Augmented Reality In a Contact Lens

Cool by SilverHatHacker · 2009-09-01 04:52 · Score: 3, Funny

This is way better than having to hold your iPhone in front of you all the time...

--
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.

Re:Cool by Yvan256 · 2009-09-01 05:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Mine holds by itself.
Re:Cool by mcgrew · 2009-09-01 06:18 · Score: 1, Redundant

There was a slashdot discussion some time ago about something related (or maybe this is a dup, I don't know), and several people wondered when we would have augmented reality in a contact lens. Not there yet if they only have one LCD, but I can see having these things implanted in your eye. I already have "augmented vision" from an implant - I got a CrystaLens implant in my left eye back in 2006. That eye now has better then 20/20 vision (although the surgeon said most people are lucky to get 20/20). You will be assimilated!
I can see them putting this in an IOL.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Cool by blackraven14250 · 2009-09-01 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Implants are impractical for everyone to have. There's too much of a failure rate in all electronics, and the moment you have a dead pixel, I pity you. If someone doesn't like it, or needs an upgrade, you're screwed. Like the fact that they doubled the resolution since you got it? Too bad, your eye can't handle another surgery. Augmented reality belongs as just that: an augment, as in a set of glasses you can take off. There's no place in the human body for an upgrade slot.
Re:Cool by n0tWorthy · 2009-09-01 07:29 · Score: 1

I want nano-LEDs that can set themselves up between the rods and cones in my eye. Then the resolution will be at the max that my eye can see and my eyes can glow in the dark! :)

--
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
Re:Cool by Clandestine_Blaze · 2009-09-01 07:30 · Score: 1

That was you??

--
Best "String" Ever!
Re:Cool by F34nor · 2009-09-01 09:00 · Score: 1

You already can. MVIS Microvision has a patent on a laser or LED scanning system that can theortically paint each rod and cone a different color. It can do focus, depth of field, & etc.
Re:Cool by Ost99 · 2009-09-01 13:53 · Score: 1

It will still happen.
The day an implant will give a better result than glasses / lenses someone will do it.
Need to upgrade an old implant? Replace the eye...
Need to upgrade that old, out of date eye replacement and the fried nerve endings? Direct brain interface...
Need to replace that worn old body ...
In a hundred years time your "There's no place in the human body for an upgrade slot" will be hold in the same regard as we have for the Amish lifestyle.

--
---- Sig. gone.
Re:Cool by Hal_Porter · 2009-09-01 18:28 · Score: 1

Maybe you're thinking of Kevin Warwick, cyborg from England. He gave a lot of interviews to the press about how cybernetic implants would give us telepathy and that cybernetically enhanced humans would eventually for a new and superior species, the threat or cyberdrugs and so on. Of course experimentally all he did was put an RFID in his arm.
http://www.badscience.net/2004/04/the-return-of-captain-cyborg/
Oh sorry, that was a different piece of trivial "research" hyped as the road to transhumanism.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Cool by Keynan · 2009-09-01 18:56 · Score: 1

?surgery? It's a contact lens. I throw mine out every 2 weeks.
Re:Cool by Yoozer · 2009-09-01 20:07 · Score: 1

Need to upgrade an old implant? Replace the eye...
I don't know about you, but I have to return my eyes according to the contract with Zeiss-Ikon.
Re:Cool by hanger · 2009-09-02 03:10 · Score: 1

Riddick?
Re:Cool by mcgrew · 2009-09-03 01:39 · Score: 1

The day an implant will give a better result than glasses / lenses someone will do it.
Already done. I have a CrystaLens implanted in my left eye, and the vision in that eye is better than 20/20, and better than it was when I wore glasses and contact lenses.
However, the surgeon said my outcome was better than average, probably because I'm not as old as most people who get these implants. Most patients get between 20/20 and 20/25 vision. If you have the money you can get the implants for nearsightedness or farsightedness or astigmatism (the implant cures them all), but insurance will only pay for a standard single focus IOL, and then only if you have a cataract. I had cataract in that eye from prescription steroid eyedrops, and paid the difference in price between a single focus IOL and the CrystaLens. I had to shell out about a thousand bucks, it was worth every penny.
In a hundred years time your "There's no place in the human body for an upgrade slot" will be hold in the same regard as we have for the Amish lifestyle.
"Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" by Cory Doctorow.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Cool by mcgrew · 2009-09-03 02:30 · Score: 1

No, I wasn't thinking of that goof. There were a lot of REAL cyborgs around before he made that claim. According to the dictionary, you're a cyborg if you have a device implanted in your body that aids its function. That makes me and Dick Cheney (and anyone else with a pacemaker) cyborgs, as well as people with artificial hips, knees, etc.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Cool by Erinnys+Tisiphone · 2009-09-05 08:48 · Score: 1

I had to Wikipedia your CrystaLens. Its actually pretty cool technology; I did not even know that was possible before. Sadly for the average joe (or happily for the people who actually need them), it seems all the cool cybernetics of this decade are designed exclusively for disabled or injured people. Glad it worked out so well for you, though, especially after such a terrible medical mix-up!
Re:Cool by mcgrew · 2009-09-08 02:54 · Score: 1

If you're interested, I went into it in more detail in this journal. The lensectomy was easy, but I got a detached retina in the same eye last year and had to undergo a vitrectomy (warning - that link is not for the faint of heart, and the wikipedia article on it is even worse). Luckily I had a good outcome with that as well; I no longer have any floaters at all in that eye and my vision is even better than before the surgery. I wouldn't wish a vitrectomy on anyone, it was pure hell.

--
Free Martian Whores!

A 21st Century Contact Lens by davide+marney · 2009-09-01 04:52 · Score: 5, Informative

Here's an illustration that explains it all in a glance.

--
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday

Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens by phayes · 2009-09-01 05:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

I suppose that the micro-lenses focus the output of a LED directly on the retina but do not see how LCD type displays referred to in TFS can work. Anyone?
The problem for those who have not realized it is that LCDs in contact lenses are too close to the eye to work. They would subtract some light but be invisible much like a screen is when you put your face up to it & focus outside.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens by $RANDOMLUSER · 2009-09-01 05:18 · Score: 1

I absolutely love Popular Science illustrations like that; with little bitty boxes marked "Heinsenberg compensator" and "Zero-point module" and "Inertial dampener" and suchlike. They show me what future technology will be like.

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens by jeffb+(2.718) · 2009-09-01 05:22 · Score: 1

I suppose they'd have to use some sort of holographic optics to form a virtual image at a distance. I think this is possible, but it's not my field. Besides, for good AR, you want to be able to layer dark as well as bright images. When you're flying through a daylit cloud, your overlays should be black.
Retinal projection displays are overrated in my experience. They throw your eye's imperfections into overwhelming, distracting relief.
Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens by maxume · 2009-09-01 05:27 · Score: 1

Presumably, the imperfections of the eye are mappable and can be compensated for.
The concept is incredibly attractive, but it seems like a whole lot of pieces need to be working quite well.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens by Flea+of+Pain · 2009-09-01 05:35 · Score: 1

You forgot to mention the flux capacitor.

--
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens by jpyeck · 2009-09-01 05:58 · Score: 1

Of all the examples to give for potential applications, they choose monitoring glucose levels? What about that application requires augmented reality, related to vision? That could be an iPhone app with a Bluetooth-enabled patch anywhere on the body that periodically took a drop of blood and analyzed it.
How does an interface for the eye help here?
Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens by tonyreadsnews · 2009-09-01 07:03 · Score: 1

FTA

One way to do that is to employ an array of even smaller lenses placed on the surface of the contact lens. Arrays of such microlenses have been used in the past to focus lasers and, in photolithography, to draw patterns of light on a photoresist. On a contact lens, each pixel or small group of pixels would be assigned to a microlens placed between the eye and the pixels. Spacing a pixel and a microlens 360 micrometers apart would be enough to push back the virtual image and let the eye focus on it easily. To the wearer, the image would seem to hang in space about half a meter away, depending on the microlens.
Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens by bhartman34 · 2009-09-01 07:06 · Score: 1

I think this must be the kind of thing they're contemplating.
Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens by Hurricane78 · 2009-09-01 07:41 · Score: 1

Interesting. I have a drawing like that in my idea book. It's now two years old, and it's better, because the electronics cover only the area of the display, and nothing else. So if you can make them see-trough, you're done. You would have to lay them on top of each other anyway, as soon as you'd cover the whole field of view.
I can also cut a cavity in a lens, glue an LED into it, and put some wires on it. Or make a small non-tranparent integrated circuit, and glue it between two lenses. That's not hard. Everybody can do that, if he has a optical microscope with some micro-tools, and can do his own ICs (I can). Everybody can buy those tools, as long as he has the money.
I wonder it they're beyond the design phase for the *whole* thing, and if I should patent it and put the patent into the public domain. :)

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens by Oewyn · 2009-09-01 08:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Upon looking at the picture I have discovered a fatal flaw in the design.

Solar cells.

I could just see the warning on the HUD now:

"WARNING, battery low, please look directly at the sun to recharge capacity."
Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens by phayes · 2009-09-01 23:07 · Score: 1

I suppose that in the future retinal displays would be able to correct for imperfections making retinal displays less distracting.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens by jeffb+(2.718) · 2009-09-02 00:51 · Score: 1

Maybe, but that's an awfully complex problem, especially since you only want to correct for some of the imperfections -- the ones your brain isn't already dynamically mapping out. I don't know which will come first, the technology to do that, or the technology to go directly into the cortex.

yes! by Mr.Fork · 2009-09-01 04:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Now, throw in a TrackIR-like system, and we can 100% totally immerse ourselves inside a virtual reality PC. No more monitors that have limited field of views etc. Also, imagine the military and civilian aspects - how a terminator can overlay regional information like that of the new iPhone app - but now it's in your eyes.

But they're gonna have to figure out a) how to power it and b) how to transmit the data to these devices. That is true tech challenge.

--
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker

Re:yes! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-01 04:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Just imagine being able to watch porn while you're tagging that not-so-hot chick you met at the bar!
Re:yes! by xenolion · 2009-09-01 05:09 · Score: 1

Dude you just figured out the plan this item was made by people that have never been laid now they can over lap a better "model" over to hide their true looks LOL
Re:yes! by Fallingcow · 2009-09-01 05:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

No no no no no
It'll be used to present a VR overlay ("skin") on your generic sex-bot, which will be printed with a pattern that the lenses can easily recognize so it can correctly orient the 3-D model. Get bored with the Angelina Jolie skin? Fick your eyes to the side to cycle forward to the Cindy Crawford skin in mid-stroke!
Holy shit, I think I need to patent that...
Re:yes! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-01 05:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

Couldn't they figure out a way to power it using energy from the human body itself? Or, couldn't it be powered in much the same way as an RFID chip is powered? You could also transmit data in the same way, no?
Re:yes! by Chyeld · 2009-09-01 05:15 · Score: 1

TFA did mention that they are powering the current version via RF. (RF being the same as the RF in RFID)
Re:yes! by CarpetShark · 2009-09-01 05:27 · Score: 1

Just imagine that chick watching your portfolio performance while she tags you.
Re:yes! by mrrudge · 2009-09-01 05:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Unfortunately by using Cindy Crawford as an example you've shown your age, and by the time this reaches the consumer you'll be using it to magically replace the petunia in your garden that the cat from next door ate. At least, I think it lives next door, I've seen it around there and, oh, no, that one has black feet. Or is it the one from up the road that has, what, Cindy who ?
Re:yes! by MaerD · 2009-09-01 09:25 · Score: 1

Better then trackIR. TrackIR still needs an external reference to track the motion. If this thing can tell which direction you point your eye, you'd have a great hands-free interface.

However, personal interaction might get weird when people keep trying to figure out why you keep moving your eyes all over the place.

--
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
Re:yes! by Virak · 2009-09-01 10:09 · Score: 1

Yeah, and then you get the bright idea to give it gigantic breasts, reach over slowly and with excitement to enjoy your newfound toys, and find only disappointment and the disconcerting appearance of your hands buried halfway into another person (unless you happen to like that sort of thing, of course).
Re:yes! by Fallingcow · 2009-09-01 10:25 · Score: 1

Yeah, it'd have to either be limited to the body type of your sex-bot model (perhaps with modular parts, so you can have a couple of boob sizes for it and just put on whichever type you feel like that day) or the bot would have to be able to expand/contract in some places, which is probably not practical if you want to make it feel at all skin-like.
Re:yes! by Fallingcow · 2009-09-01 10:27 · Score: 1

Eh, I was gonna type Heidi Klum instead but I couldn't remember how to spell it (not even sure if that one's right).
Crawford's prime was a bit before my time, but yet timeless :)
Re:yes! by DarkProphet · 2009-09-01 20:31 · Score: 1

I actually saw a show that featured this technology earlier today. I think it was on the Science Channel or Discovery Channel, wasn't really paying attention. Attention Deficit FTL.

Anyway, I got the impression that the lens would communicate via radio frequency and presumably get its power the same way. They didn't really go into much technical detail on that, so I may be assuming too much. Tech like this would be beyond cool if they get it to work, but honestly I was left with the impression that its not a particularly viable way to get your HUD overlay... Personally I think we'd have a better chance of getting that functionality by interfacing directly with the optic nerve or brain.

Then again, I'm not an engineer nor a neurologist, so I probably don't understand the respective challenges involved :-)

--
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its

I have a request. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-01 04:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Can I just get a contact lens with cross-hairs in it?

Why yes. I do play Quake III Arena often. Why do you ask?

Re:I have a request. by Yvan256 · 2009-09-01 05:38 · Score: 1

You mean like this?
Re:I have a request. by jgtg32a · 2009-09-01 05:55 · Score: 1

Doesn't your mind adapt to stuff like that and eventually filter it out?
Re:I have a request. by mcgrew · 2009-09-01 06:29 · Score: 1

Yes, probably at WalMart. They have snake-eyes and all sorts of halloweenish contact lenses, and as they don't correct vision you don't need a prescription. I'm thinking of getting either a pair of snake eyes, or a pair with red irises for Halloween. They cost about thirty bucks or so.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:I have a request. by 4D6963 · 2009-09-01 18:08 · Score: 1

No, you don't see it, it doesn't get in the way of your vision.

--
You just got troll'd!

Small steps. by palegray.net · 2009-09-01 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd be happy just to have a usable interface in a pair of normal glasses (non-correcting).

--
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.

Re:Small steps. by OpenGLFan · 2009-09-01 05:20 · Score: 1

Agreed; something like the Myvu Crystal with decent resolution (640 lines is NOT enough for everyone; double it and I'll buy it tomorrow) should be possible and wouldn't require a prescription (or eyedrops). For extra fun, add a couple of accelerometers for head-tracking and you can use the old X-windows "slide the viewport around" trick. Add a small bluetooth keyboard, and you've got a mini-office anywhere you've got a chair.
Re:Small steps. by CarpetShark · 2009-09-01 05:36 · Score: 1

I'd be happy just to have a usable interface in a pair of normal glasses (non-correcting).
I'd be happy just to have the usable interface ;)
Re:Small steps. by jollyreaper · 2009-09-01 05:50 · Score: 1

I'd be happy just to have a usable interface in a pair of normal glasses (non-correcting).
Ditto. I have extreme eye contact phobia and the thought of contacts gives me the willies with a touch of the heebie-jeebies. But I can totally dig standard glasses.

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne

Another inevitable function of this... by d474 · 2009-09-01 05:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Another inevitable function of this contact lens is recording video. Everything you see passes through this lens, so you will be able to record everything you see (except, of course, for dreams and hallucinations).

It would be like Tivo for your life.

--
Authority questions you. Return the favor.

Re:Another inevitable function of this... by Chyeld · 2009-09-01 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

With respect, I doubt that'll be in the 'near' future for these. The problem with recording video is that you actually have to capture the photons to do that. Capture the photons on the recording media, and they are no longer available for the eye to 'see'. The non-contact versions of 'eye mounted' HUDs that I've seen get around this by using a complex setup to split the image into two, but from what I understand of that, it'd be practically impossible to use the same method for a contact.
I suppose another solution might be 'capture and relay', but that invariably would cause your vision to lag reality. Not something I see even the most ardent transhumanists voting for.
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by Ambvai · 2009-09-01 05:15 · Score: 1

Good lord, that would make for the most boring home videos ever. "And here I am, driving to work for the 857th time..."
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by unifyingtheory · 2009-09-01 05:20 · Score: 1

I feel like the sudden production and availability of a million lifetimes worth of [real, relevant] video would bring civilization to a crawl and drop the general population's IQ, much like what current technology is doing to the youth in developed countries (z0MG LOLz!!!1one)
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by d474 · 2009-09-01 05:21 · Score: 1

Good lord, that would make for the most boring home videos ever. "And here I am, driving to work for the 857th time..."
Actually, I was thinking more in the direction of "And here I am, banging my super-hot ex-girlfriend for the 1st time...when we were 18."

I know, this is Slashdot, so that scenario wouldn't really apply to anyone here. The driving one, how ever...

--
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by stfvon007 · 2009-09-01 05:23 · Score: 1

Precisely why we need augmented reality. Imagine the hilarity when your co-workers as a joke hack your contacts so you see a herd of rabid monkeys running down the hall towards you while monkey sounds play on your ipod implants! That would really reduce the boredom of work!

--
All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by $RANDOMLUSER · 2009-09-01 05:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Further, studies show that the eye's point-of-focus jerks all over the place. Your gaze is rarely centered in just one spot in a scene. Then there's the question of (depth-of-field) focus...

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by d474 · 2009-09-01 05:34 · Score: 1

With respect, I doubt that'll be in the 'near' future for these. The problem with recording video is that you actually have to capture the photons to do that. Capture the photons on the recording media, and they are no longer available for the eye to 'see'.
Interesting objection, but easy to overcome. You do realize that the lens also will also have the ability to project light into the eye, right? So why not just project the capture back into the eye? In fact, this could be a feature. The user would have the ability to turn off the recording to see reality, or turn it on to see replicated reality, in-other-words, a video feed of what they are "seeing" (of course augmented with whatever information the user wants). You could adapt filters to this incoming replicated reality, like various video effects or themes, like zombie filters so that all humans look like zombies (random thought, I know), or characters from your favorite MMO, or to adapt landscapes to match your favority movie, like having Transformers flying around or battling in the streets above you.
But I digress.

--
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by CorporateSuit · 2009-09-01 05:55 · Score: 1

They already have this but it doesn't get very good reviews.

--
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by Lord+Ender · 2009-09-01 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Contact lenses cover more than the pupil. A recording device located over the iris would not interfere with vision.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by Explodicle · 2009-09-01 06:09 · Score: 1

"And here I am, driving to work for the 857th time... and POW! The defendant speeds right through that red light, hitting my car. Proof, your honor, that I am entitled to reimbursement."
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by mcgrew · 2009-09-01 06:37 · Score: 1

You can see through a screen door, can't you? The same would apply. Although for recording, I think glasses (sunglasses) would be better.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by Chyeld · 2009-09-01 06:48 · Score: 1

Good point, I guess my only remaining objection would be bandwidth issues with getting the info from the eye to you 'image processing' unit. Given these contacts aren't going to be running AA's in them, and given that this is going to be a two way communication, it might be more advisable to do the 'image collection' someplace else.
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by Onymous+Coward · 2009-09-01 06:48 · Score: 1

"computer-mediated reality" / "augmented reality"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyetap
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by Paracelcus · 2009-09-01 07:30 · Score: 1

Your parole officer would like that!

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by VanessaE · 2009-09-01 12:04 · Score: 1

Depth-of-focus issues aside... Just capture the video stream in all its jittery glory, at a nice, high frame rate, and let a computer post-process that data to stabilize the image. I've seen examples of this after-the-fact process, in addition to the usual realtime image stabilization that many cameras feature.
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by cp.tar · 2009-09-01 12:22 · Score: 1

Good lord, that would make for the most boring home videos ever. "And here I am, driving to work for the 857th time..."
Actually, I was thinking more in the direction of "And here I am, banging my super-hot ex-girlfriend for the 1st time...when we were 18."
Oh, great.
"Oh, you're wearing contacts? Yeah, they'll have to come off before you see me naked. Yes, every time. I don't want my boobs all over the internet, thank you very much. And we're screwing in the dark, just in case."
This kind of technology could lead to people actually having sex, but never ever properly seeing their partner naked.
OTOH, it could reduce shyness, I suppose...

--
Ignore this signature. By order.
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by jeffb+(2.718) · 2009-09-01 13:58 · Score: 1

Ugh. 100ms is nasty on all sorts of levels. Yes, the processing latency inside your head is worse than that in general -- but it's all finely tuned in wetware that's evolved over millions of years, and for the most part you can't just "adapt" to throwing another 100ms into the stovepipe. (Conversely, once we start tapping more directly into the visual cortex, taking away latency will be similarly fraught with risk.)
OTOH, we've already got consumer cameras doing 1000fps capture, and there's no reason in principle that we can't increase display refresh to arbitrarily high rates. If we can get down below 10ms total latency, I don't think that delay will affect anyone but elite athletes, who won't be allowed to use augments in competition anyhow. (Or if they are, visual augments will be only a minor component.)
For haptics (sensing touch/contact/pressure), even 1ms delay can be too long. For visual loops, though, you get a little more leeway.
Re:Another inevitable function of this... by dissy · 2009-09-02 01:20 · Score: 1

The problem with recording video is that you actually have to capture the photons to do that. Capture the photons on the recording media, and they are no longer available for the eye to 'see'.
That would only be a problem if the photons you wish to record are in the form of a concentrated laser beam being sent directly into your pupal.
If that situation was happening however, odds are you will be very thankful that your version of the device actually blocks said photons to prevent blinding you.
Currently however, only a small percentage of the photons are sent in a direction that they can enter your pupal. All the rest hit the area around the eye (and your face, and everything else in the way) and are 'wasted' as heat. From the images of this contact lens and it's position, it could only record those photons anyway, since it does not cover your pupal or block vision in any way to be privy to those photons.

Eye Fatigue, Ailments, Psychosis... by Xin+Jing · 2009-09-01 05:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

My eyes get tired now from looking intently at a screen for hours each day, imagine the new ailments that can arise from such an invention! This reminds me of a Mad Magazine parody of the Six Million Dollar Man, where his targeting crosshairs blocked what he was looking at, begging the question - how do you turn it off? On the upside, you could browse the internet, send messages, play games and watch movies in perfect privacy. It could allow more taboo segments of the entertainment industry a legitimate platform. Videodrome anyone?

Re:Eye Fatigue, Ailments, Psychosis... by jgtg32a · 2009-09-01 06:00 · Score: 1

I would think that you would need to close your eyes if you wanted to watch a movie.

Why keep it external? by jkyrlach · 2009-09-01 05:12 · Score: 1

Why worry about getting a lot of graphics onto a small surface. Let's focus on the optical version of a cochlear implant. Just graft into the existing data stream and overlay extra information. We will need this technology anyway to help the blind, might as well get it developed and over with.

Re:Why keep it external? by dwye · 2009-09-01 10:26 · Score: 1

There are some implants like this, but they have VERY few pixels (64x64 IIRC).
Also, the "existing data stream" for a human is fairly complex (lots of processing done in the retina) and quite idiosyncratic (each neural net had its own training set, after all); dealing with the blind is far easier, since they will just learn the new data streams from scratch.

A better suggestion for power: by jeffb+(2.718) · 2009-09-01 05:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Blinks. Leech kinetic energy from the eyelid. Teeny-tiny stick-on magnets go on the outside of your eyelid; they'll be the next fashion statement. Every time you blink, it induces a current pulse in the lens pickup coils.

For that matter, it might be possible to collect energy from saccades and other natural eye movements. That's potentially a higher-res and lower-latency method for eye-tracking than cameras, which you'll need for AR, and if you can harvest energy to boot, so much the better!

I don't have the physics/EE chops to run the numbers, but I'll bet you'd get more power this way than from a "solar cell module". (Who wants to keep their eyes wide open and directed toward a bright light source?)

Re:A better suggestion for power: by Cedric+Tsui · 2009-09-01 05:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

Or you could use burn glucose.
the cells in the cornea are fed not by blood vessels (which wouldn't be transparent) but get their oxygen from the air, and their nutrients and sugars from your tears. The lens could do the same thing.
Re:A better suggestion for power: by AmiMoJo · 2009-09-01 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why not just replace the whole eye, or at least the lens part of it?
Almost everyone over 50 has some vision issues, and many people much younger than that. Plus, you could add features like zoom or filters.
That's the future - replacing parts of the body with better synthetic ones.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:A better suggestion for power: by jgtg32a · 2009-09-01 05:52 · Score: 1

Really?
How about that, the more you know
Re:A better suggestion for power: by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-01 06:03 · Score: 1, Interesting

I worry about heat. The control, radio, display, and power circuitry are all going to produce heat. It would have to be a very efficient piece of technology to prevent discomfort if not eye damage. Most of these will be on the outside of the lens and can benefit from some insulation (enough?) but the sensor must be on the inside.
Re:A better suggestion for power: by blackraven14250 · 2009-09-01 06:44 · Score: 1

Then there's an upgrade, or a dead pixel, and you're now too old for anesthesia. Dead unit, then you have a small cold? Screwed.
Re:A better suggestion for power: by bhartman34 · 2009-09-01 07:02 · Score: 1

I agree with that, although, I'd certainly want it to be elective surgery. I don't think there's any sense in replacing someone's eyes unless you have to. No surgery, no matter how routine, is without risk. You're taking a chance (albeit a small one) every time you go under anaesthesia. There are several organs (tonsils, appendix, etc.) that people don't necessarily need (or where keeping them leads to more harm than good), but that doesn't mean doctors pre-emptively yank them out.

As far as the contact lens, idea, I forsee one hurdle, not mentioned in the piece: Information overload. A heads-up display of your medical information is fine, but is it possible to turn the thing off without removing the lens? I don't wear them, but it's my understanding that most people wear contact lenses all day, so there should probably be a way to turn this "second sight" off, so that the user can se au naturel without having to worry about safely storing the lenses. I've got spina bifida, so personally, I'm hoping that someone develops artificial spines (or at least nerves) in my lifetime. I've seen some promising work done w/ attaching electrodes to people's brains to let them control computers, but that needs to be diverted into actually controling your own muscles from the inside.

I mean, a heads-up display telling you what your BAC is would be nice and all, but I think we should be using biological interfaces with machines to fix systems that are actually broken first.
Re:A better suggestion for power: by nahdude812 · 2009-09-01 07:16 · Score: 2, Informative

They are definitely working hard on artificial sight. However it will be quite a while before artificial sight will be near as good as natural sight. Certainly I'm not an expert, but I do find the field fascinating. Slashdot user BWJones is one of the field's prominent researchers, working for the University of Utah.
There's a number of things which prohibit us from being able to produce drop-in replacements for eyeballs. One of which, for example, is that the precise nature of the work that the retina does for us is not completely understood. There was some research about a year ago which showed that the retina itself is responsible for a large amount of the neurological processing we formerly thought occurred in the brain. Also it sends a number of distinct data channels to the brain. For example, one of the channels is edge detection, one is luminosity, one is motion detection, one is color, and so on. The exact nature of all of the data channels is not precisely understood, and at a minimum we need to understand that before we can do much meaningfully with providing a replacement signal.

--
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Re:A better suggestion for power: by jeffb+(2.718) · 2009-09-01 07:42 · Score: 1

I mean, a heads-up display telling you what your BAC is would be nice and all, but I think we should be using biological interfaces with machines to fix systems that are actually broken first.
I sympathize with your predicament, and I want to see a lot more resources going into neurological interfacing and repair.
I also very much appreciate my own largely-intact nervous system, and my more-or-less-correctable-to-"normal" vision. However, I think a visual system that's only correctable to 20/20 or so, only resolves three widely-overlapping color bands (and can't focus one of them worth squat), needs 15-30 minutes for full dark adaptation, is subject to irreversible damage from common light sources, reliably loses focal accommodation between age 40 and 50, and is repairable (for a very few failure modes) only at great risk and expense, IS "broken".
And don't even get me started on the lack of thermal IR, or a 360-degree FOV, or recordability, or image intensification, or...
Re:A better suggestion for power: by Lisandro · 2009-09-01 08:11 · Score: 1

A piezoelectric device would work much better, IMHO. Plus, the power source could be contained completely in the eyelid.
Re:A better suggestion for power: by bhartman34 · 2009-09-01 09:24 · Score: 1

I mean, a heads-up display telling you what your BAC is would be nice and all, but I think we should be using biological interfaces with machines to fix systems that are actually broken first.
I sympathize with your predicament, and I want to see a lot more resources going into neurological interfacing and repair.
I also very much appreciate my own largely-intact nervous system, and my more-or-less-correctable-to-"normal" vision. However, I think a visual system that's only correctable to 20/20 or so, only resolves three widely-overlapping color bands (and can't focus one of them worth squat), needs 15-30 minutes for full dark adaptation, is subject to irreversible damage from common light sources, reliably loses focal accommodation between age 40 and 50, and is repairable (for a very few failure modes) only at great risk and expense, IS "broken".
And don't even get me started on the lack of thermal IR, or a 360-degree FOV, or recordability, or image intensification, or...
Okay, granted. The human visual system could use some improvement. :) I think of "broken" as being "not on par with manufacturer's specs", though. Humans have had the same vision since they've been homo sapien sapiens (at least), so I think they can wait a little longer for x-ray vision. :)
Re:A better suggestion for power: by AmiMoJo · 2009-09-01 09:30 · Score: 1

I see what you mean. That's why I suggested just replacing the lens, since it's much simpler and the retina is far less prone to developing problems.
I think that inevitably such enhancements will become pretty much a requirement for most people. It will simple become impossible to compete with people who have them if you don't.
What worries more far more than that though is the thought that it will become possible to record everything you see. Think CCTV is bad now? One day a person will be able to record and everything they see and hear, even if at the time they didn't notice it or think it was important. I can imagine the state requiring access to that data too. It's hard to see how privacy will exist in the future, unless we manage to enact some strong privacy laws in the mean time.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:A better suggestion for power: by suomynonAyletamitlU · 2009-09-01 10:56 · Score: 1

Doesn't the body have its own electric field? How much amperage is this device going to draw?
Re:A better suggestion for power: by jeffb+(2.718) · 2009-09-01 11:10 · Score: 1

Humans have had the same vision since they've been homo sapien sapiens (at least), so I think they can wait a little longer for x-ray vision. :)
From my perspective, it's more like "we've been waiting for an upgrade since before we existed as a species; that's long enough!"
I'm enthusiastic about the idea of having better vision at age 70 than at my current 46. I'm not exactly a practicing transhumanist, but we really are starting to see some interesting shadows and shafts of light emanating from just beyond the horizon.
Re:A better suggestion for power: by cp.tar · 2009-09-01 11:14 · Score: 1

There are several organs (tonsils, appendix, etc.) that people don't necessarily need (or where keeping them leads to more harm than good), but that doesn't mean doctors pre-emptively yank them out.
Well, apart from the foreskin, maybe.

--
Ignore this signature. By order.
Re:A better suggestion for power: by MathiasRav · 2009-09-01 23:15 · Score: 1

Oh, I'm fairly sure you need to provide a sustainable/renewable energy source to get funding for any kind of project nowadays. Fossil fuels such as the saccharides you suggest won't get you anywhere, PR-wise or otherwise.
Re:A better suggestion for power: by bhartman34 · 2009-09-02 02:56 · Score: 1

Granted, there are a slew of transhuman possibilities this opens up, and I think those should be pursued. But even from that perspective, I think it's in everyone's interest to make sure that the gulf between the healthy and the unhealthy doesn't get any wider than it already is. Sure, a healthy 70-year old should have the same vision they had when they were 18, but the unhealthy sight of an 18-year old blind person should benefit from this technology, as well, and probably first, because there's a supply and demand issue. If suddenly a whole demographic of people who used to use adaptive technologies suddenly don't need them anymore, then those that do need them will be pinched more for them, and, in some cases, they might have to do without altogether, if the technologies are no longer economical for companies to produce. You end up then with a world where there are some people who are even more disadvantaged than when you started. (How are people with limited vision supposed to deal with a world in which the average menu is now printed in Arial 2 on a 3x5" piece of electronic paper?

If, instead, you improve the vision of either everyone together, or the handicapped first, you have a smaller impact on the economic end (because there are a lot more people who have age-related vision problems than have abnormal vision problems) and you're triaging much better.
Re:A better suggestion for power: by jeffb+(2.718) · 2009-09-02 03:19 · Score: 1

Numbers, please. You're moving a significant mass of tissue down a centimeter, then back up, in the space of 100ms. It doesn't involve much energy -- but neither does a solar cell covering a few square mm, or an inductive loop less than a cm in diameter. And remember, as others have pointed out, you don't want this thing to use too much energy, because it's sitting on an eyeball, which closely resembles an egg in terms of "ease of cooking".
Even the much-derided "body heat" might be useful here, because you've reliably got a warm side (against the eyeball) and a cold side (facing the air and covered with a water-based film). Of course, you lose if it's too hot or humid, or if you close your eyes. And you'd be looking at just a few degrees of differential at best, which implies efficiencies below 1%.

now anyone can be by FudRucker · 2009-09-01 05:15 · Score: 2, Funny

The girl (or boy) with kaleidoscope eyes.

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing

There are lots of photons to go around. by jeffb+(2.718) · 2009-09-01 05:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Divert 10% of the incoming light to a recorder, and the wearer will never notice. Put the sensors on the outside face of some of the opaque lens components. Or put them around the periphery. There's no way you're going to do AR without a way to detect and analyze the "R" that you're "A"ing, anyhow.

Re:There are lots of photons to go around. by d474 · 2009-09-01 05:23 · Score: 1

Exactly. In fact, diverting a percentage of the incoming light would serve as a form of adaptive sunglasses.

--
Authority questions you. Return the favor.

Going Green? by mschoolbus · 2009-09-01 05:18 · Score: 1

At the moment, they have only embedded a single LED

I will be more impressed when they get a single fluorescent bulb in there...

Hero by geekoid · 2009-09-01 05:22 · Score: 1

I just want an added twinkle to my eye... maybe something for my teeth as well.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

improved contact lens by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-01 05:24 · Score: 1, Interesting

as far as i know current contact lens arent working for everybody, since some need some really heavy duty glassware, but with this you have lens that can alter the image to any degree, making them usable by anyone, it's really got some real world potential not childish applications like most above ...

Why aug? by gEvil+(beta) · 2009-09-01 05:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Why go for an augmented reality when you can have a demented reality?

--
This guy's the limit!

Re:Why aug? by geekoid · 2009-09-01 06:04 · Score: 2, Funny

trust me, most of augmented reality will be demented.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Why aug? by StreetStealth · 2009-09-01 06:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf mutes!

--
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Re:Why aug? by Loko+Draucarn · 2009-09-01 06:24 · Score: 1

We could do that, but then all our technology becomes wind-up. Especially the radios.
Re:Why aug? by Hurricane78 · 2009-09-01 08:05 · Score: 1

But you already have that! It's called "TV"!
And I hear it's quite popular too!

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:Why aug? by witherstaff · 2009-09-01 10:53 · Score: 1

I know you meant it as a joke but if you haven't read rainbow's end you should. The virtual overlays such as Pratchett's discworld were pretty demented.

Re:Life Imitating Art by Arthur+Grumbine · 2009-09-01 05:29 · Score: 1

They used this technology only a couple of months ago in Torchwood : Children of Earth

Yup, and Babak Parviz was so inspired by that episode that he developed and has even started testing this device in less than 2 months. Yup. That's what happened.

--
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.

Any day now by Quiet_Desperation · 2009-09-01 05:31 · Score: 1

Stories like this remind me of Fred and Barney looking at the Grand Canyon, and it's just a tiny stream. Fred comments, "They say it'll be a big ditch some day." Yes, it's Cynical Day here at the Desperation Compound.

Science Reporting At Its Best by clt829 · 2009-09-01 05:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

They've put a single LED in a contact lens, so now we have Augmented Reality.

Re:Science Reporting At Its Best by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-01 06:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

Since that single LED is so close to your eyeball, I think it would be hard to see the difference between the blur of single LED and the blur of a high resolution grid of LEDs.
Re:Science Reporting At Its Best by $RANDOMLUSER · 2009-09-01 06:04 · Score: 3, Funny

After they add the second LED to the contact lens, they'll have to figure out where to put the heatsink.

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Re:Science Reporting At Its Best by Debello · 2009-09-01 07:21 · Score: 1

They've put a single LED in a contact lens, so now we have Augmented Reality.
In your attempt to seem clever and witty, you have misunderstood the title.
The title was not that "They added the LED into the lens, therefore we have augmented reality," the title was that "Augmenting Reality through Contact Lenses is the subject," and the body is: "here is the beginning of this possible trend toward augmenting reality through contact lenses." You've mistaken the title for being exactly what the body is. For example, the famous novel "The Grapes of Wrath," does not contain any grapes that are very angry. It is merely the idea of the Grapes of Wrath that are presented in the novel.
Honestly, did you ever take Reading Comprehension?
Re:Science Reporting At Its Best by Jedi+Alec · 2009-09-01 09:23 · Score: 1

You put the heatsinks in the lower parts of the mech, don't you kids learn anything in school these days? You want your weapons and aiming equipment high so you can shoot over hills and the heatsinks nice and low for when you're wading through water.

--

People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Re:Science Reporting At Its Best by IgnoramusMaximus · 2009-09-02 01:51 · Score: 1

They've put a single LED in a contact lens, so now we have Augmented Reality.

In unrelated news, the newly-founded Superluminal Space Travel Consortium announced plans for interstellar commercial travel in their new faster-than-light ships. The consortium's spokesman, one Slick McShifty, was quoted saying "We are well on our way to this stellar goal and we invite all potential investors to act swiftly as this is the most monumental of opportunities!", while demonstrating to the press the initial rivet of the first starship to be constructed.
In further unrelated news, the new expedition to the Center of The Earth got underway. Professor Meeh Nuts was quoted saying, "Onward Science! Come forth Discovery!", while throwing the first shovel-load of soil over his shoulder and posing for the cameras.
Re:Science Reporting At Its Best by lab16 · 2009-09-02 07:52 · Score: 1

How science reporting works

IOL not contacts! by nsrbrake · 2009-09-01 05:43 · Score: 1

Let me know when I can get replacement lenses (IOL) with all this and more in it.

IOL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraocular_lens

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvmENasDFMw

--

Bah!

I've got all those! by autocracy · 2009-09-01 05:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Hmm... Inertial Damper... *draws a huge arrow on his motorcycle schematic pointing to the front forks*

Heinsenberg compensator = Registered ECC setup for RAM.

Zero-point module: processor with no floating point instructions.

--
SIG: HUP

I can't wait for the first hacker by Mishotaki · 2009-09-01 06:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

I really can't wait for the first hacker who manages to hack someone else's lens to output an extremely bright light to the wearer...

so that he has to remove those lens, because the natural reflex of closing the eye is totally useless!

When you're arrested by the cops: "my lenses were hacked! i really didn't see that stop sign!"

Or: "cause of death: blinded by his lenses while driving"

Such an interesting future is coming towards us!

Re:Basic optics FAIL by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-01 06:08 · Score: 1, Informative

...because obviously these researchers were so stupid that they didn't realize this.

I'll see your example and raise you a counter-example.

I'm extremely nearsighted.

View-Master, a stereogram viewing toy, puts two small pieces of film a few inches from my eyes. I can normally see objects which are a couple of inches from my eyes, but I can't use View-Masters without my glasses on. (Hint: it has to do with lenses.)

The power problem. by Remus+Shepherd · 2009-09-01 06:08 · Score: 1

RF also being 'shooting radio waves directly into your eyeball'.

The eyes are more sensitive to radiation than any part of the body. The prospect of this power source causing cataracts and other eye damage is higher than in other body parts -- even non-ionizing radiation can harm the delicate lens, which has no thermal control. There are also possible problems caused by element heating.

I'm skeptical that this technology will ever pan out. At least, not until we redesign and replace the eye.

--
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.

Re:The power problem. by Chyeld · 2009-09-01 06:31 · Score: 1

Chief, we are talking about contacts with embedded circuitry in them. And your worry is that non-directed radio waves (being the exact nature of RF) are going to fry your eyeballs? Despite the fact that your cellphone has to pump out far more radio waves in the vicinity of your head (and thus eyeballs) to maintain a connection with the tower?
Really? What is it about these 'magic' invisible waves that cause some people to automaticly disengage their rational thought process.
If you are going to go luddite on us, at least correctly prioritize your objections.
You are going to have a better chance of losing your sight when the 'biocompatible' materials used to make or isolate the circuitry cause unintentioned reactions in your own lense. TFA even specificly mentions that the current crop of LED's are made with toxic chemicals and they haven't figured out a way to solve that problem yet.
Re:The power problem. by Remus+Shepherd · 2009-09-01 07:26 · Score: 1

Key words: 'In the vicinity'.
The effects of radiation scale as one over the distance squared. It's one thing to have a cell phone antennae 2-3 cm from your ear, another 2-3 cm from brain tissue, and another 6-8 cm from your eye. It's another thing to have a transceiver in contact with the eye lens.
(Someone will say that it's a passive receiver. If true, forget detecting the position of the eyeball, so forget reality overlays. It'll have to transmit for all that to work.)
I agree that there are a lot of other challenges that need to be overcome. I just think the power problem is one that will prove to be unresolvable.

--
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Re:The power problem. by jeffb+(2.718) · 2009-09-02 04:30 · Score: 1

I don't think this will be the killer issue. They could use b-field resonant coupling, which loses a lot less energy into the environment, and use frequencies where body tissue is mostly transparent. I'd expect the effective power densities to be lower than what you get from a transmitting cell phone. (It looks like RF exposure limits are in the range of 1mW/cm^2, although it's a complicated issue.)
Anything like this will have to be pretty low-powered anyhow -- I don't know how much you can safely heat the eye, but we could start with existing regulations for IR exposure. This chart indicates that the maximum permissible exposure for longwave IR over an extended period is 100mW/cm^2; at those wavelengths, all that energy is converted into heat pretty much at the surface, so that's not a bad model for something that sits on the cornea. 100mW is actually a lot more than I expected we could get away with.
BTW, Indefensible Positions rocked. Thanks for making it.

Ghost in the Shell by jgtg32a · 2009-09-01 06:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I keep seeing people go on and on about Torchwood doing this, but this has always been a part of Ghost in the Shell, hopefully reality doesn't end up like GiTS because the "cyberbrains" make Win 95 seem secure.

Re:Ghost in the Shell by lunatik42 · 2009-09-01 07:18 · Score: 1

I'm just worried that when this technology becomes plausible for the average consumer, we'll see an upswing in spontaneous Sumerian glossolalia. Never accept an AR e-mail titled "HYPERCARD: Snow Crash". Ever.
Re:Ghost in the Shell by Ifandbut · 2009-09-01 10:51 · Score: 1

Actually I much prefer the GiTS vision of the future over any other that I'v seen. I look forward to the day when I can no longer tell where my brain ends and the computer begins. Maybe when everyone can have their bodies enhanced in what ever way you want them to be then people can truly be judged by the content of their character.
Re:Ghost in the Shell by Teferison · 2009-09-01 20:37 · Score: 1

You seem to have missed some of the darker shades of the GiTS future. Do you remember that they didn't even own their own body, because only the government and/or high profile criminals could finance such hardware?
So only the very rich could enhance their body any way they like, creating a world where a persons value is tied even stronger to their wealth
Re:Ghost in the Shell by Ifandbut · 2009-09-03 10:30 · Score: 1

Well everyone needs a job to survive. Instead of working to pay for food you are working to pay for maintenance on the bodies. Also, the main characters had military issue bodies which would be alot more expensive and be able to alot of damage.
I'd need to re-watch the series but I thought there were some episodes showing civilian cyber bodies.
I think that full cyberization was still expensive however cyberbrains and their less intrusive relative, the sub-brain, are as common as cell phones. So even if it is cost prohibitive to augment you body completely you could at the very least instantly share thoughts and ideas in a more...pure form then we can today.

Cybernetic Eyes by Baron_Yam · 2009-09-01 06:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Forget a contact on my eye - replace the whole eyeball. Give me low light, infrared, light reduction, bloom compensation, microscope and telescope functions, facial recognition, recording, playback, computer display link, etc.

Pretty much everyone needs glasses by 40 anyway, why not just get new eyes when you're 18?

I know we're a long way off from being able to plug a camera directly into the optic nerve, but when that day comes I'm up for it.

Re:Cybernetic Eyes by lhuiz · 2009-09-02 03:42 · Score: 1

Seriously? You are waiting for facial recognition in your eyeball? And you wonder why you have trouble hanging on to you girlfriends?
Re:Cybernetic Eyes by Baron_Yam · 2009-09-02 08:07 · Score: 1

Facial recognition could allow me to recognize pretty much anyone I've ever met... sparing me the problem of how to discretely ask my wife who the hell I'm talking to at the latest function her company is having.
How she remembers them all, I don't know. I certainly can't remember everyone in my company's offices.

Stamp out Reality! by DrVomact · 2009-09-01 06:20 · Score: 1

Why go for an augmented reality when you can have a demented reality?

Exactly what I have always thought! Virtual reality tech would be best employed helping me to function in "the real world", while eliminating much of the harsh unpleasantness and petty annoyances entailed by said reality. It might be tempting, for example, to have my VR contacts and earplugs filter out people I don't like (e.g. the PHB), but such an "ignore list" could lead to collision problems, not to mention losing my job. However, it would definitely be more fun if I could see the PHB as Donald Duck or Darth Vader.

Another problem that could be solved by VR is my inability to remember people's names (which will become much worse when everyone looks like gnomes, orcs, Star Trek characters, or speaking blobs of goo). The solution is obvious—the computer linked to my VR lenses would know who is near me, and cause their names to float above their heads, just like in a present-day MMPORG.

And of course I'd work like mad to hack into the VR network, so my boss would see me industriously at work while I'm lying on some Cancun beach. Verily, my enthusiasm waxes enormously as I consider the vista of incredibly life-enhancing possibilities inherent in this technology.

I'm sure I don't need to mention to this predominantly male, sex-starved audience how I would like to see women. And with my hacking abilities, I could control just how I look to them. Clearly, the world's geeks must pursue this avenue of research as their top priority!

--
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary

Re:Basic optics FAIL by chadplusplus · 2009-09-01 06:21 · Score: 1

This issue was also raised a few times above. A solution to this would be extremely low powered lasers (nano-lasers, maybe?) that are able to aim themselves in a way to project the image directly onto the back of your eye. Laser = no dispersion = no need to focus the light. Or maybe everything I though about lasers was wrong.

A on-eye web browser! It would take... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-01 06:22 · Score: 2, Funny

... goatse.cx to a whole new level.

Sounds Familiar by Ukab+the+Great · 2009-09-01 06:34 · Score: 1

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

I deeply fear an Elmo belief circle.

Just wrote a review of Rainbows End by Robotech_Master · 2009-09-01 06:46 · Score: 1

Oddly enough, I just wrote a fairly lengthy review of Rainbows End over on TeleRead.org. Submitted it to Slashdot; it's still pending. (I'm not optimistic, but it was worth a try.) I talk some about the book, and about how Vernor Vinge's ideas for "the book of the future" have been evolving and changing since True Names.

It'll be fascinating if this technology actually starts to show up in real life.

--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org

Further challenges by dewarrn1 · 2009-09-01 07:15 · Score: 4, Informative

I love the idea, but having conducted many eye-tracking sessions I think that there are a number of basic challenges that the contact-lens implementation would need to overcome. First, contacts drift all over the cornea. It's really quite disconcerting to watch, especially when you've got obvious markers like vanity-coloring for irises. Station-keeping over the pupil would require technology that's not mentioned here. Alternatively, you might monitor the portion of the contact that's positioned over the pupil at any given moment using photocells on the underside to catch light reflected off the retina, but then you'll need a bigger display and use up valuable real estate. Second, similarly and perhaps even more importantly, orientation maintenance. If there was a good way for contact orientation to be maintained, bifocal contact lenses would be a reality already. Instead you encounter bizarre stopgaps like a reading lens in one eye and a distance lens in the other. Third, eyes are a fairly disgusting environment. Crud on regular contacts doesn't seem to impede vision, but the delicate electronics in a device like this might object to working in a wet, salty, bacteria-ridden setting unless very carefully insulated. Nothing bad about reaching for the dream, but I'll take a pair of prescription Virtual Light-style glasses while we're waiting.

Re:Further challenges by NewKidInTown · 2009-09-01 11:25 · Score: 1

Okay, so I don't usually do this, but I had to jump in here. I work in an eye doctor's office, and we do a lot of contact lens work. "Station keeping" over the pupil is handled by the shape of the lens. Everyone's eyes are a little differently shaped, so the lenses are tailor-made to fit properly. No special tech needed.

Orientation maintenance is something already handled in toric contact lenses for astigmatism, as well as bifocal contact lenses. Yes, they exist. No, they don't look like bifocals lenses in glasses, that wouldn't work. They're pretty common, actually, and have been for a while now.

As far as crud on the lenses, you can use one of the two mechanisms currently in use for keeping eyes and contacts clean. You can clean the contacts every night like you're supposed to, or you could...blink. That usually works for the rest of us. :)
Re:Further challenges by dewarrn1 · 2009-09-01 12:41 · Score: 1

I'll have to respectfully disagree with at least the first and last of your rebuttals. I've seen lots of eyes blown up on video screens while tracking, and contacts absolutely float around on the cornea. I'm painfully aware of this because the edge of small contacts (gas-permeable?) frequently interferes with eye-tracking in one of two ways: creating changing refractions of the edge of the pupil; and/or reflecting light itself and creating false positives when the tracker attempts to detect a corneal reflection. This is not to say that contacts are completely untethered, but they certainly move around quite a bit, and I imagine more than enough to make a tiny embedded screen useless without sophisticated control. As to keeping contacts clean by blinking, that's just silly. Why would they need to be cleanly nightly if they were being cleaned thousands of times each day? Believe me, there's plenty of crud on contacts that blinking doesn't budge; it's the very first thing we ask people to do when there's an issue, and it only helps sometimes. As to the orientation maintenance, that's news to me, but I'm pleased to hear that somebody cracked it. It also makes the left eye/right eye near/far correction I encountered even less comprehensible.
Re:Further challenges by FleaPlus · 2009-09-01 12:55 · Score: 1

If there was a good way for contact orientation to be maintained, bifocal contact lenses would be a reality already.
This isn't something I know much about, but googling seems to indicate that bifocal contact lenses do in fact exist:
http://www.allaboutvision.com/contacts/bifocals.htm
http://www.contactlenses.org/bifocal_contact_lenses.htm
Re:Further challenges by jeffb+(2.718) · 2009-09-01 14:46 · Score: 1

I think I see what you're missing. The contact lens is so close to the eye's lens that it doesn't really matter exactly where the lens sits. Yes, it drifts around, as you've seen on video; no, that doesn't make a significant difference in what you see.
Toric lenses are heavier at the bottom, so they naturally orient themselves properly. They'll be off by a few degrees more often than not, but for correcting astigmatism, that's completely unnoticeable.
Bifocal contact lenses can't work like bifocal glasses, because there's no concept of looking through the lower or upper half of the lens. You're looking through the whole lens, all the time. (More precisely, you're looking through the whole lens when it's dark and your pupil is dilated, and through only the center of the lens when it's bright and your pupil is small.)
For a lens to display an image, it's got to have optics that make the image appear distant. Yes, it'll have to keep track of its orientation and correct for it -- but that's just part of the localization problem you have to solve anyway for AR to work.
Fun trivia fact, BTW: In addition to moving left-right and up-down, your eye rotates within a limited but significant range to keep the same orientation as your head tilts left or right. I called BS the first time I read this, but I looked carefully in a mirror, and it's true.
Re:Further challenges by dewarrn1 · 2009-09-01 15:42 · Score: 1

Well, we could argue fruitlessly about whether I'm missing anything (obviously the motion and gunk I described aren't bothering contact wearers or they'd complain), but the muscles and motion of the eye are spectacularly weird. The superior oblique muscle connects to the eyeball through a tiny bone stirrup to produce the kind of rotation that you mention, which is the weirdest anatomical tidbit I've run across. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eyemuscles.jpg
Re:Further challenges by jeffb+(2.718) · 2009-09-02 00:49 · Score: 1

Cool link -- thanks! It's easy to see why some people conclude it was all intelligently designed -- especially in light of the Gospel delivered by His Son, Rube Goldberg.

Wow... by eh2o · 2009-09-01 08:45 · Score: 1

1 LED embedded in a contact lens. VGA resolution is now only 5 orders of magnitude away. Better start coding those augmented reality apps!

Re:mod do3N by ImprovOmega · 2009-09-01 09:25 · Score: 1

Looks like an android failing a Turing test.

I wonder if it had these contact lenses for eyes...

Vertical Stability and Durability by dlevitan · 2009-09-01 09:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

One problem with this is that contact lenses float on your eye and are not stationary. This is a serious problem, because to keep a constant orientation, you'll either need to constantly rotate any light emitters to stay in the same place (probably not possible), or weight the contact lens as is currently done with astigmatic lenses (not a great solution).

Apart from this, contact lenses tear, break, get lost, etc... At the moment, my soft lenses cost $5 apiece. If one tears, gets lost, or something else equally destructive, it's not a problem. If the same lens cost $1000, that would be a much bigger problem. And I'm not sure there's a good solution to this. If you make the lenses soft, they'll degrade quickly (as current soft lenses do). If you make them hard, then they will fall, get scratched, and the like over the long term.

Re:Vertical Stability and Durability by dumky · 2009-09-04 09:24 · Score: 1

In a way a stabilized lens causes additional complications: the visual system is designed to scan things, in order to see them. If you hold an object fix relative to the eye, with retinal stabilization (http://www.answers.com/topic/stabilization-of-retinal-images), it disappears after a few seconds. So displaying one pixel for one second is ok, but displaying text will require some even smarter engineering.

iBleach by keyboarderror · 2009-09-01 13:50 · Score: 1

What has been seen cannot be unseen, but I can at least flush the cache!

Daycorder Lens by Thangalin · 2009-09-01 14:05 · Score: 1

My first guess was 2074; looks like these lenses will happen much sooner.

http://www.davidjarvis.ca/dave/essays/daycorder.shtml

that's the easy part by jipn4 · 2009-09-01 14:09 · Score: 1

Although putting a single LED into a contact lens is already an achievement, it's not the hard part. As the article points out: power and focusing are major problems, with no plausible solution in sight.

The people to whom the accolades should go are those who finally manage to put it all together, not the people who put together a tiny bit of the technology.

The idea itself, of course, is nearly as old as contact lenses and has appeared in many science fiction stories.

Niven and Barnes had it before Rainbows End by Plumber,+Programmer, · 2009-09-01 14:34 · Score: 1

The concept of VR contact lenses was also used in the 1992 book, The California Voodoo Game, a sequel to Dream Park by Larry Niven and Steve Barnes, long before Rainbows End.

Use in scifi? by 4D6963 · 2009-09-01 18:14 · Score: 1

A bit off-topic, but has science fiction dealt with such things as augmented reality in the eye? It just occurred to me that it could be interesting to explore the possibilities of people living in an augmented world where the most important stuff cannot be seen (like other people who might not be present and just "augmented", like holograms).

Although that would probably turn into just another dystopia future thingie, cause when you think about it, what are you going to do with a new tech as the basis of a story besides making shit go wrong?

--
You just got troll'd!

Not going to work by adam.sys · 2009-09-01 18:26 · Score: 1

The cornea is a lens and the object has to be at the focal point in order to produce a crisp image. Sorry, guys. Old fashioned optics. Any object on the surface of the cornea will produce a blurry image.

What about the cabling? by cheros · 2009-09-01 19:10 · Score: 1

I'm not even worried about the contact lens floating - how are you going to cable this? It needs power, and unless someone simultaneously invents a saline based generator you'll need to connect it somewhere.

I'll be really impressed if they solve that, so far it's not even interesting..

--
Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.

Speaking as a diabetic... by VanGarrett · 2009-09-02 06:05 · Score: 1

An example would be monitoring glucose levels for diabetics.

DO WANT

--
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.

Slashdot Mirror

Augmented Reality In a Contact Lens

153 of 196 comments (clear)