTFJ.
I would be interested to see if they have performed any studies (short term/long term) on the possibility of retinal damage due to projecting lasers directly on the retina. Anyone?
There's lots of stuff that folks are doing to their eyes these days that has no long term data on. For example, Viagra (yes, that Viagra) works because it is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor. We need phosphodiesterase for normal pigment turnover in the photoreceptors of the eyes and lots of evidence indicates photoreceptor loss in various models of phosphodiesterase genetic knock outs. Additionally, if you inhibit the phosphodiesterase of photoreceptors even short term, it leads to the build up of cyclic-GMP which results in increased Na+ permeability and continued deploarization of the photoreceptor membrane potential. The end result is that the photoreceptor no longer responds to light.
I wonder if folks are trading impotency for blindness. By projecting lasers on retinas are we trading more information for blindness?
On the other hand, projecting laser images onto the retina could certainly benefit those that suffer from various forms of vision loss. Perhaps by mapping out where folks have lost vision in their retinas, it may be possible to project the outside world onto the working portions of retina or magnify certain things onto retinas as well.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Uh, I'd rather have depth perception than my stock quotes superimposed on my field of vision.. That damn thing covers that guys entire right eye!!!
This needs to be able to identify what I'm looking at so that I can get more information on the subject. Things like "That tree is a Larch" or "That guy is the perfect size for kicking his ass and taking his clothes".
Every person walking down the street gets rendered to your eyes as Ali Larter.
Don't like the color or your car - write a mod so you see it as you like.
Change fonts on signs/books/etc... as you wish with OCR.
An interesting technology. Long-term it looks like it has a lot of potential. But for the time being, it looks like MicroOptical (http://www.microopticalcorp.com/) is a better choice for wearables. They're less obtrusive and they can already do color. And, while they're still not cheap, they are cheaper.
I definitely want to see power-consumption and resolution specs for Nomad, though!
Anybody else bothered by the fact that the article kept describing this as a holographic display?
-chrism
The article said that people who are legally blind (most likely because their eyes don't focus correctly) can see the laser image pasted on their retinas.
Attach this device to a head-mounted camera (even a cheap web-cam would work) and you could pretty much restore vision, much like hearing aids work. I would love to see these things helping the average person, as well as professionals who need the extra edge (doctors, astronauts, etc).
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
It's been in Serious Sam several years ago?
What do you mean Serious Sam is not real life? They're not using UNREAL engine!
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
I think humor is one of the last things left that our peculiar western society allows us to make purely subjective value judgements about. Things that were once morally unthinkable are now valid lifestyle choices. Prejudice, even if based on experience or education, is unacceptable. Wanna shut down the conversation at a dinner party? Start expressing the opinion that certain things are just absolutely right and others are absolutely wrong.
But funny is always open to interpretation. If it ain't funny, you're free to say so. Loudly, if you want. Won't offend anybody.
So yeah, I guess you could say I subscribe to a universal humor scale whereby everything is judged. It's called my sense of humor, and I consider it absolute.
Nyah.
(HHOS)
This device reminds me of the display Hiro uses in Neal Stephemson's "Snow Crash." No monitor, per se, but instead, a laser paints his eye with the image of the metaverse. Same idea, it seems. I like it (my 21 inch monitors are so bulky!), but I agree with an earlier post that these devices should be held under the same kind of scrutiny that medical eqipment is. The innovation is great (and it's about time!) but it _must_ be safe.
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
...called the Spectrum. 24 bit svga 800*600, configurable as a stereoscopic binocular display. Sounds like quake through this thing would be incredible.
"If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
Imagine having a beowulf cluster of these shooting at one of your eyes!!
Wait a second...
Ok. Maybe that's not such a good idea after all.
I stole this Sig
When you think about it, though, the phenomenon makes a lot of sense. The beam is as bright as (average pixel brightness) * (total pixels on the screen). If you concentrate the brightness of the entire screen on one point, that point is going to be very bright and may well be damaged.
And that brings us to the problem here. If you burn the phosper off a little dot on your TV's picture tube, it's not the end of the world - you can just buy a new TV. But if you burn a spot in your retina, it's there forever unless you can get an eye transplant. If you used such a low-power laser or electron beam that this wouldn't happen, your picture would be too dim to see.
Mr. Uptime
Free Open Source Naked Ladies!
I know that several others have mentioned it, but here's a bit different take.
We all know that when you release DNA modified foods (IE Monsanto et al) you only have to show that no one can prove it causes catestrophic damage. (I know, I'm simplifiying it alot, but that's the general standing.) Since there aren't any really well funded opponents to the technology, then it pretty much sails through. The general rule seems to be...If it's for business, we don't want to hold this up, cause it might cost someone a lot of money. If it might harm someone - well, the market will fix things...
Which brings me to another issue - why do the "market driven" proponents hate the tort/legal system so much? When the system works right, the "market" determines what works by trial and error! So, if you're one of the unfortunate few to pick the wrong one, you're injured (loss of funds, health etc.) and others learn from your unfortunate mistake. It's the ones injured by the "market" process that need the legal system the most, and also the ones that deserve it the most too! So, if you love the market, then you really should love the legal system too. It's the only way a true market can be fair - or do you not care that those who you "learned" from are uncompensated Guinea Pigs?
Back to the issue at hand - what serious tests are the FDA going to require for something like this? How long will the test run? I'd hate to use a product like this, and find out in ten years that my right eye was irreparably damaged, and in my later years of life I'd loose vision from that eye! I'd bet that the requirements for testing and use are quite a bit less than we'd all assume. Lastly, I'd bet that any company that releases such a device will put the manufacturer and the seller in a shell corp, to limit the liability losses. They won't hold many assets, and will pass revenue and such to the parent. 15 years from now, provided there is some problem, good luck suing the company - they just paid out huge bonuses to the execs and went out of business.
If you think the above is poppy-cock, go do some research about the IUD Dalcon Shield. The manufacturer (who was really regulated by the FDA) got a horrible product into the market, and didn't care when it irreparably damaged many many women - many couldn't have children after their problems!
The idea's cool and all, but the real killers are in the details. How much testing is done. Who peer reviews it. How often must they report problems to the FDA, and what problems do they have to report? These and many other details will significantly impact the safety of the device. Finally, what legal liability the company might risk, will also impact how informal they are with the testing and implimentation.
I wouldn't be using the product myself for any period of time, until I understood the impacts of the following, and knew where the company stood.
Cheers!
U. of Wisconsin predates U. of Washington by, what, thirty years? Therefore, we get first dibs on acronyms.
dinner: it's what's for beer
...by now -- since the article they linked is dated Monday, June 18, 2001. Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! June of last year!
See here. It's already been on Slashdot, even.
Yeah, the hot news is always on Slashdot, kids.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
Unfortunately along with the trash, plenty of qaulity posts get modded to -1 becuase prejudice doesn't care for the truth. The rating system is a collosal failure overall. Id rather wade through the crud than miss a great post becuase little johnny didn't like having his hacker buddy dissed.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Some people have weak/damaged retina's, is a laser safe?
A laser is as safe as any other light source, presuming the intensity is low enough. The article clearly states that this uses a very low-power diode laser.
I presume it's at least as safe as radial keratotoomy, which has gained wide acceptance despite the lack of long term test results...
For people with severe Myopic conditions and the like, how clear will the image be after going through corrective lenses?
Well, since a laser beam is collimated, and the area of the field is small, you would probably see little effect other than a shift of the entire projected display... something you could adjust for by positioning the headpiece. At worst, there may be some pincusion or keystoning; both can be compensated for in software. The real challenge to overcome is astigmatism.
Also, the article says that uncorrected myopia doesn't interfere with perception of the display, so one could wear the projector inside one's glasses, between the lens and the eye.
Or just go get some contacts. I just picked up six pair of flex wear disposables for $44.
I can see the fnords!
Recall (or rather Rekall, to be true to the movie/book), worked by implanting the memories of the event directly into your head. This is much simpler; it's basically a CRT that uses your retina as the screen. Think of this as the way the Terminator saw the world, only not in red monocolor.
Which is not to say that the potential isn't amazing. In 10 years these things'll probably be about as cumbersome and expensive as ordinary glasses and have fantastic color and resolution. Combined with portable computing power and/or wireless networking and you have the knowledge of the world at your command everywhere you go.
Seems like every time I think an idea on a TV show is good, someone goes and invents it for real... I'm starting to think the only sci-fi ideas that I won't see in my lifetime are the ones that are actuall physically impossible.
Heck, why stop there? How many people a hundred years ago could have imagined the stuff we take for granted today? We're much better than our ancestors at imagining the changes tomorrow may bring, but we're certain to be surprised nontheless.
Dyolf Knip
Sadly, green and blue lasers require more power, are more expensive, and have a shorter lifetime. I'm not saying that it won't happen eventually--it's just that with that level of miniaturization, it's best to start easy and work up.
Bart
Still, this does sound like promising technology.
Sure, all technologies *sound* promising, but what have those technologies delivered, other than a society of asocial fat-asses who complain that no one loves them even as they plot out the next Enron scheme?
It's a brave future these technologists see for us, a place where you don't have to *see* poor people or urban blight or even your fellow fat-asses--from the article:
"Eventually we will be able to get the resolution so clear and the images will look so real, that you may not be able to tell anymore what is real and what is being created by the computer you're wearing," Evans said.
Now *that* sounds like the perfect world--your vision enhanced so that all the dirty parts of existance are pushed to the background by buxom anime characters, your surroundings cleanly filtered into one rosy worldview that guarantees a market for Frosted Flakes.
Where's my soma?
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
Even better...you need to make it so you see the sign and the translation out of sync with each other.
when companies start paying to broadcast images onto your eye.
Everytime you see a car... "Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?"
Everytime you see a bottle... "Isn't it Miller time?"
Everytime you see your girlfriend... "AOL: It can't get any easier than this."
The Windows blue screen of death burned into my retinas for life.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
(sigh)
You have taken all the fun out of it.
Although I do snicker a little at the amount of time you took composing what was evidently a well thought-out-- albeit completely misguided-- response to what was basically a throwaway comment on my part.
I am acquanted Thor Osborn (who, I believe, is no longer with Microvision) and have tried out the demo unit. It really works, although the thought of a laser beam shining on your retina seems a little counter-intuitive. I have also met Tom Furness and it is clear Tom is involved in lots of VR related stuff, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The model I tried was red only. Last I heard they were working hard on an RGB system. The kicker is that everything in one of these units can be reduced to solid state electronics: laser diodes, MEM mirrors, driver chips, CPU & memory. This is important because Moores law could drive down the cost of these things pretty quickly.
Jack William Bell
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
I can't afford to lose my right eye to cyborg technology. Can it be attached to the left?
Nope. It's impossible to redesign it to work on the left side.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You now even get set modifiers for each moderation reason. Setting Flamebait to +1 will undo the effect of any Flamebait moderations for you, setting it to +6 will make any flamebait always show up for you (since it will be a +5 post for you).
"Flamebait" is what is usually abused as a form of censorship - but you can override that.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!