Slashdot Mirror


Wearable Computer With Lightweight HUD

zeazzz writes to mention that the folks over at UMPC have a very cool little writeup and pictorial of a user's latest wearable PC. With the surge in smart phone adoption it seems that enthusiasm for wearable computers has dropped off a bit, which is too bad. I certainly look forward to my augmented reality HUD instead of depending on my iPhone for everything. "Essentially he took the MyVu headset, removed one of the eye pieces, and mounted the other to his glasses to that he could see his surroundings and the UX's screen at the same time. The MyVu is attached to the UX through the A/V output port on the UX's port replicator dongle. With some additional addons he provided his UX with extra battery life via an external battery, and several input methods to communicate with the UX while the rest of the kit resides within the backpack."

25 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With the surge in smart phone adoption it seems that enthusiasm for wearable computers has dropped off a bit, which is too bad.

    OK, the bluetooth headset seems to be winning out over the HUD as the main UI device. Other than that, how is a smartphone not a wearable computer?

    1. Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Smartphones are not really wearable computers for two reasons. First, they don't really count because, in general, you have to hold them during use, rather than actually wearing them. Second, they are not "wearable computers" in the sense that people with pacemakers or cochlear implants aren't "cyborgs": That is, they actually are; but they aren't what people imagine when they say so, so we don't really consider them to be.

    2. Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by Smivs · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because I don't wear my phone?

      This guy does!

    3. Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK, the bluetooth headset seems to be winning out over the HUD as the main UI device. Other than that, how is a smartphone not a wearable computer?

      Wearable computers are supposed to make you look like a clumsy ass when using them. Smart phones typically don't unless you use a bluetooth headset.

      Honestly, I think the conceit is a holdover of older technology where you ended up looking borgified with all the hardware you had strapped to your body. You used to have to wear heavy-duty batteries strapped to your waist, a funky keyboard strapped to your arm, doofy goggles, and the computer itself was on your back. Heady stuff for people who were used to computers having to be plugged into walls but this was even before laptops became practical, when luggables were still the latest and hottest shit.

      The iPhone is pretty much representing the ideal of the Tricorder or the PADD from Star Trek. Pretty screen, touch interface, wireless everything, sound and video, cool stuff! The only way it could get any better is if you didn't even need to hold anything in your hands (or pay out the ass for the data plan). That'd be an ear piece that tucks away invisibly in your ear like a hearing aid, bone induction microphone imbedded inside the earpiece, and a display that either sits on contact lenses in your eyes or would be built into your glasses and either projects information onto the glass or shoots it onto your retina with low-powered lasers. Where would the computer be? Maybe still clipped to your hip like an iphone feeding data via wireless, or maybe it'll be small enough to be built into the hearing aid or contact lenses.

      What's the ultimate UI goal? Terminator vision. Integrated lowlight vision, thermal vision, object tagging like a fighter plane's HUD, etc. The early concepts were mocked up for military maintenance crews, you could watch a video showing you what you're supposed to do as you do it.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by mustafap · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >You just made a pacemakers sound cool. Too bad I have a good heart. Maybe I could get a pacemaker put in in Mexico so I could be a Cyborg?

      If you work in IT, don't worry, just be patient. You'll be needing one in 10 - 20 years time.

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    5. Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by thedonger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, what you said, and, for the love of Christ, a way to "talk" without having a one-sided conversation with the freaking air. I hate that. Fifteen years ago you would have been sent to the loony bin for talking to voices in your head. Now, we assume one half of a bluetooth-enabled conversation. Seriously, how many completely, balls-out fucking crazy people are walking the streets who we assume are on the phone?

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    6. Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stupidity is a mindset, not something that can be measured with an IQ test ;)

    7. Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by mcvos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He has a computer in his backpack and wears a headset. Compare with someone with a phone in their pocket, and wearing a bluetooth headset. I don't think even of them count as wearable computers. Yes, he's wearing a headset, and people talk about wearing bluetooth headsets with their phones too.

      The computer's output is definitely wearable. The big question is the input. Do you need to get your smartphone out to type stufff? Does it have voice recognition? Do you have an input device in your pocket that you can use without looking at it? Does it track your eye movement?

      Ideally it has both audible and visible wearable output, and several types of wearable input. But with even one type of practical output and one type of practical input, it'd count as a wearable computer in my book.

    8. Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by mcvos · · Score: 2

      Yes, what you said, and, for the love of Christ, a way to "talk" without having a one-sided conversation with the freaking air. I hate that. Fifteen years ago you would have been sent to the loony bin for talking to voices in your head. Now, we assume one half of a bluetooth-enabled conversation. Seriously, how many completely, balls-out fucking crazy people are walking the streets who we assume are on the phone?

      Why is that a problem? Suddenly crazies can pretend to be normal well-adjusted members of society too. Isn't that great?

  2. Resolution by chill · · Score: 3, Informative

    640x480

    While this may be fine for watching video without getting neck strain from being hunched over, it makes computing life a pain.

    Until one of these things can give me a full 1024x768 or better display, it'll always be a niche toy for computing.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Resolution by chill · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, reality.

      I've spent a lot of time as an admin for some fairly large companies. One thing I noticed is that a lot of people who aren't into CAD, programming or graphics design, don't like resolutions above 1024x768. I've lost count of the times I've set shiny new LCD monitors to their spec res like 1280x1024 only to have people change the res back down. The fonts are too small. If you change the font sizes, programs start to look weird, so they change the res.

      Hell, look at the number of web page templates that are hard set for 1024x768. Lots of white space on the margins.

      If you're a web admin, set up a test and check your logs. Record the screen and window res of people hitting your pages and you'll be shocked to see the bulk are usually 1024x768.

      It is sad, but it is the way it is.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  3. It's a decent hack, but the HUD is problematic by MartinSchou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At least for what I have in mind for a personal project. I haven't been able to find a decent optical see-through HMD that is affordable for regular people.

    Liteye makes a system for the military, but this seems like a rather limited system.

    I wouldn't mind seeing an OLED system in this form factor. They're quite sturdy, allowing you to mount decent loads onto it, the bridge and resting pads are quite big making them rather comfortable even with a big load on them. The stems are wide allowing big mounting points for stuff like camera(s) and wires. Connect it to something like an nVidia Tegra and you'd have an optical see through display, head mounted cameras and a small computer that can handle augmented reality with apparent ease.

    But I suspect I'd be better off hoping to see Megan Fox splayed across my bed.

    1. Re:It's a decent hack, but the HUD is problematic by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course it's feasible.

      Samsung presented a transparent OLED display at CES 2009, another example from 2008. Sony presented a flexible OLED display in 2007, making a display following the glasses curvature easily doable.

      And I picked the nVidia Tegra as the computer, as that's already been proven to be plenty capable of doing AR and HD playback.

      You don't even need to mount batteries in the glasses. You can run power and data cables inside a tether for the glasses, similar to the thingie for the iPod with cables for the head phones. All you need then is input and bluetooth works well enough for mice. You could use a virtual keyboard, but I suspect that's suck horribly.

  4. Re:No demand by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 2, Funny

    As far as demand goes...I demand to own one of these...I mean really, the concept is just awesome, I can level up characters in all my favourite games while driving to work! Heck, I could play GTA while driving to work (as long as I don't mix up which eye is the game). What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
  5. Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And I would like to see someone hack one. LOL. Can you imagine walking down the street and seeing some guy suddenly freak out because his wearable computer started blaring music and showing totse images?

    --
    Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
  6. Then the terrible reality sinks in... by WoRLoKKeD · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Oh, my God, you didn't turn into a gargoyle, did you?"

    --
    Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery.
  7. What a huge leap in male contraception devices! by Phizzle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Condoms got NOTHING on this when it comes to preventing reproduction!

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
  8. Still waiting for my bicycle HUD. by MarkvW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When my bicycle HUD displays rear-views and navigational data I'll be all set.

  9. Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think contact lenses make a lot more sense. Then you could remove them. They'd be a lot easier to upgrade as well. I don't see any reason they couldn't have their circuitry embedded in them off near the edge, and have power beamed in.

    Contact lenses might make a lot of sense as targets for a vision system like the one described in Snow Crash. Perhaps if you integrated some MEMS components into them they could contain a scanning mirror set, even, and perform a sort of DLP-esque function.

    If I'm getting an eye implant, I want a lot more than a HUD. I expect telescopic vision via electrowetting lenses.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    That won't work...try to focus on your contact lens...or more likely, some bit of dirt or smudge on it. You can't; there needs to be a bit of distance between the lens and the thing you're trying to optically perceive.

  11. Been done by skrimp · · Score: 2, Informative

    Xybernaut did this back in the 90s with a monocle hud, voice recognition, and a wearable cpu. It was underpowered, but saw some demand in the manufacturing and maintenance fields. I always thought it was a good idea and hoped it would go mainstream. Sony even threatened to make a 'ComputeMan' with the tech. I would have to agree that there's not enough demand and or it's too geeky.

  12. Re:No demand by paeanblack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead of furiously wanking while trying to stand out from the crowd by wearing highly visible equipment, these guys should be finding a niche where mobile computing makes sense.

    -Anybody working in a factory or a warehouse, where nobody cares how you look.
    -Field service techs that need access to a ton of reference data.
    -Anybody that climbs up a telephone pole or down a manhole.
    -Anybody who needs use of both hands and access to information simultaneously to better do their jobs.

    It's not exactly a "niche" market. Designing a wearable eyescreen that doesn't suck will be worth a ton of money.

  13. Re:Hrmm. by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, we got this dude good. Looks like the server didn't just slow to a crawl, it's been pushed completely offline. Instead of an endless wait, I'm getting an instant connection refused message.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  14. Re:No demand by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where's the +1 Hilarious Hypocrisy mod when you need it?

  15. Re:Holding my breath by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting

        I still haven't seen one that truly interests me.

        What I want to find is a setup that hooks up to both a long infrared (thermal imaging) and a short infrared (night vision) cameras, and overlays the images on reality through the glasses.

        Imagine being able to not only see in the dark, but see the heat signatures from things.

        My dad experimented with long infrared with the Army in the 60's and 70's. In some of the books that he had published, he demonstrated interesting things. The equipment was huge and static. He'd set up for a shot, take the picture, and then process it. At best, you were looking at hours to see the result. You could see a residual handprint on the wall, inefficiencies of insulation, etc.

        Imagine seeing a real time feed overlaid over the world. Amazingly useful things would be seeing hotspots in a house, caused by overloaded power circuits or inefficient insulation. You may be able to see where someone had walked before you (temp changes in the footprints), touched items such as door knobs. Fire rescue would be able to see through smoke, take extra precautions on very hot doors, and very likely save more lives. Police could search darkened areas with ease, and avoid hostile suspects jumping out from the shadows. In every day use, you could see long distances ahead when you are driving at night, and even spot when someone you're talking to is lying.

        It could open up a whole new world for us.

        The idea wouldn't be very hard. You should be able to run a pair of fiber optic cables from the edge of a pair of glasses down to the cameras. A very small PC should be able to overlay the images in real time, and then display them through something resembling the glasses shown. I've been watching for cameras that are small enough, and are affordable. I have yet to find the kind of gear that I could afford. :(

        An extra overlay of other data could be useful too, without causing an information overload. The time, ambient temperature, some GPS data (heading, speed, altitude). Things that you'd see on TV are a bit fanciful right now, such as threat detection. Determining a car is on an intercept path and may cause an impact is a bit beyond what a portable PC can do, but a human can determine it quickly by seeing it.

        For fire/rescue and law enforcement, I would see it being amazingly useful to transmit that data back to a central location. Where or what happened? It would all be available.

        I know a lot of people hate cops, but a lot of them are actually doing something very useful for our protection. We simply don't see it all the time, because most of our interaction is with traffic cops who may or may not be right, but they'll write the ticket anyways.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.