Slashdot Mirror
Demo of Prototype Virtual Retinal Head Mounted Display
muterobert writes with an article about a new head mounted virtual retinal display (technology last covered ages ago). The folks over at Road to VR took a look at an engineering prototype; from the article: "The Avegant HMD uses a virtual retinal projection display consisting of a single LED light source and an array of micro-mirrors. This differs from normal screens in that with a VRD there is no actual screen to look at. Instead, a virtual image (in the optical sense) is drawn directly onto your retina. . ... 'At one point I was looking at a sea turtle in shallow coral waters. Sunlight was beaming down from the surface and illuminating the turtle's shell in a spectacular way — it was one of the most vivid and natural things I've ever seen on any display. The scene before me looked incredibly real, even though the field of view is not at immersive levels.'"
I've avoided "monitors on eyeglasses" for a while, feeling the technology still a bit weak, but damn am I ready to just turn on my direct-to-eye virtual system.
We're turning the corner, kids. I can't wait to see what's down the block.
Head worn video systems have frequently used moving mirrors to multiplex limited numbers of light transmitters into the conventional 2D array. There is NOTHING novel in this method whatsoever.
The nonsense about "beaming an image straight into your eye" is laughable as well. This is EXACTLY what any modern back-lit LCD tablet or phone does. The eye ALWAYS sees as a result of photons travelling into the eye- so their is NOTHING magical, unique or clever about 'non-screen' devices. And what does 'screen' mean anyway. Technically, a 'screen' is a surface you reflect light off, so, as I said, most of the computer devices you look at do not have 'screens' but DIRECT light sources, no different in concept from this Avegant HMD. Indeed, since Avegant uses a mirror, it has MORE of a conventional screen than your tablet or phone.
Can you trust any company that so fundamentally LIES in its PR releases, and pays technical sites to promote the PR BS as some amazing breakthrough?
The issue with head mounted images is always the same. Brightness. Resolution. Refresh rate. The optical system that controls apparent virtual position, FOV, and merging with the real surrounding (if the display isn't enclosed). Then you have issues of weight, battery life or power supply etc. Then you have issues of quality of head-tracking sensors, taking into account latency and maintenance of absolute accuracy.
Tech sites that specialise in VR coverage has an ABSOLUTE incentive to praise every hopeless piece of kit that comes their way, since their lifeblood is a constant stream of review and pre-release hardware. But the truth can be found in Google Glass and Occulus Rift - clunky half-baked solutions that are still better than everything that came before them, because up to now companies specialising in LIGHT, wearable VR products have been technically terrible in every respect.
When a company focuses on buzzword BS, you can discount any possibility that their products are going to be good.
the avegant technology could easily be scaled to a high FoV... the guy said that in the interview. also, being how it is, it would be a much more immersive technology than the rift. eventually they WILL directly compete.