Slashdot Mirror


New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid

Clarinase writes "101reviews is running an article about a new type of camera lens called Fluidlens. This patented lens made of liquid is no bigger than a contact lens, but can still achieve up to 10 times optical zoom by changing its shape similar to the human eye."

267 comments

  1. f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Informative
    Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday December 02, @01:09PM in The Mysterious past!

    BTW, I checked, all the links in the original article still work.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yep, that was my first thought, too. A dupe. So, how about I recycle on of my comments:
      So what happens when it gets well below freezing ...
    2. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      So what happens when it gets well below freezing ...

      I suppose that depends upon the crystaline structure of the liquid as a solid. Might also damage a flexible lens, no?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [offtopic]
      Hey, I didn't see that story since I had my Roland Piquepaille filter running, so it's news to me!
      [/offtopic]

    4. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by ChrisF79 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I didn't read the article, but what if it isn't water? Different liquids freeze at different temperatures so maybe they're using vodka. That's one liquid I know doesn't freeze at 32 degrees.

      --
      Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
    5. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cute. Too bad the link to the new article doesn't, or you could read it and figure out that it's not actually a dup.

      Just another /. idiot.

    6. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      wow, do you just love when they talk about great new technology, and then a year later it's still just talk?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    7. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, perhaps you should read the dupe article. the lens is formed by a layer of oil and a layer of water.

    8. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by ne0n · · Score: 1

      more importantly, at 1064.18 C could I use a solid gold liquid lens? That's more the technology we masses need.

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
    9. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      >more importantly, at 1064.18 C could I use a
      >solid gold liquid lens? That's more the
      >technology we masses need.

      yes, because the messes like taking pictures from the surface of the sun.

    10. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by schon · · Score: 1

      That's more the technology we masses need.

      yes, because the messes like taking pictures from the surface of the sun.


      Best. Freudian. Slip. Ever.

    11. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by cynyr · · Score: 1

      yes but here in Minnesota it can get to -40F or i think i remember around -60F(I think) anyways i think even vodka will turn solid at some point.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    12. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by dk.r*nger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The vodka I keep in my freezer at -18C (or at least I hope so, that chicken did taste odd) becomes rather thick at that temp. Good for vodka, bad for optical hardware (I'd think).

    13. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by joNDoty · · Score: 1

      I read an even older article than that covering this technology on slashdot:
      March 4, 2004 - Philips Develops Fluid Lenses

    14. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by Nos. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, but it does become more viscous at lower temperatures. I once put a bottle of Smirnoff in the freezer several hours before a little gathering. Unlike Polar Ice (which is meant to be used at that temperature) Smirnoff thickened. Pouring a normal (1-1.5oz) drink tasted like a triple. So, even if a liquid doesn't freeze (become solid) it still can affect its intended use. Of course assuming this lens isn't water, there's not the fear of it expanding and damaging the rest of the camera as water/ice would do.

    15. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by dmccarty · · Score: 1
      So, how about I recycle on of my comments:

      Looks like you recycled one of your typos, too.

      --
      Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
    16. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Why bother reading the dupe, when I read the original article last December, and pointed out then that it would freeze.

      Oil and water aren't all that miscible. Of course, you could add some soap, but then you wouldn't be able to take any pr0n, just clean pictures, so it wouldn't go over well with the local crowd.

    17. Re:f1r5t p05t3d Dec. 2, 2004 by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny
      yes, because the messes like taking pictures from the surface of the sun.
      Yeah, but he's got that beat - he'll go there at night, when its cooler ... :-)
  2. changing shape by jest3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have yet to master the art of 10x zoom by changing the shape of my eye ..

    1. Re:changing shape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're obviously not squeezing it enough. Try a vice!

    2. Re:changing shape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be farking awesome to zoom in with a contact lense...

    3. Re:changing shape by yellowbkpk · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're not squeezing hard enough. I can see the individual molecules (they're very colorful!) moving around when I squeeze my eyes hard enough for long enough...

    4. Re:changing shape by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 1

      I have yet to master the art of 10x zoom by changing the shape of my eye ..

      You need two lenses

    5. Re:changing shape by dcurley · · Score: 2, Insightful
      From TFA:
      Currently there is no practical alternative to compensate for the fixed focus lens system where a camera lens, for example, is moved along a linear axis until the image comes into focus.

      So, they're not talking about how your eye zooms, which it obviously doesn't. They're talking about how the lens changes shape to focus while zooming, like your eye changes shape to focus. Of course, I aint no optician.

    6. Re:changing shape by lastchance_000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You have to make that "dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit" noise for it to work.

    7. Re:changing shape by DarkHand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What you're actually doing is depriving the rods and cones in your eyes of blood. Similar to the nerves in your leg sending 'static' signals back your your brain when your leg falling alseep, your eye's start doing the same.

    8. Re:changing shape by DarkHand · · Score: 1

      Wow, I think there was some static in the grammar center of my brain when I wrote that. :P Ignore the grammar and take in the raw info please! :)

    9. Re:changing shape by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      Yes of course but the manufacturing process for eyes and lenses are in no way logically comparable. Not to mention the goal and objective when designing lenses is ends up being completely different then having to design a biologically non-toxic/corrosive/maintainable for decades by food biological eyes you got there.

      Not to mention your eyes have to fight all sorts of organisms wanting to have it for lunch. Making an lense or lense components that you do not have to grow with one where you control the manufacturing process/environment and no life or persons eyesight is at risk just aren't comparable. Apples and oranges.

      We can not get grow lenses and hook them up to brains yet like cells with nanotechnology ala cellular technology found in life.

    10. Re:changing shape by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 2, Funny

      The manufacturing process for eyes is much more fun...

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    11. Re:changing shape by DJStealth · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, there's 9 months work and the rest of a person has to come as a result.

    12. Re:changing shape by Hell+O'World · · Score: 1

      Is this what you are looking for?

    13. Re:changing shape by acadia11 · · Score: 1

      That's f*cking funny as hell, man, can I get a mod of +10 on that one.

    14. Re:changing shape by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What are those squiggly things that look alarmingly like sperm that can be occasionally seen in your near vision and appear to move when you chase them with your focus? You know, where they seem to fall to bottom of your eye and disappear?

      I've always wondered, especially on sunny days when they are more visible and 'catchable', what these things are. Are they bacteria on the surface of your eyeball?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    15. Re:changing shape by Com2Kid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      They are called floaters

      Basically a range of various dead things that are in your eye ball, mostly things that used to be part OF your eye.

    16. Re:changing shape by amliebsch · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If it out of vision, it's probably just dust particles and tiny hairs on the surface of your eye.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    17. Re:changing shape by over_exposed · · Score: 1

      I've seen those too and thought I was going nutso - so I'm glad you saw them too. Either we're both insane or there's a concrete scientific explanation.

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    18. Re:changing shape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My optometrist said those things are called "floaters". They're perfectly natural (and usually harmless).

      Link with more info

    19. Re:changing shape by jejones · · Score: 1

      Those are called "floaters"; they're irregularities in the vitreous humor in your eye. They show up best against a solid bright background.

      If they suddenly increase in number, get yourself to a doctor.

    20. Re:changing shape by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      However, unless you're some kind of super-stud, the manufacturing process for lenses is much, much faster when making multiple.

    21. Re:changing shape by aklix · · Score: 1

      It has been claimed that some of the colorful ones maybe not visible to your eyes at all, but your brain projecting psychic energy it detected onto your vision (The stuff your brain sees, not your actual retina).

      This makes perfect sense seeing how Psi-balls are the first thing created by budding psychics, yet soon give up. Therefor there maybe an abundance of psiballs floating around, never given the command of when to destroy themselves.

    22. Re:changing shape by Axess+Denyd · · Score: 1

      You have a very interesting definition of "perfect sense".

      --
      ---- Watch out for snakes!
    23. Re:changing shape by lcsjk · · Score: 1

      The liquid in your eye is very much like a jelly. The non-uniformity appears as floaters and generally they look like tiny blood vessels or segments of them. They move around as you suddenly shift your eyes side to side or up/down, but always return to the same place after a while. I believe they are more prominent as you get older, and they may be more likely in near-sighted people. I have had some to suddenly appear over the years, but no major changes at any one time. A doctor told me they could be removed, but it would require deflating your eyeball and you could lose vision. I also have noticed that by wearing sunglasses, your iris hole will enlarge and the larger hole size makes the floater not as noticeable. After a few months, I don't notice them anymore except when I am using a microscope or binoculars. I don't notice them when using a 10X camera SLR.

    24. Re:changing shape by timeOday · · Score: 1
      I have yet to master the art of 10x zoom by changing the shape of my eye ..
      Has any species ever evolved the zoom lens? (Or multiple fixed focal lengths?) It would be ever-so-cool to have built-in binoculars.
    25. Re:changing shape by diskis · · Score: 1

      I didn't play with a fork as a kid, and thus I have two eyes left.

    26. Re:changing shape by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      What are those squiggly things that look alarmingly like sperm that can be occasionally seen in your near vision and appear to move when you chase them with your focus?

            Hm... The simplest explanation is probably the right one....

    27. Re:changing shape by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Show me how you place your two eyes sequentially in order to zoom.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    28. Re:changing shape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. I think bullshit might be a better description.

    29. Re:changing shape by melandy · · Score: 1

      Here's the wikipedia article...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_floater

    30. Re:changing shape by chochos · · Score: 1

      So why don't they reimplement psi-balls in java or .net or something that handles the garbage collection for them? jeez.

    31. Re:changing shape by gwayne · · Score: 1

      You have to make that "dit-dit-dit-dit-dit-dit" noise for it to work.

      Actually, it's more like "na-na-na-na-na"!

    32. Re:changing shape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are sperm. When you were conceived, there was still plenty of dad's sperm in the womb that stuck around during your 9 months of development. Some of it got in your eye during development and stayed there. That's why it's usually there when you look hard enough, and why it usually shifts back to the same spot after you move your eyes around. No "booga booga" explanation, it happens to quite a few people. Optometrists call them floaters.

    33. Re:changing shape by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      No, I see them too from time to time. I believe that they're either irregularities in the aqueous humour (the liquid in/on your eyes) or possibly dust, skin cells, etc.

      Believe it or not, they are sometimes mistaken for UFOs.

    34. Re:changing shape by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Believe it or not, they are sometimes mistaken for UFOs.

      Well that's no surprise since they are UFOS - Unidentified Floating Objects - in your eyeball.

    35. Re:changing shape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a delusional moron.

    36. Re:changing shape by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      The attached power supply and food processor can be cumbersome, though.

  3. Neat by ShoobieRat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Cool beans. That's pretty sweet. Wonder if they'll be able to build something like an eagle's eye that can see both macroscopic and microscopic extremes. That'd be sweet.

    1. Re:Neat by Adelbert · · Score: 1

      I can imagine showing your grandparents your holiday snaps.

      "And this is a very nice girl I met."
      "What's that in the middle?"
      "Oh, its just one of her pores magnified to 1000x on account of my cool new camera. It like an eagle, you know."

  4. Pardon the ignorance... by lpangelrob · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...but is this really only useful for cameras in camera-phones?

    Since it seems the lens size is necessarily very small, will the maximum resolutions of the resulting picture be limited in any way? Or is lens size correlated with the maximum resolution of a camera?

    1. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by Anakron · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly no expert on photography, but it seems to me that the maximum resolution doesn't have much to do with the size of the lens. However, larger lens allow more light in, so perhaps this is only useful in brightly lit areas?

      Is there really a limitation on the lens size mentioned in the article?

      --
      There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
    2. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

      It's possible this could lead to a whole new approach to lenses in general. Keep in mind we went from vacuum tubes to transistors to integrated circuits. This could just be a first step towards a whole new way of processing optics.

    3. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by otter42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lens size is correlated with the amount of light captured by the lens, and not the size of the image.

      In fact, for a long time hobbyists have played around with "pin-hole" cameras, cameras that, well, have a pin hole in the place of a lens. The light diffracts throught the small hole, spreading out and thus blowing up the image.

      Really expensive lenses such as you'd see in telescopes are big so they can get the maximum amount of light.

      For a neat demonstration of this principle, take some binoculars and cover half of one lens. You'll notice that-- surprise, surprise-- you still see the entire image!

      So, in the end, the lens diameter will allow you to take pictures in lower light situations. Which might well equate to better picture quality if you're not in bright, shiny daylight since the picture will be acquired faster with less chance for motion blur.

      --
      www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
    4. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      I hear there is a new development in camera technology that can compensate for poorly lit areas.

      It's called a 'flash'

    5. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by akac · · Score: 1

      And a "flash" won't do when you're trying to photograph nature, things far away, or a billion other scenarios.

      I find in my own consumer photography I only use a flash a tiny fraction of the time and wish the lens could get more light naturally because most of the situations I want to photograph a flash won't help.

    7. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1
      You have got two resolutions confused.

      The resolution of a lens, according to optical theory is measured in lines per milimiters resolved , this is purely an optical concept (not photographical), this resolution does not depend on the size or the amount of light that passes through the lens, but rather depends on the quality of the glass , the other parameters that is measured when testing the lens is contrast . Often the characteristics of a lens are displayed as MTF graphs (resolution v/s contrast).

      The second resolution is the resolution of the resultant picture which in digital world would depend on the CCD.

      If the CCD resolution is higher than the lens, then no matter how good the lens is , you will not get the sharpest details. Conversely if the lens resolution is lower than the CCD, no matter how much megapixel your CCD is, you will not get sharper images beyond a certain count.

      Either way the lens size is not related to the resolution of the final image, remember pin-hole cameras ?

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    8. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by jejones · · Score: 1

      What you're losing with a small lens is "light gathering power", i.e. the ability to take pictures in low light conditions.

      As far as resolution goes--it's harder to maintain quality the bigger the lens gets (hence the big bucks you have to put out for a good quality lens with good light gathering power).

    9. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by badasscat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm certainly no expert on photography, but it seems to me that the maximum resolution doesn't have much to do with the size of the lens.

      Maximum resolution has quite a lot to do with the size of the lens.

      Sure, you can make a sensor with 50 million pixels on it, but if the resolution of the image coming through the lens only carries an equivalent of 1,000 or so lines horizontally and vertically, you're just going to be getting a very large file, not a high-resolution one.

      (This is the scam already happening with a lot of 7mp and up consumer-level digicams - they just do not have the optics required to pass that level of detail.)

      The larger a lens is, the more light it can let through. And that's all an image is to a camera - light. On film, that light hits the crystals contained in the celluloid and chemically excites them, whereas on a digital sensor the light is converted to binary data representing the image. In both cases, though, light is all that matters.

      Bigger lenses can obviously gather more light, which means they can be used in lower-light situations or at longer focal lengths (longer focal lengths involve more light fall-off inside the lens, so it helps for extreme telephoto lenses to have massive front elements). It also means the sensor does not need to have its gain cranked up so high to compensate for a smaller lens. And it means the sensor itself can be larger, which in itself will allow greater resolution.

      Probably the most important thing, though, is that larger lenses can more easily achieve perfect focus. It is possible for a lens to be simply unable to achieve perfect focus - the light beams will just never converge properly. This is not an exact science - every lens is slightly different in this (even among the same model), but larger lenses can come closer because they're dealing with the same projected image size but have more incoming light with which to deal and larger elements that can be built to stricter relative tolerances. This has the greatest effect on real resolution, and it's why some lenses appear tack-sharp and others look a bit soft.

      Relatedly, the larger the lens, the less effect manufacturing tolerances are going to have on quality. For example, say an element can be ground to within 0.001mm of spec and still be within that spec. If you shrink the lens down by 100 times and you can still only manage a 0.001mm tolerance, you will not have any real consistency in quality. You would have to similarly up your manufacturing tolerances by 100 times just to maintain the quality of the larger lens.

      This is even ignoring all the image defects you get from smaller lenses. Photographic lenses usually have 6 or more elements inside them to correct for various distortions that the curved glass introduces; obviously this is going to be a lot more difficult to do the smaller you go, and I can't see how a lens with liquid inside is really going to be able to simulate this. It might be able to replicate one or two interior elements (even though liquid is infinitely maleable, it can still only be one shape at a time) but I would imagine there will always be distortions left over.

      You may ask how our eyes work so well, then, given how small they are. Well, for one thing, our eyes are "prime" lenses - they don't have an optical zoom function. For another, we have a big, powerful brain sitting behind them to interpret what we're looking at and correct any oddities (the image your eyes are actually seeing and the image you interpret are not even close to being the same thing). The fact that we've got two of them doesn't hurt either - it's not just about depth perception, just close one eye and see how good your vision is for a while. Peripheral vision will be cut, it is harder to focus, etc. Your brain does a good job of taking these two images and combining them, making it easier to see. Having two eyes also means we have double the light gathering ability.

      Also, many people's eyes *don't* work so well.

    10. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by d-rock · · Score: 1

      For a good example of the extremes of image size vs. lens size, check out the camera obscura.

      Derek

      --
      Don't Panic...
    11. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      Since it seems the lens size is necessarily very small, will the maximum resolutions of the resulting picture be limited in any way? Or is lens size correlated with the maximum resolution of a camera?

      lens size and resolution have no direct correlation. However lens size DOES effect the amount of light gathered, and that effects exposure time, and that in turn effects all sorts of things having to do with image quality and size. That is, a high resolution picture requires a longer exposure than a low resolution picture for a given bit-depth (low-resolution pictures can gang imaging elements together, effectively giving each pixel a larger photon collection area) And the longer exposure means it's more sensitive to vibration.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    12. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Has anybody tried making a compact array of lenses? Seems it might have nearly the area of one big lens, but with lots of cheap, thin, lightweight parts. Bonus points if you can get all the lenses to project onto the same focal plane and deconvolve the original image. Come to think of it, you wouldn't need to - just give each micro-lens a longer focal length, and have it project onto its own little rectangle of the sensor. Sort of an auto-panorama. I suppose all this has been done in astronomy, but has it been done in a small, integrated package?

    13. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      So, what happens if the lens resolution is higher than the CCD, but at the same time the CCD has lower resolution than the lens? The universe implodes?

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    14. Re:Pardon the ignorance... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      I wonder, what specific lens quality is harder to maintain at larger sizes? If you, say, have a 1-meter monster (in diameter) projecting on a tiny 7mpix ccd, wouldn't it be easier to get high quality than using a measly 1 cm lens? I would imagine that tiny irregularities wouldn't matter as much, although on the other hand, manufacturing 500kg arrays of glass isn't easy either.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  5. Like a contact lens by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 4, Funny

    So can you distract a party by yelling, "Nobody move! I've dropped my camera lens."

    1. Re:Like a contact lens by Labtek · · Score: 1
      "The general consensus among those who know is that it [glass] is an amorphous solid."

      Glass - Solid or Liquid?

  6. New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by i+is+sqrt+neg1 · · Score: 0

    Glass is a liquid...

    1. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 3, Informative
      Glass is a liquid...


      BZZZZT! Thanks for playing! Here's your consolation prize:


      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glas s/glass.html

    2. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by i+is+sqrt+neg1 · · Score: 1

      Wow... This is unexpected. I'd just like to thank my 7th grade science teacher, Mr. Kent.

    4. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by morcego · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      morcego
    5. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Anakron · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glas s/glass.html Short answer: Don't know. Could be either.

      --
      There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
    6. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by papasui · · Score: 1

      No it is not. It's an amorphous solid.

    7. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Xaositecte · · Score: 1
    8. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Holi · · Score: 5, Informative

      No it's not. It has some similarities, such as having no regular arangement in its atoms, but unlike a liquid, which have no strong forces holding the molecules together, glass is held solid by strong chemical bonds almost as if it were one giant molecule. Glass does not flow at room temperature, the defects you see in old glass windows are not because it has been flowing slowly over the past century but are due to the manufacturing process in creating those windows.

      Glass has a viscosity (at room temp) of aproximately 10 to the 20th power poises while water (to give you a reference point) is about 0.01 poise.

      Oh and if you think that because you can use the term viscosity when refering to glass that it is a liquid I should let you know that lead has an estimated viscosity of 10 to the 11th power poises.

      Take a look at some of the oldest glass structures we have, Stained glass windows in some of the worlds ancient cathederals. If your 100 year old house shows much distortion do to flow imagine what an 800 year old stained glass window should look like, except it doesn't.

      Glass does not flow at room temperature.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    9. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      It's okay - it's been published in high school science textbooks. It's one of those incorrect things that has enough examples of it being published that you can "prove" it by citing sources.

      But if you talk to somebody who really knows what they are talking about (a chemist or materials scientist), they'll call it bunk. As somebody provided a link above, it it believed to be an artifact of mistranslation of early scientific papers.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    10. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by VolciMaster · · Score: 1
      No it is not. It's an amorphous solid.

      Which sounds a lot like a liquid, albeit a very slow one, to the average Joe on the street.

    11. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by graphicsguy · · Score: 1

      Apparently, then, Glass is a Window.

    12. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      That's as may be, but perhaps Joe should think of it as a solid, albeit a very fast one?

    13. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by rnelsonee · · Score: 1

      The article you reference only talks about glass flow, not about the state of matter glass is at room temp. There's still plenty of debate on that, with most scientists saying glass exhibits properties of both.

    14. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Anakron · · Score: 1

      Glass has a viscosity (at room temp) of aproximately 10 to the 20th power poises

      lead has an estimated viscosity of 10 to the 11th power poises So glass is more viscous than lead? wow!

      --
      There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
    15. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by fantom2000 · · Score: 0, Troll
      BZZZZT! Thanks for playing! Here's your consolation prize:

      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glas s/glass.html


      BZZZZT! you are a dumbass.
      from your own effing link:

      Conclusion

      There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?". In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter which is neither liquid nor solid.
    16. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by zbuffered · · Score: 1

      put the terms in quotes and you'll get a different result.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    17. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Actually no, glass has a higher vicosity then lead, meaning it is more resistant to changing form or flowing.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    18. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the article you cited says at the bottom that there is no clear answer as to whether or not glass is a liquid.

      Thanks for playing!

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    19. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. The article concludes that molecularly it is difficult to classify glass as either "solid" or "liquid." But it states unambiguously that there is no evidence that glass at room temperature flows at all, fast, slow, or otherwise.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    20. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Labtek · · Score: 1
      "The general consensus among those who know is that it [glass] is an amorphous solid."

      Glass - Solid or Liquid?

    21. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Actually no, glass has a higher vicosity then lead, meaning it is more resistant to changing form or flowing.

      Uhhh.. Isn't that what he just said? Or are you implying that "more viscous" does not mean the same thing as "higher viscosity?" HUH?

    22. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      Both of these links refuting the "glass is a liquid" argument argue that since a noticeable deformation does not take place over a reasonable time frame (several millenia), we should consider it to be a solid.

      It's a good argument, but the statement "glass is a solid" is just as incorrect as "glass is a liquid" is.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    23. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by DilbertLand · · Score: 1

      In the spirit of keeping everyone honest, there are millions of different glass compositions. Just saying "glass" is like lumping gold, stainless steel, aluminum, tungsten, iron, and copper together and calling them "metal". Listing properties of an unknown glass is like listing the strength of an unknown metal - generally not very useful since the properties of glass vary so widely. I can mix up a composition that will turn from a cube into the shape of a puddle within a day of just sitting on my desk. So, yes, almost by definition, all glass flows at room temperature. It's just a matter of how much. Although for most compositions in use, it could take millions of years for visible changes to occur (visible to the naked eye).

    24. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Hey I only get to sound smart once a day.

      Usually I screw that up, looks like today is no exception.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    25. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Sorry I call bullshit.

      Glass is fused silica with other chemicals added to vary transparency or enhance strength and durability. But I don't know of anything that you can add to silica that will significantly reduce it viscosity to a point where it will flow freely at room temp. If you can tell me of such a thing I will gladly reply and apologize.

      So, yes, almost by definition, all glass flows at room temperature. I don't see how you can say this when your post included no definition at all.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    26. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by srleffler · · Score: 1
      Actually, not all glass is silica based. Some lasers are based on phosphate glass rather than silica glass, for example. The material properties are similar to silica glass, although it is typically not as hard. It doesn't flow at room temperature, and I'm not sure I would call anything that flows at room temperature 'glass'. The gp is correct in complaining about people talking about 'glass' as if it were a single material with well-defined properties, but I think he is off base in asserting that there exists a 'glass' that flows at room temperature.

      Be aware too that the term 'glass' has an even more generic meaning, referring to any solid that is not crystalline. You can buy amorphous metal foil, for example. This material is technically a glass.

    27. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      Check out http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/physics_museum/pitchd rop.shtml for a demo of a high viscosity liquid.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    28. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Holi · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

      Thank you.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    29. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by DilbertLand · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Looks like you got I post in before I responded, but here's the basics of want I was going to say.

      There are acutally many families of glasses other than silicate based. There are borate based glasses, germanate based glasses, phosphate based glasses, etc.

      I think where we differ is in the definion of flow. If something has a viscosity it means it moves when a force is applied - which all glass does (otherwise it's a crystaline solid). So I'm not claiming that any glass flows freely at room temp in the sense that you can pour it....just that it is technically moving. It's more of a gradual creep (e.g. windows will widen at the base over time...but it's been calculated to take millions of years for typical window glass, not the few hundred in the urban myths).

      The glass with roomtemp flow I was referring to was just a general mixture of potassium silicate and sodium silicate. Melt those components together and cool. It flows when exposed to humidity. You can break it and get a sharp edge that will dull over a short period of time (kind of like a jolly rancher in hot, humid conditions). Of course there are probably some glass experts out there that can argue that it's not the best example of true room temp flow.

    30. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Holi · · Score: 1

      That sounds more like the solubility of the material then the viscosity.

      I still don't believe that glass will flow at all at room temperature. But were not going to answer this question on /. as from everywhere I have looked even the very smart people can't give us a definite answer.

      So it looks like no amount of research will solve this as I can find some brilliant physicist to say it won't flow and on the very next link find another who will say it will.

      Hmmm, I think I will start a new religion based of the faith of glass as a solid, you should start one based on the evil glass as a liquid side and we can have our very own religious wars.

      Peace.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    31. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does it matter what glass does at room temperature? My room is very very hot.....

      Should it not be determined by properties at some universal base temperature...Say absolute zero, or 3000C..and in a complete vacuum?

      Lastly is ice a liquid?...at room temperature it will soon become one, at absoulte zero?

    32. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by feloneous+cat · · Score: 1

      Glass does not flow at room temperature.

      You obviously have never lived in Texas...

      --
      IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
    33. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Ice goes through a phase change at 0 deg c and again at 100 deg c. Glass does not, water and glass are not comparable.

      Again I am using a base temperature, room temp is defined as between 21 - 23 deg c. in that range no change will occur in glass or even in water. So room temperature is not some arbitrary number based on your current location.

      And no ice is a solid with a crystalline structure at temperatures below 0 c.

      by your logic iron is a liquid as it melts at somewhere between 1527 c and 1537 c.

      To give you an idea, it isn't until around 1100 c that glass will start to flow under stress. at least thats what I have read.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    34. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by DilbertLand · · Score: 1

      Excellent...I had a little free time on my hands and a religious war about glass will consume that nicely!!! On the other hand, we actually we don't have to look for a brilliant physicist to answer this question - Ceramic Engineers figured it out a long time ago. Unfortunately, a really good answer can't be given without introducing some new and very specific terminology and writing more pages than anyone would care to read (a term like flow isn't really used for the very reason we see here, it isn't very precise and can be interpreted in different ways). These days, glass science is a fairly obscure field and you won't find much in-depth information from a web search. However, here's a good book that gives a nice introduction to the area. "Fundamentals of Inorganic Glasses" Varshneya, Arun

    35. Re:New Digital Camera Lens Made of Liquid? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Cool I'll give it a read. and thanks ofr making may long boring day a little more interesting.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  7. Improvements for the smallest cameras by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being able to get good image quality in tiny cameras is becoming increasingly useful because of the adoption of cameras into phones and similarly small devices. The amount of times I've see something I want to take a picture of, but don't have my camera is pretty significant, and I've found that since getting a camera phone its filled this void nicely. Being able to get a high quality image from a phone would be a great step forward for those who are using phone cameras for this kind of role. (Especially as the amount of storage available increases)

    1. Re:Improvements for the smallest cameras by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Funny
      "The amount of times I've see something I want to take a picture of, but don't have my camera is pretty significant"

      Those women passing you on the street don't want you to take their picture anyway.

    2. Re:Improvements for the smallest cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being able to get good image quality in tiny cameras is becoming increasingly useful because of the adoption of cameras into phones and similarly small devices.

      Adoption does not equal usefulness.

      We adopted a cat and he's not useful at all.

    3. Re:Improvements for the smallest cameras by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      At the very least a housecat is a combination space-heater and emergency protein ration. Also, consider the process: Money -> food -[cat]-> poop. Simplifying, the cat is a machine to convert your worthless money into valuable poop.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Improvements for the smallest cameras by Atario · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, advances in tiny lens quality will be undone by advances in CCD chip size (which is to say, shrinking). A lot of digital cameras are already deficient because of the tiny size of the sensor.

      Further reading:
      http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/
      http://www.digicaminfo.btinternet.co.uk/sensors1.h tm

      Bigger is better when it comes to CCDs.

      And that's to say nothing of the limitations imposed by a small aperture.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  8. Dupe by shawngarringer · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I mean, a camera lens is a camera lens, right? http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/ 02/1940255&tid=100

    1. Re:Dupe by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

      Darn... you beat me to it!

    2. Re:Dupe by Anakron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not really. They are two different approaches. In fact, this article mentions that they're different from the electric-field-applying camp.

      --
      There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
    3. Re:Dupe by shawngarringer · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I did read the article, I'm not a optics tech so I figured they were the same...

    4. Re:Dupe by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Am I the only subscriber who notifies Slashdot when there is a problem with the original article. If I wasn't at lunch when this was posted I may have been able to stop it. Why don't other subscribers who "Can see into the future" tell slashdot when it is a dupe. Because any one person cannot remember all of them.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Dupe by wcdw · · Score: 1

      You MIGHT be correct - except that if you had bothered to read TFA, you would have seen that it specifically talks about NOT using electricity to change the shape of the lens.

      A pretty handy difference, for things like cell phones.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    6. Re:Dupe by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      LOTS of people email in dupes, spelling errors, bad links, etc. The "daddypants@slashdot.org" address is like tits on a bull.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    7. Re:Dupe by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      So you have to squeeze your phone to focus? Sorry, but somehow that sounds more like marketing than an actual improvement. Philips' Fluid Lenses Bring Things into Focus
      Controlled by a dc voltage and presenting a capacitive load, the lens consumes virtually zero power, which for battery powered portable applications gives it a real advantage.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    8. Re:Dupe by wasted+time · · Score: 1

      and even WORSE, twenty people will point out that it's a dupe. Don't people have anything better to do? Why fill up the first page with useless comments, yelling dupe about stories which many readers may not have seen before, instead of just skipping over the story completely? What do people get out of it? Does it in some way help them to point this out? Why isn't there a lameness filter to eliminate annoying dupe comments? Why are these comments sometimes modded insightful and informative instead of redundant? Why can't people go to lunch without fear that a story may be posted without their prior approval? Why don't people RTFA before posting misinformation? Why is my karma smoking?

      --
      The Stone Age did not end because humans ran out of stones. - William McDonough
  9. It'd be cool by Holi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they could make it into a contact lens, allowing the wearer to view distances without the benefit of binoculars.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:It'd be cool by angrist · · Score: 1

      If they could make it into a contact lens, allowing the wearer to view distances without the benefit of binoculars.

      Peeping Toms rejoice!

    2. Re:It'd be cool by Holi · · Score: 1

      Well not exactly where I was going with it. I thought it would be great for people like me that have rather shakey hands (i'd be a really bad surgeon). So bad in fact I can't really use binoculars. But yes I am sure the peeping toms would find a use form them too.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    3. Re:It'd be cool by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative
      If they could make it into a contact lens, allowing the wearer to view distances without the benefit of binoculars.

      It'll never happen. Telephoto or "zoom" lenses require a pair of lenses with some amount of separation between them. There's no practical way to mount additional lensing in front of your eye with enough separation to get a zoom effect and not interfere with normal eye function.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:It'd be cool by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      If they could make it into a contact lens, allowing the wearer to view distances without the benefit of binoculars.

      I want a HUD, low-light augmentation, annd the ability to see under water as well. That would rock.

      We can only hope. :-P
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:It'd be cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why would it change shape? Because you wanted it to and it picked up on it telepathically? The lens itself might be quite simple to put into an eye, but the associated electronics won't be - whether that's wires, a radio receiver, or whatever.

  10. Glad to see a real invention for a change by The+I+Shing · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm glad to see someone patenting an actual invention instead of just claim-jumping someone's idea for a website layout.

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    1. Re:Glad to see a real invention for a change by ndansmith · · Score: 2, Funny
      but can still achieve up to 10 times optical zoom by changing its shape similar to the human eye.

      I'm glad to see someone patenting an actual invention instead of just claim-jumping someone's idea for a website layout.

      Actually, God already invented this. These guys just took advantage of the fact that God did not file a patent for the human eye with the USPTO.

    2. Re:Glad to see a real invention for a change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it uses the same technology as your eyes!
      that means we will all have to poke our eyes out or pay royalties for their so called "invention"

      personaly, I'd claim prior art

    3. Re:Glad to see a real invention for a change by oliverthered · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is not 'real' inovation, they've been using the technique in Arfrica for years as a cheep way of producing glasses.

      I coudln't find any info on google but I'm fairly sure they were invented by the wind up radio guy.

      or if your really after pior art, it looks like the Greeks may have beaten them to it by 3000 years.

      Here's an encarta link too

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  11. Details? by Anakron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Somewhat light on detail. So is the effective zoom limited only by the amount of liquid they can put between the squeezy-things?
    Is the real innovation in the material of the lens or the method to make it deform to specification?

    --
    There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
  12. the question is... by Avohir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is it waterproof?

    --
    To err is human, to really foul up requires a computer
    1. Re:the question is... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny
      Or does the water get it instead?

      Nobody knows. Liquid lens.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  13. Does this mean... by slorge · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does this mean your camera will have a "squint" button instead of a focus?

    --
    Some people are like slinkys. They're useless, but it puts a smile on your face to push them down the stairs.
    1. Re:Does this mean... by jzeejunk · · Score: 1

      and may be a 'squirt' button for flash..?

      --
      sarchasm
  14. Another successful SF prediction... by ex_ottoyuhr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "OIL LENS: hufuf oil held in static tension by an enclosing force field within a viewing tube as part of a magnifying or other light-manipulation system. Because each lens element can be adjusted individually one micron at a time, the oil lens is considered the ultimate in accuracy for manipulating visual light." -- DUNE, "Terminology of the Imperium."

    This is right up there with those relatively small, sealed nuclear reactors, IMHO. Neat.

    1. Re:Another successful SF prediction... by hondo_san · · Score: 1

      Yep. Definitely the first thing that popped into my head too.

    2. Re:Another successful SF prediction... by ebtschi · · Score: 1

      call me when i can get me a heighliner http://home.insightbb.com/~dallen88/images/heighli ner.jpg

    3. Re:Another successful SF prediction... by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      Thank god! I'm not the only one who instantly thought "Dune! Slashdot! Tons of commentary on Dune!" and was immediately disappointed that apparantly all of four people read the REST of the book. Sad, very sad.

  15. Squinting by Flamesplash · · Score: 1

    I belive this is directly related to why squinting your eyes helps you see better

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
    1. Re:Squinting by viking099 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Incorrect. Squinting acts as a filter for scattered light (kind of like how those showboxes with the pinholes in them allow you to see an eclipse).
      There was a guy a number of years back who sold "sunglasses guarenteed to improve your sight!" and all it was was a opaque plastic lens with hundreds of tiny holes in it.

      To do any kind of zooming, you need 2 lenses, I believe, otherwise it's just a shift in focal points.

    2. Re:Squinting by dextroz · · Score: 1

      Hell no it doesn't! You need to get your eyes checked there buddy.

      --
      Where's my free iPod!? Until then, I'll settle for a kiss...
    3. Re:Squinting by sledd_1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's part of it - squinting also helps to reduce the amount of light entering the eye.

      Plenty of details here:
      http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/?quid=78 1

      Chris

      --
      I know a little sig that's just ten words long
    4. Re:Squinting by sledd_1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "By squinting people are actually changing the shape of their eye, just ever so little, so that the light focuses correctly on the retina.

      Squinting also decreases the amount of light that enters the eye. Go ahead and squint right now - notice that you can start to see your bottom and top eyelid. When a lens is misshapen (due to age, damage or genetics) the light that passes through the lens is deflected incorrectly and misses the focal point; the farther the light rays are from the center of the lens, the more they are deviated from the focal point. By limiting the rays of light that come in through the bottom and top of the pupil, squinting allows rays to pass closer to the center of the lens, thereby creating a more focused image. So, that means that squinting works by two mechanisms - by both changing the shape of the eye and by letting in light that can be focused more precisely by the lens."

      --
      I know a little sig that's just ten words long
    5. Re:Squinting by fantom2000 · · Score: 1

      That's all zooming is. The other lenses are to re-flip the image so that its not upsidedown and backwards.

    6. Re:Squinting by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      Same principal as a camera lens. Apeture is how much the camera is "squinting" (and therefore, "stopping down" is sharper in most circumstances, but requires more light) and then focal length is if you are nearsighted or farsighted.

    7. Re:Squinting by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was under the impression that squinting, like the sungalsses you mention, do not filter scattered light, but rather artifically reduce the aperture of you lens, increasing the depth of field. The result is that an object which is not at the image plane is more likely to be "in focus", thus relieving your eye from needing to focus to that point. It's particularly good for astigmatism, as the small aperture compensates for the cylidrical portion of the lens. The down side is that you lose total light collection.

      Note that the opposite is true, as well. When your iris is at its largerst aperture (at night, in dim lighting), your vision will be at its worst.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    8. Re:Squinting by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny
      When your iris is at its largerst aperture (at night, in dim lighting), your vision will be at its worst.
      ... so THATs why they keep the bars so dark. And here I was thinking it was the "beer-bottle-bottom glasses" affecting your vision and decision-making ability that makes you take home the ugly that gives you the morning-after coyote-ugly gnaw-yer-arm-off.
    9. Re:Squinting by budgenator · · Score: 1

      not correct, what happens is as the appature of a lens decreases compared to the focal length, it's effective depth of focus increases. in optical device it's called speed of the lens, or often called "stops", or "f stops" and is expressed as an f number such that a lens 6mm in diameter, and a focal length of 36mm would be called f6. Unfortunetly as the f stop increases, the brightness of the image goes down, so while increasing the f stop increases the focal depth, it also increases exposure time making it more likely you'll shake the camera.

      Squinting reduces the appature of the eye, which inturn increases the depth of focus. you can make a camera with no lens, but a pinhole, some focal length divided by almost nothing gives a pretty high f number.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    10. Re:Squinting by RiffRafff · · Score: 1

      Squinting acts as a filter for scattered light (kind of like how those showboxes with the pinholes in them allow you to see an eclipse).

      Close, but nope. Squinting is analogous to "stopping down," or increasing the f-number on a lens (making the diaphragm smaller). The smaller the opening, the greater the depth of field. The greater the the depth of field, the greater range of distance that things are in focus. That's why cheap non-focus (not auto-focus) cameras have a lens with such a high f-number, even though it limits their use in low light.

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    11. Re:Squinting by djdole · · Score: 1

      You are correct sir! Give this man his prize. (MOD PARENT UP)
      Decreasing the apeture reduces spherical aberation an so would effect a camera's (or eye's) focus, but would not magnify an image (zoom).
      (Here comes the science)
      http://physics.tamuk.edu/~suson/html/4323/aberatn. html#Spherical

      /Still no cure for cancer.

    12. Re:Squinting by Keith+McClary · · Score: 1

      There was a guy a number of years back who sold "sunglasses guarenteed to improve your sight!" and all it was was a opaque plastic lens with hundreds of tiny holes in it.

      I've read that the Inuit (Eskimos) invented these to protect them from "snow blindness".

    13. Re:Squinting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually if you could change the shape of the lense you could change the focal length. This is rather inconvenient with glass, I guess regrinding sould allow you to make the lense thinner, thus increasing the focal length, but it would be hard to get back and would take some time.

      A liquid lense might well allow you to change the focal length, but could also pose some operational problems

  16. haven't we seen this before, back, back in 2004? by cetan · · Score: 1
    --
    In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  17. 10x zoom + focus vs. just focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The diagrams show how it can both zoom and focus by changing shape, while the human eye only focuses by changing shape (and loses flexibility with age, thus presbyopia, or loss of near vision in age, which few of you slashdot whippersnappers know about).

    The diagram shows how it gets pushed or pulled in two sections, a top and a bottom, which mimics a 2-element 1-group lens. It may focus with the "front" half and change focal length with the back, or use a combination of both to get the right focal length and focal plane for a given situation.

    The lens in a vertebrate eye (and many invertebrates too) is flexible and is focused at "infinity" when in the relaxed state. When pulled by little muscles that surround it, it flattens, and that changes the focal plane so that it focuses on near objects. The focal length is fixed, so there can be no change in angle of view (zooming).

    Normal myopia (nearsightedness), hypermetropia (farsightedness) and astigmatism come from the whole eye being the wrong shape, usually a function of the eye being squished one way or the other during childhood growth, and the lens tries to focus where it can't.

    1. Re:10x zoom + focus vs. just focus by quenda · · Score: 1
      Some corrections:

      it can both zoom and focus by changing shape

      Not quite. It can zoom and focus, by using two lenses, the same way as current optical-zoom cameras.

      it flattens, and that changes the focal plane so that it focuses on near objects. The focal length is fixed

      Actually, glass lenses have fixed focal length, and focus by moving, whereas these oil lenses, like the eye, focus by changing focal length. (And they flatten to focus further away.)

      BTW, the article doesnt say that oil lenses are new. The patents are for mechanical control, rather that the earlier electro-static control.

  18. Didnt philips make this ?? by devilsandy · · Score: 1

    I could not open the link, probably /.ted.There was a post on /. earlier about this type of lens made by Philips and independently by a french company Varioptic and there was a lawsuit for patents. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/02/194025 5&

    1. Re:Didnt philips make this ?? by Anakron · · Score: 1

      I could not open the link, probably /.ted
      Coral is your friend.
      Here ya go
      And no, its not the same. These guys want to do it without applying an electric field to the liquid. They're using mechanical force.

      --
      There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
  19. Low cost glasses by waxigloo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I was a test subject for a physics professor here at the University of Oxford that developed the use of the same type of fluid lens technology for low cost eyeglasses (they cost about a tenner). They had plans to take them to 3rd world countries to provide spectacles for people who couldn't normally afford it.

    See there webpage here.

  20. Blecky photography by Flamesplash · · Score: 1

    Wonderful! Another advance in increasing the number of crappy snapshots in the world!

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
    1. Re:Blecky photography by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      1. Observe demand for a product
      2. Create product that meets that demand
      3. ...
      4. Profit

      --
      My other first post is car post.
  21. Re:haven't we seen this before, back, back in 2004 by wcdw · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except that the previous article talked about an oil-and-water lens, and specifically mentioned using 40V to alter the shape.

    THIS article says it has no moving parts, and does not use electricity to deform the lens - a valuable attribute in things like camera phones.

    --
    If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
  22. Dupe by sakusha · · Score: 1

    This is a duplicate story, and even worse, it's a story that ran on Slashdot in MARCH.
    So thanks a lot for the 6 month old news.

  23. Uh... by tarsi210 · · Score: 1

    Do I have to pee in it?

    1. Re:Uh... by fyoder · · Score: 1
      Do I have to pee in it?

      Only if you're looking for a sepia effect.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
  24. Re:Slashdotted Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering it isn't, you're an idiot.

  25. Liquid Lenses by BlueFashoo · · Score: 1

    If this lens is made of liquid, then why is this story under hardware?

    --
    Nice Marmot
    1. Re:Liquid Lenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because there's no "wetware" category.

    2. Re:Liquid Lenses by pHZero · · Score: 1

      Obviously the lens works better with hard water than with soft water, or else it would have been filed under software.

    3. Re:Liquid Lenses by jtpalinmajere · · Score: 1

      If this lens is made of liquid, then why is this story under hardware?

      The last time I did a belly flop off a high dive, 'soft' was not an adjective I would've attributed to water... let alone other liquids.

      But now that I think about it, I can't imagine doing a belly flop off a high dive into a pool of code any softer as I'd likely fall right through the nothingness and be promptly introduced to the pool floor... yeouch.

  26. Re:haven't we seen this before, back, back in 2004 by nacturation · · Score: 1

    Well, it does seem... curiously familiar.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  27. That would be fatal by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Camera lens sat on a wall
    Camera lens had a great fall
    And all the king's horses and all the king's men
    Couldn't put all the splatters together again

  28. Re:Just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just the thing for potty-training your kids - sort of like those invisible fence things for dogs!

  29. Jeez stop the all the glass is a liquid posts by papasui · · Score: 3, Informative

    Glass is an amorphous solid.

  30. What amazes me by haggar · · Score: 1

    ...is that it actually took this long for such a thing to be invented: it's basically imitating nature, and a simple concept, at that.

    Consider that geometrical optics is a very old science, and some sort of plastic/elastic material has probably existed for the better part of last century.

    --
    Sigged!
  31. Re:haven't we seen this before, back, back in 2004 by cetan · · Score: 1

    It doesn't say no moving parts though, at least as far as the drawings are concerned. Something has to be doing the pushing and pulling to change the shape of the lens.

    --
    In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  32. Yet another thing foreseen by sci-fi... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

    In DUNE, Frank Herbert had his characters use binoculars with "oil lenses"...

    1. Re:Yet another thing foreseen by sci-fi... by bhima · · Score: 1

      Yep and the patent this thing is based on is nearly as old.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  33. Old news by glass_window · · Score: 1

    Wow, this is an old story. It was on Engadget back in March and in the local paper in May. I wonder how many times the story was rejected before they finally posted this . . .

    1. Re:Old news by darthnoodles · · Score: 1

      It appears that it was submitted numerous times and NEVER rejected.

  34. He's got Stevie Austin eyes by pjt48108 · · Score: 1

    Next stop, bionic eyes!

    --
    Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
  35. I see.... by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    Magnificent invention.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  36. Now *THAT*... by Twinkle3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... is intelligent design!

    1. Re:Now *THAT*... by ndansmith · · Score: 1

      Actually, the summary says that their design is inspired by the human eye, so it is more like intelligent copying.

  37. Tripe! by schon · · Score: 1

    it's a story that ran on Slashdot in MARCH.
    So thanks a lot for the 6 month old news.


    It's not a dupe, it's a tripe (at least - it was posted in December, too.)

    And the pedant in me has to point out that the link you posted was from March 2004 - which makes it 18 months old, not 6 :o)

    1. Re:Tripe! by sakusha · · Score: 1

      oops, I should have checked the year too. I didn't realize it was that old.

      I recalled seeing this appear more than once before but I could only find the one instance in the searches I performed.

      You know, this is the problem with blog style "journamalism." If this was a real news organization, there would be one guy who covered the Optics beat, who would remember he'd already published this story before.

  38. frozen camera by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My digital didn't work well on the ski slopes anyway - I ran out of charge in double-quuick time. It seems that the batteries just don't like it cold.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

    1. Re:frozen camera by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      My digital didn't work well on the ski slopes anyway - I ran out of charge in double-quuick time. It seems that the batteries just don't like it cold.

      Most digital cameras are current hungry, the necessary chemistry to take place to produce that current is likely constrained by the cold.

      IIRC the wisdom of several years ago was that you could extend the shelflife of batteries by keeping them in your fridge.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:frozen camera by technothrasher · · Score: 1
      It seems that the batteries just don't like it cold.


      I did alright with my Nikon D100 in Alaska by using an external battery and keeping it inside my coat, next to my chest. That worked until the temperature got down to about -23F, where the electronics themselves started to have trouble.

    3. Re:frozen camera by yRabbit · · Score: 1

      We still keep some CR2032 batteries in the fridge, here.. I have no idea if it helps them or not though. ;)
      I'd be interested to know the real effects... I should go search about it sometime.

    4. Re:frozen camera by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Petzl makes head lamps that have an external battery pack as well. Good for winter camping and caving. I found it to be annoying much of the time but my batteries lasted a lot longer on NOLS than the people I was with.

    5. Re:frozen camera by dan42 · · Score: 1

      Another common side effect of cold is a (temporary) reduced battery voltage. This can trick some cameras into thinking the battery is dead before even trying to extract the charge from it. My canon suffers from a one-shot syndrome when the temperature gets anywhere near 0C.

      I've noticed (from reading datasheets in the past) that many battery chemistries have very high leackage characteristics if stored hot, but the benifits often diminish rapidly around room temp.

  39. Re:haven't we seen this before, back, back in 2004 by wcdw · · Score: 1

    I read the article twice, trying to figure it out. There was a quote about 'a single drop of water and no moving parts', while it was pointed out later that there was no electricity involved, as was traditionally the case with water lenses.

    Yes, _something_ has to be doing it -- which is why I started reading the comments here, in hopes of somebody in the know dishing out more details.

    Instead, it seems that most people are assuming it's one of the many other liquid lens stories, likely as a result of it being /.'d.

    (I didn't realize their server was limited, or I wouldn't have closed that page, and could repost the article.)

    --
    If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
  40. Bigger lens does mean better resolution by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    A perfect (diffraction limited) lens gives more resolution, the bigger it is. However, a lens bigger than f/8 (6.25 mm, or 1/4 inch for a 50mm focal length) is not likely to be both perfect and affordable. Most film cannot take advantage of higher resolution than would be provided by an f/8 lens. These are rough approximations, of course.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  41. Re:Slashdotted Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh but it is. You're the idiot. Now back to your regularly-scheduled feverish masturbation session with pictures of Jessica Simpson.

  42. What? by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Funny

    The human eye can change shape... and zoom?

    I've got to figure out how to do that... hell I could fix my nearsightedness!

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:What? by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      The human eye can change shape... and zoom?

      I've got to figure out how to do that... hell I could fix my nearsightedness!


      A name like autopr0n and the first use for built in zoom you can think of is to fix your nearsightedness??

      *tsk tsk* what kind of slashdotter are you?

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    2. Re:What? by Macdude · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what the left nipple is for? Or is it to pick up Jazz-FM?

      --
      "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  43. Attention AI students looking for a PhD. topic by dougwhitehead · · Score: 1

    Use the adjustable lens as a means of approximating distance by noting when the object is in focus. This is extremely relevent to robotic/sensor-fusion/autonomous-vehicle stuff. It could replace or augment the stereoscopic 3D work.

    1. Re:Attention AI students looking for a PhD. topic by B1ackDragon · · Score: 1

      That is a neat idea, but I think it could be done even easier with a regular camera lense. You'd just have to attach one of those fancy stepper motors to the ring focus on the lense, when the object is in focus (this would be the hard ai-ish part) just note how many clicks the motor had to turn to determine distance (within some error of judgement, of course you'd stop the lense all the way open to reduce depth of field).

      Also, projecting a couple of parallel laser lines and bringing them together until they form one should work too, and probably be easier on the AI side.

      Would such a thing (automated distance judgement) really be PhD worthy?

      --
      The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
  44. Re:haven't we seen this before, back, back in 2004 by cetan · · Score: 1

    I have the page as a PDF which is less than useful for most applications, but if you want it, drop me an email. The address cetan_post@yahoo.com is valid.

    --
    In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  45. Re:Just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that would be great if they could invent a camera than ran on urine. it sure would save batteries when i'm filming girls on the can.

  46. Re:haven't we seen this before, back, back in 2004 by cetan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or, I could just post the text of the article here :)

    --**--

    Named Fluidlens, this lens is made of liquid and is no bigger than a contact lens, but can achieve an optical zoom of up to 10 times, matching the zoom capabilities of lenses found on mid-range and high-end digital cameras and superior than most cellphone cameras which use digital zoom that relies on software rather than the lens to zoom in on an object.

    This liquid lens system achieves optical zooming through altering its focal length by changing its shape which mimics the action of the human eye.

    "Currently there is no practical alternative to compensate for the fixed focus lens system where a camera lens, for example, is moved along a linear axis until the image comes into focus. Our liquid lens, on the other hand, comprises only a droplet and no other cumbersome movable parts," explains Dr Saman Dharmatilleke, a research scientist working on the technology.

    Fluidlens liquid lens system To date, research in other liquid lenses involves using an applied electrical voltage to alter the curvature of the lens so that it can focus and zoom in on an image. Patented Fluidlens does not need this, which means it saves on battery consumption, is cheaper to manufacture and occupies less space in the device.

    Singapore-based A*STAR's Institute of Materials Research and Engineering (IMRE) who developed and patented this new liquid lens has licensed the technology to electronics manufacturer, PGS Precision, for an undisclosed sum. The manufacturer expects production cost of Fluidlens to be 20 per cent cheaper than conventional lenses.

    PGS Precision will run field tests over the next 18 months and is currently in talks with cellphone makers. It expects to make 10 million lenses a year after tests are completed.

    Fluidlens will enable digital camera and camera cellphone makers to create slimmer, better-featured devices with longer battery-life.

    --
    In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  47. Glasses in Africa by seriesrover · · Score: 1

    Can't find any link to it but I remember watching a tv proggy how you could make glasses by creating liquid filled lenses. All the glasses were identically built but were adjustable - it was being touted as a cheap way to bring glasses in Africa.

    1. Re:Glasses in Africa by bbdd · · Score: 1

      actually, i noted this the last time this story was posted...

      http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13151 3&cid=10979286

    2. Re:Glasses in Africa by waxigloo · · Score: 1
      ...and I replied to it this time ;-)

      (...with poor spelling of the word 'their')

      http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=15928 1&cid=13339898

  48. Re:Slashdotted Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the risk of pandering to your astonishing stoopidity, the gpp was pointing out that glass is not, in fact, a liquid. Not the fact that the site had been slashdotted. Dufus.

  49. Already used in nature by Killer Whales by FerretFrottage · · Score: 1

    There was show on the NGC about killer whales and while different pods use different hunting techniques, one group of whales that prey on sea lions that rest on the shallow shores, make use of the water to help them hunt. They first spy their target and then swim quickly into shore (surfing the waves for additional speed) to the target. The bow wave made by their head acts as a magnify/zoom lens for the whale helping them spot their target....or at least that is what the show claimed.

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
    1. Re:Already used in nature by Killer Whales by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      A collegue at work told me he used a trick once that he picked up from the movie "the big blue". He thought he had dropped his keys at a place in the water about 10 feet deep.

      He just kept standing there for 20 minutes till he got a quick glimpse of the keys, through the top of a wave. In one short dive he got his keys back.

      Actually just a tiny bit of the keys was sticking out of the sand but the view was quite detailed.

  50. Not from DUNE, first Caballo de Troya by LordRiper · · Score: 1

    The first autor talking about Liquid Lens are JJ Benitez in theri Caballo de Troya on 1984

    1. Re:Not from DUNE, first Caballo de Troya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dune pre-dates 1984 by a long shot.

  51. Glass IS a liquid by Karem+Lore · · Score: 1, Informative
    But glass is a liquid:

    glass

    --
    When all is said and done, nothing changes...
    1. Re:Glass IS a liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      you:
      But glass is a liquid:

      the article you cited:
      There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?".

    2. Re:Glass IS a liquid by raytracer · · Score: 1

      Had you actually read the link you provided, you would have found that the page indicates that glass is not a liquid, at least in the sense of flowing over time.

  52. The bottom? by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you read the entire article, you'll see that "liquid" is by far the least supported classification. Lots of people think glass flows like a liquid over hundreds of years, but it does not. It dosn't flow, or form to its container at all. So it's not a liquid, although it does have some other properties that are liquid-like. Its more a question of "what do mean when we say 'liquid'" then how glass actualy acts.

    Most people would not call glass a liquid if they knew how it worked.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  53. Article Text - Mod Parent Up by wcdw · · Score: 1

    Thanks. And on re-reading, I spotted the catch. The quote to which I referred actually reads "no cumbersome moving parts" (emphasis mine).

    So it's presumably a mechanical devices -- which is supported by the link another person posted, regarding the effort to provide eyewear to 3rd-world countries, where the glasses (which use this lens, apparently) are 'dialed in' for each user, and then locked at that setting. Because there is no need for an optician to grind the lenses, it's an ideal solution for some parts of the world.

    Thanks for the PDF offer, btw. I do want to go back and look at the diagrams (and I'm surprised no one has posted a patent link), but I can wait for the server to stop smoking first. ;)

    --
    If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
  54. No by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Styrofoam and cotton candy are liquids? I don't think so. Glass is a solid because it dosn't move at all, slowly or quickly.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  55. What? by Cassanova · · Score: 1

    >up to 10 times optical zoom by changing its shape similar to the human eye
    I had a zoom lens built into my eye socket and I learn about it now?

  56. Hey thanks by Holi · · Score: 1

    Man, I gotta thank you...

    FOR DASHING MY HOPES AND DREAMS.

    I'm gonna go sulk now.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:Hey thanks by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Man, I gotta thank you... FOR DASHING MY HOPES AND DREAMS. I'm gonna go sulk now.

      Hey, personally I'm waiting for cybernetic eyes, where they can enclose the optical zoom elements inside and augment it with digital/lossy zoom.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  57. Re:2004 Post by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

    The original article and its links may be visible, but my browser can't quite focus on the current one due to the /. effect.
    Hindsight is 20/20. *rimshot*

    --
    I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
  58. Limited LIfe by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Nice way to build in obsolescence, those pesky glass lenses last generations, we cant have that now can we? Need that perpetual revenue stream.

    This is also REALLY old tech.. but nice to see a new spin on something, yet again..

    Has everying new been invented or what? We are doomed to rehash everything for the rest of eternity? ( or until we self destruct )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  59. This is correct - squinting = reducing apeture by acomj · · Score: 1

    This is correct - squinting = reducing apeture, this is why most people see better in bright light (outdoors) than in doors.

  60. vodka by budgenator · · Score: 1

    I've heqard that in russia you have to be very careful to keep your vodka warm in the Siberian winter; it's actualy possible to take a swigg of vodka that has chilled to -50F with fatal results.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    1. Re:vodka by b0bby · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, I knew a guy from Alaska who had stories of people carrying alcohol on hikes and taking a drink - your throat just gets frozen. Here's a link where someone almost died, but the doctor used a tube to get liquid into the victim. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ice/filmmore/referenc e/interview/vaughan08.html

  61. muscae volitantes by Smallest · · Score: 1
    they are "the sad remnants of the hyaloid artery, which nourishes the lens and other parts of the eye during fetal development and then withers away."

    Straight Dope

    --
    I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
  62. Thank you Kryten by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

    To use the human eye "zoom" feature, simply move your head closer or further from the object. No other fancy features, just the "zoom"

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  63. Re:changing shape - explanation by lcsjk · · Score: 1

    When you are in bright sunlight, the iris hole becomes very small and a floater may block a significant part of the light coming through. Using sunglasses or going to a place that is dimly lighted causes the iris ot open larger and the majority of the light path is not blocked by the floater. Hope that makes sense.

  64. Software!? by Flamesplash · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't this be under the Software category?

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
  65. quite right by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    but better link straight to the argument:
    The case against glass being liquid at room temperature.

  66. No, it's updated! by fbjon · · Score: 1

    This one's updated! See, the previous article was a Piquepaille article @primidi.com, but this one is direct to the point.

    --
    True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  67. My Guess, a ferro-fluid by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was looking to patent an idea like this. I created a liquid lense with oil and Iron-Oxide -- nothing really exotic, Ferro-fluids have been used for quite a while. In my design I used a combination of ionization and magnetism to shape the lense. It was only part of a more complicated idea--I didn't think the lense was worth a patent by itself--kind of obvious. The only reason this is useful now is that we have new technologies in video that can actually use such a tiny lense.

    I was actually using this to move a laser to boost radio signals. I kind of gave up on the whole thing because I didn't have a job and didn't have any idea how to get the ball rolling. I'm an idea synthesizer-- not a lawyer. Anyway, I could have had about five patents out of this.

    So, in short, this lense may possibly be as simple as mineral oil and rust surrounded by water between two pieces of glass (I haven't been able to read the article due to the "slashdot effect"). Inside the small area of water, surface tension works to hold the shape and relax the effects of gravity--It's best to have an oil of the same specific gravity as water (most are lighter) so that motion will not pull one liquid more than another. Still, unless you used a strong magnetic field on the ferro-fluid, motion would change its shape-- so no long exposures. The difference in light distortion between the water and the oil will allow for your lense to focus. My idea was to use two lasers--one as a reference beam to calculate unwanted distortions. I'm guessing there is going to have to be some feedback mechanism to determine what the spherical abberation of the resulting liquid lense would be. I wouldn't want to say anymore because it would then be easy to guess the tricks I figured out. Since I have nothing but a love of science and no degrees in the material sciences, the actual fabrication of this device would not be my forte.

    On an aside, I still think it would be a nice idea to spin water in space to create a large lense for telescopic or sunlight collection purposes. About 30 years ago, when fiber optics first came out, I played with a lot of ideas for uses-- things like piping sunlight into the house, using it to peer inside the body and lase out blockages (I used a parasol design to stop blood flow and expand arteries--rather than a more obvious and more elegant balloon). It amazes me that things as obvious as a liquid lense can still find patentable uses.

    I actually submitted this as an idea to a company that says it helps people with Inventions. When I got a follow call asking for $1200 more than the original $500 I realized it was a scam (sigh). If these scumbags realize they have prior art--I'm guessing they won't, since they are about scamming more than actually understanding any technology that people submit. Well, lessons learned. Nobody is going to "discover" your brilliance in life--everyone has to do their own leg work.

    One of these days, I'd love to get back to inventing.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    1. Re:My Guess, a ferro-fluid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not complex, the method has been used many times, it is an elegant solution.

      You are not an inventor, you are a dreamer...
      there IS a difference.

  68. Hmmmm....... by kubasa · · Score: 1

    Since we get temps of minus 40 degrees Celsius in the winter.....gotta wonder how the lens will hold up. Interesting. Maybe the company could send me a lens to do some cold weather "product testing"??

  69. all previous glass lenses have been liquid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    glass is a liquid, so what's new?..

  70. Newton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is prior art... Newton's microscope used a drop of water as the first effective lens.

  71. SciFi in Action by vanka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well it is always nice to see science catch up with Science Fiction. I remember Frank Herbert writing about binoculars with oil lenses in Dune. Nice to see our favorite authors weren't crazy, just ahead of their time.

    1. Re:SciFi in Action by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      I keep putting cinamon in my coffee (tasty!), but no prophetic visions as yet. I'll keep you guys posted though!

  72. old news by m3rr · · Score: 1

    this was also in Wired Magazine months ago...

  73. Glad to see a ethereal invention for a change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm glad to see someone patenting an actual invention instead of just claim-jumping someone's idea for a website layout."

    Note the implication that for an invention to be real. You have to be able to hold it in your hands.

    Just one small problem with that. The world changes, and technology changes. We're in the digital information "economy of the mind" society that Alan Toffler spoke about in the Third Wave. Unfortunately Slashdot is still living in the Industrial "I have to be able to touch it, or it doesn't exist" Age.

    So I hereby declare that Slashdot Geeks are the Buggy Whips around here and need to change or be left behind.

  74. Philips did it first by Annirak · · Score: 1

    Isn't there a large wealth of data about this at http://www.research.philips.com? It dates back at least one year.

  75. Re:changing shape - explanation by Maxite · · Score: 1

    An "iris hole"? Are you sure that you don't mean "pupil"?

    Ted: Oh my god! There's a hole in my iris! Aiieeeee!!
    Ed: Uhh.. dude, that's just your pupil.
    Ted: A pupil? Like that kind that goes to school and makes out with the teacher?
    Ned: Uh, no dude. Now give me the bong, I think you've had enough dope for now..

    --
    Ah, you found me!
  76. Species with zoom lens by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, I can think of two creatures with multiple fixed focal length optics (no zoom lenses to my knowledge).

    The first is the dragonfly. The configuration of this insect's compound lens is such that the upward facing facets operate like a telephoto lens and the bulk of the rest of the eye is wide-angle. This gives the dragonfly near 360 vision but with a high resolution zoom on the airspace above to enable seeing (and catching) small flying insects.

    The second are spiders which have 4 pairs of eyes of differing sizes. These eyes, especially in ambush hunters such as a jumping spider, have different effective focal lengths to provide wide angle vision for an overview and narrow field vision for catching stuff.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  77. redundant redundancy by dtmos · · Score: 1

    Yes, this is a dupe of a dupe, although the means by which the lens is focused (mechanical motion vs. electrowetting) is different.

    Interestingly, this allows us to complain more efficiently, as we can merely cite our original complaints, instead of having to type them in again.

    Another technical advance brought to you by your friendly Slashdot editors!

  78. Hubble Telescope Issue by davidbofinger · · Score: 1

    Glass lenses are ground to specific shapes. When this is done wrong (e.g. Hubble) you get a bad lens.

    The fluid lens only seems to have one axis of control: you can make it more convex or more concave, but that's all you can do. It doesn't seem like there's enough control to let you shape the lens so there aren't Hubble-like problems.

    Does this mean it will have low image quality? Is that why they are only looking at mobile phone cameras, and not the higher end?

  79. This liquid lens is new! by Clarinase · · Score: 1

    tx for all your comments. just wanna highlight from the article that this lens is new (press release by IMRE is dated 16aug05), and is different from other liquid lenses (previously reported at various places) in that it does not require electric charge to change its shape.

  80. adjustable eye glasses with ultrasonic ranging? by spirit55 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd like this in my camera, but I'd REALLY love to have adjustable eyes again. At about age 50, the eye's lens gets too stiff to see both distant and closeup objects - a real pain. If these new lenses can be made large enough for eye glasses, or uses as a lens implant, they could auto adjust to the range one is looking at using an ultrasonic ranging sensor. Many people over 50 would buy it if the price was at all reasonable. It's an idea with trillion dollar potential. I've heard that it will soon be possible to replace the overly stiff gell inside the eye's lens so that it will work like a young eye, which would be even better than an electronic eye. Optometrists beware - your unadjustable overpriced product may soon be obsolete!

  81. It's the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason you get sharper images with a tinier aperture, is because the amount scattered, i.e. unfocused rays, are being reduced.

    When the aperture's wide open, it's receiving light for many points of view. With a narrow aperture, its receiving light for a much smaller set of points of view.

  82. not the first liquid lens by mattr · · Score: 1

    Perhaps first of this type. But I know someone who has a few patents on a liquid in plastic membrane lens which he developed after Nikon said it couldn't be done.. for cheap eyeglasses for the third world. A syringe for each lens is dialed to inject clear fluid into a round plastic pocket which bulges, changing focus. You dial until things look clear, once for each eye. Then a crimp is put in the tubes and you snip off the syringes. It is difficult to make non-circular lenses so same is probably true for this one as well.

  83. Dries Up? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

    If it's anything like all the auto compasses I've owned, it'll dry up in a month, or when the warranty runs out. I wonder if there's a Visine for that.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  84. Pinhole cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are really more the domain of artists, historically speaking. Sure, hobbiests have played with them, too, but artists innovated that one, and continue to this day to make serious use of the pinhole camera.

  85. low tempretures by m0f3z · · Score: 1

    i do alot of photography in tempretures as low as minus 20C, i'm sure it wouldn't work at the time, but if it DID get frozen, would this destroy the camera or would the lens melt and work again?
    we all know what happens when you put a bottle of glass beer in the freezer.. it expands and smashes!

  86. Leica Owner? by jtcedinburgh · · Score: 0

    You must be a Leica owner, right?

  87. Yeah... by Feztaa · · Score: 1

    ...can still achieve up to 10 times optical zoom by changing its shape similar to the human eye.

    If somebody can please tell me how to take advantage of this 10x optical zoom in my human eye, that'd be super.