Slashdot Mirror


Computer Monitor In Eyeglasses

ozancakmakci writes "We have all seen science fiction ideals of computer displays concealed in eyeglasses. One of the earlier spectacle-based designs was created by David Bettinger and disclosed in US Patent 4,806,011. Advances in fabrication technologies are now allowing complicated surface profiles to be manufactured. Exploitation of a complicated surface profile leads to low element count designs. Researchers at the University of Central Florida, CREOL/College of Optics & Photonics have designed and fabricated a computer monitor in eyeglasses that uses sophisticated surface profiles to achieve a compact design. The current specifications include an 8mm exit pupil, 20-degree field of view, 15mm eye clearance, and a resolution of 1.5 arcminutes. Follow the link for two pictures of this latest prototype." Read on for some of the challenges in designing a workable eyeglasses-based display. Regardless of market potential, there are several optical engineering challenges that need to be overcome before displays in eyeglasses become pervasive. From an optical engineering point of view, the design space is large enough and designers have to make choices. A good example of such a choice is choosing just the right field of view while maintaining high image quality and a large exit pupil. Exit pupil of an optical system is analogous to the windows at your home, the larger the windows, the easier it is to see the outside world. It has been challenging to design and fabricate a large field of view and a large exit pupil for an eyeglass based display.

109 comments

  1. utility? by subtleluck · · Score: 1

    seeing how reading books for extended periods of time will deteriorate your eye sight, since you are putting too much straign on your eyes by focusing so close, would using these things as your computer monitor be really feasable for more than a few minutes? I mean focusing your eyes so close seems like a big streign, is this thing even practical?

    1. Re:utility? by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No need to focus close. The physical distance doesn't matter. The optics can be designed to allow the user to focus at infinity.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:utility? by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think "utility" is the right word. The utility is clear, if the challenges can be surmounted. Of course, eye strain is a concern for any display technology.

      I can even live with 640x480 resolution - just use a motion detector to scroll the view across a virtual desktop when I move my head.

    3. Re:utility? by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      I have always wondered about that. I wonder if they could calibrate the image to where they trick your eyes into focusing on the image which would only come into focus if your eyes attempted to focus on something a few feet away.

      --
      You mad
    4. Re:utility? by jx100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think "utility" is the right word. The utility is clear, if the challenges can be surmounted. Of course, eye strain is a concern for any display technology.

      I can even live with 640x480 resolution - just use a motion detector to scroll the view across a virtual desktop when I move my head.

      An even better idea: how about one that scrolls along with the motion of the eye? It'd be even less necessary motion, and possibly far more natural than moving one's head around.
    5. Re:utility? by kfg · · Score: 1

      seeing how reading books for extended periods of time will deteriorate your eye sight, since you are putting too much straign on your eyes by focusing so close. . .

      Absolute nonsense. Stressing muscles makes them stronger in the long run and degredation of the lens and/or retina are aging effects having nothing to do with "strain."

      KFG

    6. Re:utility? by kimvette · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is false.

      What WILL deteriorate your eyesight is always looking at something at a fixed distance, be it a book, monitor, etc. all day long without taking breaks, day after day, for many months. So, whether you're a software geek, an accountant, an attorney, or ($FOO) just look away from your work every little while. What I do a few times a day to exercise my eyes is look through the blinds by my desk, focus on the blinds, then focus on objects behind the blinds, and repeat a bunch of times.

      You can avoid weakening the muscles in your eyes by shifting focus to something distant. Look out the window across the street for example. Ever hear of the 'see clearly method?' I imagine they take this simple exercise (focus on something really, really close, then focus on something really distant. Repeat, rinse, wipe hands on pants) and turn it into an expensive "self help" video, but really, all that method is (probably) about is forcing your eyes to focus at the extremes to give the muscles a workout.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    7. Re:utility? by hcob$ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except your eye naturally "shifts" position every few milliseconds I believe. It's a way for you to continually see since your eyes tend to "disappear" anything that is completely motionless.

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    8. Re:utility? by eMbry00s · · Score: 1

      Which is good for people with good sight. I'm extremely near-sighted, though, and can't focus on infinity (farthest I can focus is ~6cm without glasses).

    9. Re:utility? by brianosaurus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Its a good thing, then, that the "Computer Monitor in Eyeglasses" is in eyeglasses.

      duh.

      --
      blog
    10. Re:utility? by pocopoco · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have bad eyesight as well, but I can actually use my Icuiti M920 head mounted display without them because it has a diopter adjustment. Looking at the pictures in the article, I can see the creator used an Icuiti DV920 to build off of, which also has this ability.

      Of course he may have hacked that part off, or the amount it can be adjusted to may be insufficient for you.

    11. Re:utility? by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      Your cube has a window? Lucky. I'm stuck in the corner of an internal room. But I'm still a "valuable asset to the company!"

      --
      Love sees no species.
    12. Re:utility? by ATMD · · Score: 1

      This is true, but it's not a good thing.

      I'm short sighted because my eye muscles are too strong, and can't relax enough to focus the image of something more than a couple of metres away on my retina. I was told this by my optician.

      I imagine that long-sightedness in old age is, conversely, caused by the degradation of your eye muscles, resulting in them being too weak to focus on something nearby.

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
    13. Re:utility? by kfg · · Score: 1

      I was told this by my optician.

      Optician: specially trained professional (not a medical doctor or optometrist) who can fill prescriptions.

      KFG

    14. Re:utility? by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

      I thought illusion of distance could be achived by showing the left eye a slightly offset image to the right (or vice-versa). If the glasses could track your pupils could it not ensure that the screen was in a comfortable and appropirate virtual location?

      --
      In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
    15. Re:utility? by valindar · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that's incorrect, however the most common reason (except for old age) for being short or long-sighted is because the eye is too long/short, meaning that when you're focusing at the extreme, it's still not enough for it to land focused on the retina, the focus-point is either in front of or behind the retina.

      If I remember correctly, it coming about from old age is from the lens becoming inflexible through age, it can't be stretched by the muscles to the same extremes as it used to be able to, meaning you can't focus far away or close.

      That's how I understood it. However I would be interested in any further explanations you can give about your reason.

    16. Re:utility? by ATMD · · Score: 1

      Our two explanations are not mutually exclusive - you're just coming at the problem from the other end. Muscle strength and eye length should be in sync. If they aren't, focussing problems occur:
      - With a constant muscle strength, there is an optimum eye length. An eye of a different length will have trouble focussing at certain distances.
      - With a constant eye length, there is an optimum muscle strength. An lens muscle of a different strength will have trouble focussing at certain distances.

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
    17. Re:utility? by ATMD · · Score: 1

      He may have been an optometrist - I wasn't aware of the distinction.

      He sounded like he knew what he was talking about though, and I can't think of any reason why he'd make something like that up.

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
    18. Re:utility? by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1


      But do you still have your red swingline?

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    19. Re:utility? by kfg · · Score: 1

      I can't think of any reason why he'd make something like that up.

      He wasn't making it up. He was repeating it. Just as your pharamicist might tell you you caught a cold because you caught a chill; and you might well believe him, even though being a pharmacist doesn't make him any more expert in colds than yourself, because he's a medical authority figure.

      A more correct way of putting it would be to say that your muscles are exerting too much force. This may well be done by a weak muscle. Also a muscle's ability to stretch is not innately connected to the force it applies when contracted. An overworked, strong muscle may lose stretchability, but so may an underworked, weak muscle; and either one might be extremely stretchable.

      No one really knows what causes myopia, thus "explanations" abound, based on anecdote and pseudoplausability. It's interesting to note, however, that it typically onsets during the developmental stage from child to adult (and may even go away again by the end of the stage) and runs in families.

      You may well be shortsighted simply because you were born to be that way.

      KFG

  2. What I would like to see... by MBC1977 · · Score: 1

    I'll be happy if they could make a it so I could have glasses (even though I have 20/10 vision), that would allow me to see normally, and had a light opaque computer screen which would serve as a monitor. HUDs displays won't be good until that feature happens seamlessly I think.

    --
    Regards,

    MBC1977,
    1. Re:What I would like to see... by zopf · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I think it would be great to have a screen with adjustable transparency embedded in the lenses. I'm sure that with current technology, we are near to such a feat.

      --
      Did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!
    2. Re:What I would like to see... by Hillbert · · Score: 1

      If you've got 20/10 vision, you'd probably be disappointed with these. According to the article (and summary), the resolution is 1.5 arcminutes, which is equivalent to about 20/30 (or 6/9, for us metric-using folks), meaning your normal vision would be much clearer and detailed than what you're seeing coming from the virtual display.
      Although, if this is from a 640x480 VGA panel, I'm sure they could work in something of a little higher resolution in future prototypes....

  3. Re:Lik-Dong closure leaves Noted Gay Nigger jobles by eneville · · Score: 0, Redundant

    greetz from #linuxwarez@efnet

  4. submitter is the author? by nietsch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since the submitter is the author of the article, I find it a bit upsetting that he does not show more links to information on his 'invention' or background written by others. Now it looks a bit like a bad egotrip.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    1. Re:submitter is the author? by metlin · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you, were it not for a conference publication that's on the website.

      Agreed, it's not a peer-reviewed journal publication, but the publication suggests that this idea is probably not vapourware.

    2. Re:submitter is the author? by nietsch · · Score: 1

      Yes I overlooked that one. There is more on his 'links' page, but that is a bit of a hodgepodge to me. If you submit your own article, at least you could acknowledge others work on the same subject. Citing your own paper again is just, well, egocentric. I wonder how many papers by himslef he cited in that paper?
      Also, is it just me or is there not much invention in his device?

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    3. Re:submitter is the author? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Agreed on the background. A good start on the history and the major players in this field can be found on Wikipedia. In includes a nice timeline with pictures of the various forms the technology has evolved into over the years.

      One thing I didn't see on there and maybe a Slashdotter can help me...is the wearable unit created by one of the folks at the MIT Media Lab I believe. It was a tiny little laser that looked about the size of two watch batteries stacked together and it clipped to the top of a regular pair of glasses (so no horrid form factor) and projected a low-power laser directly into the eye which displayed the screen. Can anybody provide links to this? Is this something commercially available yet? Seems like all these people wasting their time would be better served just making an add on for regular glasses as people are more than fine buying them for purely aesthetic purposes these days and those frames would look a helluva lot better than anything a technology designer would come up with.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    4. Re:submitter is the author? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that the critical part is "Send me an email if you are interested in collaborations or investments relating to our future prototypes." It's not vaporware. It's a business proposal in search of investors.

    5. Re:submitter is the author? by ozancakmakci · · Score: 3, Informative

      I added a link to a review article that we wrote which includes several related inventions. Thank you for pointing that out.

    6. Re:submitter is the author? by FrozenCat · · Score: 1

      Given that article seems to imply that the device is function (ie the mention of specifications) where are the photos of the device in operation?

    7. Re:submitter is the author? by blacklungfever · · Score: 1

      As you may or may not know, designing those kind of prototypes take a long time, and when completed, the end-product may result in a mentally-wrecked designer. So, ignoring the "behaviour" and commenting on the technical issues would probably be more on-target.

  5. hud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can already see this weaponized as a HUD for ground soldiers.
    Green outlines maker terr'ists pretty.

    1. Re:hud by IdleTime · · Score: 4, Funny

      But can it see through womens clothes? THAT is what I want to know!

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    2. Re:hud by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      But can it see through womens clothes? THAT is what I want to know!

      Sure - but only the ones that look like this.

    3. Re:hud by erbbysam · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. The person who invents that won't tell anybody about it until their on their deathbed, so expect it in another 60/70 years.

    4. Re:hud by jasmak · · Score: 1

      No, but maybe soon they can condense the display from the new http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight /0605/ backscatter machines without the blurring function.

      --
      It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    5. Re:hud by quintesse · · Score: 1

      Not really , but with the Hot Coffee mod you can at least project images of nubile young virgins on top of every person you see.

  6. Can I play... by A+Wise+Guy · · Score: 0

    Can I play quake with the glasses? If not, I'm out!

    1. Re:Can I play... by vain+gloria · · Score: 1
      Can I play quake with the glasses? If not, I'm out!
      Don't see why not if the glasses are simply functioning as your monitor.

      My eyes! The goggles, they do everything!
    2. Re:Can I play... by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Not the same project AFAIK, but this was on Slashdot a while ago: Augmented Reality Quake.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  7. 3d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3d floating images direction/motion senstitivity

    then it will be something new and shiny

    1. Re:3d by innosent · · Score: 1

      Definitely not impossible. Mounting a few solid-state accelerometers on these glasses could create some interesting visualization and gaming possibilities. Not exactly CREOL's area, but he could probably talk to one of the simulation guys. Drs. Workman and Hughes come to mind, and maybe Lobo with the addition of a camera for robot-vision applications (like vision enhancement). Could be some interesting applications of this, and nice to see my school on the front page.

      --
      --That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.
  8. It sure would be nice by Dryanta · · Score: 1

    If there were more pictures, simulations, descriptions of applications already working on it. The amount of possible applications once the kinks are worked out is amazing, but the technology still seems far off.

  9. How will I see where I'm going? by Pinkfud · · Score: 1

    Can I read Slashdot while walking through this mess of cables without falling down and taking half the room with me?

    --
    The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
  10. What we really need by ahayes_m · · Score: 0

    For the people who wear glasses they should cram OLEDs down so they are small enough to be integrated directly into regular eyeglass lenses, with wireless and batteries to power it all. For people who don't wear glasses though, we should look into directly stimulating the optic nerve, but find a way to do it without actually having something that touches the eye.

  11. How does this differ from "VR" goggles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. How does this differ from the wearable glasses that have been on the market for 20 years?
    2. How do you get a patent for something that's 20 year old technology?

    AFAICT, this is just the same old 640x480 that nobody wanted. Where's the innovation? My guess is that he's filing for a design patent; however he thanks someone else for doing the optical design.

    1. Re:How does this differ from "VR" goggles? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      see Virtual IO iGlasses which became Phillips iGlasses (including a 'HD' version for movies, which was IIRC a whopping 800x600 or something)

    2. Re:How does this differ from "VR" goggles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this version doesn't make your eyes try to crawl out of your head after 20 minutes of watching. I borrowed a pair once and now I understand that scene in Clockwork Orange a lot better.

  12. haven't these been around for a while by TrdrJoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...at least in prototype form? http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/lizzy/index.htm l The article doesn't articulate how the new technology is different from previous projector-based systems.

    1. Re:haven't these been around for a while by jdray · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered (with essentially no knowledge of optics) whether or not a monitor reflection could be projected onto the end of a fiber optic strand, sent some distance, then re-expanded on the other end through a lens to form a HUD. You could put the heavy-lifting portions of image generation remote from the headset. Of course, the bandwidth of the fiber would have to be sufficient to transmit the stream, but that doesn't seem unreasonable.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    2. Re:haven't these been around for a while by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Won't work. Each pixel would have to travel in a different mode along the fiber or they'd all be blurred together, and you control so many modes.

    3. Re:haven't these been around for a while by the_pooh_experience · · Score: 2, Informative
      Won't work. Each pixel would have to travel in a different mode along the fiber or they'd all be blurred together, and you control so many modes.

      I disagree, but only in practice. You are right in your interpretation, that the grandparent post suggests imaging onto a single fiber. Imaging using a fiber bundle instead. This actually works and a two dimensional scene, imaged on to the front facet of a fiber bundle will have an additional image plane on the back facet of the bundle. The complication and impracticality comes about because these are highly lossy (there must be absorbers put between individual fibers). I can't quickly find a link on line that shows the imaging property in action, but rest assured, it works. An imaging camera product based on this can be seen in the Schott Corp website. Ones I have seen are relatively short (a few inches long). Resolution would only be as good as the fiber bundle spacing, and again, light throughput is pretty small.

  13. omg by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0

    oh yeah, that's what we need people doing in addition to talking on their cell phone while eating breakfast while driving. Come on, you know that you know at least one person that would check their e-mail on their fancy new monitor-glasses connected to their laptop while they were driving :P

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  14. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Prior Art by kimvette · · Score: 1

      they should, as should video goggle systems that have been around since 1995 or so.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  15. I wonder... by PieSquared · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While watching a movie or something seems to be the most obvious use of this type of system, I think the most interesting uses would be those that involve leaving most of the screen clear at any given time. A HUD for a soldier, sure... or a little digital clock and mini forcast (like forcast fox) whenever you look up and to the right or something for a civilian. You could even use it to add a 3D picture of something to every day life, if you added a camera or a motion sensor... I just can't wait until someone makes a popup virus for one of these... hijack wireless or bluetooth connected to the device and an ad appears 10 feet in front of you every 5 minutes... that would be interesting, especially if such a device were required for some tracking system :P

    --
    Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    1. Re:I wonder... by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      As I'm sure some people would be wearing these while driving (and other things; that's the first to mind), I don't know that making pop-ups for glasses would be worth the potential lawsuits.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    2. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and other things" Hehe the mind boggles. I can see a big market for these in adult shops. Why sleep with your ugly wife, just put on these goggles and you can have Jenna Jameson, Bambi Woods, Tracy Lords and more. Coming soon, new Paris Hilton Night Vision special edition...

  16. A hayday for sky divers! by Micklewhite · · Score: 5, Funny

    These glasses would be quite useful for sky divers, they could see their altitude and current speed in their glasses as opposed to asking a mathematician after they land. Every time I've been sky diving the mathematician in the booth at the landing site charged nearly $100 just to tell me how fast I was going. Then once I brought along a calculator and started calculating my velocity right there. Then the mathematician got really pissed off and tried to take the calculator away from me. Then the other sky divers grabbed him and wrapped him up in a chute and rolled him into a near by river. I did all the calculations for the other sky divers for free.

    The trouble was after that the mathematician went and told the National Mathematicians Union about what I did. So the Union went to the Sky Divers Collective and told them if they kept up this 'bastard math' as they called it, they'd completely blacklist the entire skydiving community. This was a tough call on the part of the Collective, since they had something of a symbiotic relationship with the Mathematicians Union. Instead of trying to call the Union's bluff the Sky Divers Collective just blacklisted ME from ever sky diving again. I think that was a real kick in the teeth, since the conditions of the blacklist meant I wasn't even allowed to use a chute to save my own life.

    These computer monitor glasses would be a well deserved kick in the teeth for the National Mathematicians Union which I think has gotten a little too big for its britches. I imagine they'll probably be the biggest opponants of the computer glasses.

    --
    I don't own a snook, and if I did I wouldn't leave it cocked.
    1. Re:A hayday for sky divers! by Inertiatia · · Score: 1

      Brilliant!

    2. Re:A hayday for sky divers! by Builder · · Score: 1

      All jokes aside, I really don't want to know how fast I'm going while I'm flying; I can happily wait until I'm on the ground to check my neptune and protrack for that info.

      How high I am would be nice, but even then I've got an alti on each wrist and an audible screaming in my ear at designated altitudes.

    3. Re:A hayday for sky divers! by Dark007 · · Score: 1

      It would also be good in a modified form for scuba divers. Depth, temperature, ascent rate, gas, bottom time, among other instrumentation would be very useful in a HUD. Perhaps 3D mapping as well for navigation around dive sites. We were actually discussing this on holiday in Dahab. Currently, wrist mounted dive computers are used for this sort of thing.

  17. Availability? by goldseries · · Score: 1

    Is there any word on when these might be avialable for general production?

    --
    Great webhosting, cheap rates! Enter code SlashdotDiscount
    1. Re:Availability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will probably be out in time to play Duke Nukem Forever on them.

  18. Move along, nothing for you to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, wait.

  19. visual technologies: seeing is believing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'll believe in this technology the day I see it in my livingroom

    as well

    i'd bet not one percent of the wonderful inventions we've seen at slashdot ever becomes affordable and available

  20. What's old is new, Yawn. by rubberpaw · · Score: 3, Informative

    Head mounted displays have *not* been fiction. Steve Mann has been building these things for decades. A number of commercial solutions, based on several generations of products exist. I count a total of 17 basic wearable display product lines at Tekgear, a distributor who focuses on wearable computing hardware. This sort of thing is so common that an Open Source toolkit has been developed to deal with the real problems with these displays -- not the graphics display, but the user input. The ArToolkit is an object-recognition system which allows easy, keyboard-less interaction with a computer mediated augmented reality display. It's rather far along.

    1. Re:What's old is new, Yawn. by setirw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but these are contained within eyeglasses. All other head-mounted displays are opaque; these are transparent.

      --
      This message printed on 100% post-consumer recycled electrons.
    2. Re:What's old is new, Yawn. by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      Transparent displays are by far not anything new in the field of augmented reality. See eg. this project.

      This said, I am happy this technology is leaving the dark basements of university labs and, even if painfully slowly, heading into the mainstream use.

    3. Re:What's old is new, Yawn. by rubberpaw · · Score: 1

      All other head-mounted displays are opaque; these are transparent.

      That's not actually true. A transparent, in-glasses display was featured on Slashdot in 2001. Five Years Ago.

  21. Since the submitter is the author by Solandri · · Score: 1
    Maybe he can fix the pictures on the page. I was wondering why Firefox was pausing for 1-2 seconds and my CPU meter pegged at 100% when trying to scroll past the pictures. It turns out they're 3264x2176 full-sized JPEGs apparently straight from the camera, which the page dynamically resizes using the img width and height tags to fit your browser.

    Either Firefox's implementation of dynamic resizing needs to be tightened up, or (if resizing 3264x2176 images is not how these tags were supposed to be used) the author needs to replace the pictures on the main page with smaller versions, which can open up the larger versions if you click on them.

  22. There is a cooler idea by Casandro · · Score: 1

    I don't know if this could work, but what if you would build a "lens" with integrated LEDs. Each LED would have a another lens in front of it, projecting it's light onto a small spot of your retina. When the lenses and the LEDs are small enough you wouldn't notice them when looking throught.

  23. Port 500 probe? by macemoneta · · Score: 1

    Anyone else getting a probe on port 500 when visiting the article link?

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

  24. Cool! by davidc · · Score: 1

    ... Now I can look like Geordi LaForge!

  25. Headache? by bloody_liberal · · Score: 1

    Fighter pilots have been using devices of similar gist for many years. Now, I am not a professional in this field, but as far as I know this technology never found its way to the consumer world because it is notorious for giving the viewer a nasty headache when used too long. It is not clear if they figured this issue out; until they do, I refuse to be impressed. P.S. In case the people involved are actually reading it: did you ever try using it for more than 10 minutes straight?

    1. Re:Headache? by Gramie2 · · Score: 1

      Kind of like the infamous eyeglasses handle that made people cross-eyed. Boy did the bastard who invented that get sued!

    2. Re:Headache? by ockegheim · · Score: 1

      The only time I've seen an Imax 3D film, using goggles that block one eye as alternate frames are displayed on the screen, I had a huge headache after the 45 minute featurette. It was very immersive though.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    3. Re:Headache? by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1


      Imax 3D does not work by blocking one eye for alternate frames. It works through polarization. One frame is polarized vertically, the other at 90 degrees. The polarization in the glasses is 90 degrees apart for each eye. Next time you are watching an Imax 3D movie, try tilting your head and you will see the images diverge. This is also nice when watching the movie without glasses. The slight blur you see from the images being at two different locations (much more noticeable for objects that are supposed to be far away than for near objects) is far better than the 'halo' effect that the red-blue method produced.

      I would hypothesize that the headache you experienced was a combination of factors. The first time I watched one of these, my eyes had a hard time focusing on the images. I started to get a headache, then realized I was straining to see, when I really didn't need to. I closed my eyes and relaxed for 30 seconds, then consciously relaxed my eyes as I was viewing. It made a world of difference. I also tend to sit with my head cocked to the side, and that caused problems, but the images diverge enough that it is noticeable before it causes a headache. I have also had dates (girls who don't normally wear glasses) tell me that the unfamiliar pressure and/or weight of the glasses gives them a headache.

      Right now, I see every movie I can in Imax 3D. I would love for this to be the new general format for movies. They are much more immersive and can make an ok movie into a fantastic movie. The Imax version of The Christmas Express was jaw dropping. I saw it twice and was stunned both times. I wondered how they were going to accomplish the same shot in the 2D version. When I finally saw it in 2D it was such a let down.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  26. so on this screen by way2trivial · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they could adjust focus of the display from near to far on a cycle, and get rid of the need to take a break visually...

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  27. Sounds like a esay way to cheat on a test by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    As you can have the answers on your Eyeglasses

    1. Re:Sounds like a esay way to cheat on a test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps test which are capable of being cheated on through this method are becoming outdated. If the information is available in such a way that it does not interfere with minute by minute actions then maybe the test designs themselves are testing a paradigm of problem solving that is on its way out. Just a thought, maybe bunk. Comments?

  28. by focusing so close... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    IANAO (I am not an optician) but as far as I know, the proper exercises can fortify your eyes and even ameliorate your vision.

    The biggest problem with reading (and computers, also) is CONTRAST.

    Black on white is awful on your eyes. A yellowish or brownish page with blue ink would do marvels for your extenuated sight. Black on White will just strain it more and more.

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:by focusing so close... by kfg · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with reading (and computers, also) is CONTRAST.

      And the lack thereof. You want as much contrast as possible. The problem is BRIGHTNESS. Paper "works" by reflected light. Keep the light source moderate and black on white is just fine (but, yeah, with cream paper you'll reduce reflected light while maintaining decent contrast with black ink), but people tend to go the wrong way there. They have the idea that too little light is bad for their eyes when reading, but that's backwards from the way things actually are. Nobody has ever burned out their retinas by staring straight into a dark closet. The headache you might get from trying to read in light that's too low is simply muscle strain from tensing. Relax.

      The problem with a computer is that the light is direct, not reflected. You're staring straight into a lightbulb when you display black on white. Off white on black gives you enough contrast for easy reading, but keeps the photon ray gun to a reasonable output level.

      KFG

    2. Re:by focusing so close... by valindar · · Score: 1

      How about an LCD? Is that just as bad as staring at a CRT monitor? The light is shining from the the top and bottom down and up respectively, not towards you.

      I find it's a lot easier to read on my LCD than my CRT, but is that because of the extra clarity (I use a DVI connection, when I was using an analog one before my new video card it wasn't so good), or?

    3. Re:by focusing so close... by kfg · · Score: 1

      That's a good question.

      Damned if I know a good answer.

      KFG

  29. This was on hackaday a few days ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is not new technology and neither is it original research. He simply used commercially available HUD systems and integrated it into his own system. Still pretty freakin hard and cool but I dont love how he says its due to new fabrication technology since its not like he developed that tech or anything.

  30. Lights play a role by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Also, don't forget that light play an important part in deterioration.

    Well lit environment preserves the eyesight. Light using a good bright white light source when reading a book.

    In contrast, badly lit environment will favorise eyesight deterioration. Like a dimly lighted environment near the computer in a geek's basement. The geek tend to prefer low light (so the display is more visible), but this deteriorate his eyes faster.

    If the head-mounted display has a correct brightness and, as mentionned by other /.ers, the optics are made so you focus on infinity when looking at the image, there's not much risk for the eyes.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Lights play a role by kimvette · · Score: 1
      In contrast, badly lit environment will favorise eyesight deterioration. Like a dimly lighted environment near the computer in a geek's basement. The geek tend to prefer low light (so the display is more visible), but this deteriorate his eyes faster.


      Oh come on, hasn't this been proven false as well? I'm pretty sure it has. . . what DOES deteriorate your eyes is eyestrain. Just exercise your eyes (see my other post in this thread) and don't sit in front of the monitor for hours on end day after day without taking breaks.
      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  31. No I don't know by nietsch · · Score: 1

    And I certainly don't care that much if he is mentally wrecked from designing his display. mental instability is something you can claim for the judge and if granted gets you undefunite loonie-bin time instead of jailtime. The rest of us try to judge anything by its merits, not the mental state of the creator.
    If you are a student you may make some mistakes in your time management, but if completing your studies makes it certain your mental state will suffer a lot, you and your uni are making some very serious mistakes. Personally I don't think it is that bad.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  32. Patents Strike Again by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From TFA:
    To our knowledge, this is the first display to achieve such specifications in the world. A U.S. Patent has been filed.
    ...and another promising technology is held back for 20+ years.
    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Patents Strike Again by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      Multiple designs for reflective and direct retinal projection have been patened over the past 30 years. The one that comes to mind was the piezo scanned led retinal projector. It was going to be available real soon. That was at least 15 years ago and hasn't been seen since. This is just another "patent and wait" for the money and a nice example of modern optics. I wouldn't hold your breath.

  33. MOD PARENT UP by despik · · Score: 1

    Informative.

    --
    "I seem to have mastered a certain amount of control over physical reality."
  34. too bad MIT had it first by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thad Starner and his team that was researching Wearable computing at MIT had them a LOOOONG time ago. Thad is currently sporing some today that are near impossible to detect.

    Nothing new here but someone patenting something that has so much prior art that taking the patent down will be incredibly easy.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:too bad MIT had it first by tecnopa · · Score: 1

      Dont you mean Georgia Tech? Ive seen Thad sporting those ever evolving glasses around campus many times over the last five years :-P

    2. Re:too bad MIT had it first by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Thad started his work at MIT before he went there. Him and Prof Steve Mann are the fathers of Wearable computing and have had glasses monitor displays for years now.. Prof Mann had a sunglasses unit that was undetectable that you were wearing one over 10 years ago.

      Really cool stuff.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  35. And yet... by Lord+of+Hyphens · · Score: 1

    I still want one when it's commercially available. Especially when it's integrated into a device the size/power of our average PocketPC PDA.

    --
    "I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
  36. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Underrated

  37. oLED displays by gordonwallace · · Score: 1

    I read / skimmed through the comments as much as possible so if someone already mentioned this I apologize. I remember reading an article (I think last year) about oLEDs in SciAM and how sheets of them could be produced to be used as displays (for cell phones/computers/other) which would be transparent when no current was running through them. Not exactly sure where this technology is at these days but I would think that they could be made into practically any shape (to accomodate the many different styles of eye glasses). You could have a little button or something on the side of your glasses to cut the power to/from the display so that they could be normal glasses except when you wanted to view something (like the skydiving stats). Also "bastard math" is one of the funniest terms I've heard in a while.

  38. Wow - I mean really, wow (but not really) by nilbog · · Score: 1

    Wow - a story on something that has been around for 30 years and commercially available for at least the last ten. When it doesn't make you look like Jordi from Star Trek (or the borg), I might consider dropping some cash on it, or gracing it with the presence of my head.

    --
    or else!
  39. Kind of worrying by StoatBringer · · Score: 1

    Great, now everyone can watch porn while driving.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
  40. Finally someone's found a way... by DakkonFury · · Score: 1

    To make talking on the cell phone while driving look comparably safe. Imagine a driver with a pair of these... You've got mail = 5-car pileup.