COVET: Video glasses
Can we talk?
I’m hot for video glasses, or eyephones, or whatever terminology you want to use. You may think I am jumping on the technology bandwagon now that it’s hot, but you would be so, so terribly wrong.
Of all the toys in sci-fi, of all the anime standards, THIS is the part I coveted with the fierceness of a thousand suns. I saw Johnny Mnemonic and I didn’t care that it had the worst acting of all time, I wanted that interface.
When I had to create a graphic example of what the future might be like for I Love Bees, I made contact lens displays (scroll down to find it amongst the Special Commendations).
We’ve finally reached the point where very slim glasses-based displays will show a full 640×480 resolution (the stark minimum for any modern computer display) with vga and RCA connections as well as surround-sound based earphones. The best of their set simulates an 80″ display at 1 meter.
This is good enough to play video games and watch movies. Heck, one of them is “tailored for the wii” though I suggest you’re going to kill yourself on a coffee table or brain someone with that combination.
That’s pretty awesome (It’s utility, I mean), but what it really means is we’re only a few years away from affordable, fairly unnoticeable displays with enough detail that I could edit video while sitting in the airport waiting for a plane, with privacy.
Start considering other advances in technology, and soon I won’t even have to open a laptop in the cramped window seat. Three to five years might find me plugging into an ultra-mobile PC powerful enough to handle major tasks – a display-turned-touchpad for manipulation and video glasses for my display.
So hot. So very hot.
I remember watching Star Trek when I was a little girl, and other science fiction, and trying to picture the future. I never thought it would look like the Jetsons or any of the other “homes of the future” crap. Now, sometimes after taking my cell phone out to make a call, I think about how unbelievably advanced it would have seemed to me 30 years ago.
Isn’t it fun to live in the future? *g*
I remember watching Star Trek when I was a little girl, and other science fiction, and trying to picture the future. I never thought it would look like the Jetsons or any of the other “homes of the future” crap. Now, sometimes after taking my cell phone out to make a call, I think about how unbelievably advanced it would have seemed to me 30 years ago.
Isn’t it fun to live in the future? *g*
I’ve longed for these for a couple of years, but the price has always been too high. Ultimately, though, these are second rate compared to the laser-based displays that beam color images directly into your eye. The laser displays have the potential to be lighter, faster, brighter, and more vivid that anything else.
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100667&org=NSF
http://blogs.msdn.com/mikehall/archive/2004/10/29/249787.aspx
Still waiting for something with more colors than just red. :)
Thy wish is granted. That one is in color, and over 2 years old, now. Supposedly, Microvision is developing the commercial applications, now.
THIS would be nice.
True, but that’s a through-the-lens display, not a laser-in-yer-eye display.
What they could do with one, they could do with the other. The problems I see with the laser display include conspicuous usage and a less-than-durable mechanical system. The LCD display has no moving parts.
The through-the-lens display has the same problem as the display you named: It’s limited in resolution, speed, and brightness, because there’s only so many pixels you can pack into the display area, and only so much light you can put behind it. The laser display has the potential to paint the image on the back of your retina at resolutions as high or higher than the human eye can perceive, at light levels from true pitch black to painfully bright. Even though the laser has moving parts, eventually it should be lighter and more portable than the head-mounted displays.
You know those little transparent plastic mics (obnoxiously expensive) that people use for presentations? They’re just a tube no larger than an eigth of an inch thick. When the light’s coming from there, I will be all on board – it will clearly be less bulky than a display system like LCD. (And yes, I’m not being sarcastic, I do believe that time will come)
However, it’s so bleeding edge comparied to LCD – people are afraid of lasers, especially those pointed right in the eye. Sure they can be painfully bright, or they could burn the image into your soul, never to be unseen again. :) Also, how does a laser apply light in such a way that you detect darkness? if you’re in a pitch black room, that’ll work just fine, but as far as I know you’ll always be fighting with ambient light unless you wore sunglasses, which kind of defeat the purpose.
I’m not saying it doesn’t have the potential to beat out conventional displays in a decade or 15 years or so – I just think serious nano-manufacturing will have to be involved.
In the general case, lasers have far more contrast range with lower power consumption than any other type of display. Right now, black or dark spaces would have to be covered by a black background in front of the eye. If I am not mistaken, there is a technique for using the correct light frequencies to create destructive interference, such that effectively no light hits the targeted spot in the retina. You can think of it something like noise-canceling headphones. The laser can cancel light that would reach a given spot on the eye.
In the general case, lasers have far more contrast range with lower power consumption than any other type of display. Right now, black or dark spaces would have to be covered by a black background in front of the eye. If I am not mistaken, there is a technique for using the correct light frequencies to create destructive interference, such that effectively no light hits the targeted spot in the retina. You can think of it something like noise-canceling headphones. The laser can cancel light that would reach a given spot on the eye.
You know those little transparent plastic mics (obnoxiously expensive) that people use for presentations? They’re just a tube no larger than an eigth of an inch thick. When the light’s coming from there, I will be all on board – it will clearly be less bulky than a display system like LCD. (And yes, I’m not being sarcastic, I do believe that time will come)
However, it’s so bleeding edge comparied to LCD – people are afraid of lasers, especially those pointed right in the eye. Sure they can be painfully bright, or they could burn the image into your soul, never to be unseen again. :) Also, how does a laser apply light in such a way that you detect darkness? if you’re in a pitch black room, that’ll work just fine, but as far as I know you’ll always be fighting with ambient light unless you wore sunglasses, which kind of defeat the purpose.
I’m not saying it doesn’t have the potential to beat out conventional displays in a decade or 15 years or so – I just think serious nano-manufacturing will have to be involved.
The through-the-lens display has the same problem as the display you named: It’s limited in resolution, speed, and brightness, because there’s only so many pixels you can pack into the display area, and only so much light you can put behind it. The laser display has the potential to paint the image on the back of your retina at resolutions as high or higher than the human eye can perceive, at light levels from true pitch black to painfully bright. Even though the laser has moving parts, eventually it should be lighter and more portable than the head-mounted displays.
What they could do with one, they could do with the other. The problems I see with the laser display include conspicuous usage and a less-than-durable mechanical system. The LCD display has no moving parts.
True, but that’s a through-the-lens display, not a laser-in-yer-eye display.
THIS would be nice.
Thy wish is granted. That one is in color, and over 2 years old, now. Supposedly, Microvision is developing the commercial applications, now.
Still waiting for something with more colors than just red. :)
This is the problem with reading one’s friends-list in reverse chronological order. I just posted similar links to a later post :-)
This is the problem with reading one’s friends-list in reverse chronological order. I just posted similar links to a later post :-)
I’ve longed for these for a couple of years, but the price has always been too high. Ultimately, though, these are second rate compared to the laser-based displays that beam color images directly into your eye. The laser displays have the potential to be lighter, faster, brighter, and more vivid that anything else.
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100667&org=NSF
http://blogs.msdn.com/mikehall/archive/2004/10/29/249787.aspx
I will point out that the tiny 640×480 screen looks just like a tiny 640×480 screen that is 1″ away.. which is not quite the same as a 80 inch display at 1m away. Slighty different resolution. ;-)
I will point out that the tiny 640×480 screen looks just like a tiny 640×480 screen that is 1″ away.. which is not quite the same as a 80 inch display at 1m away. Slighty different resolution. ;-)
I love this idea, and have for a long time. For me, though, the price is still too high, and the resolution a bit too low. I am greatly looking forward to even lighter displays for lower prices. Someday.
Also, this sort of thing will add the potential to watch more than just video editing videos in public. Wouldn’t surprise me if people used them to watch porn at the airport/on the subway, etc.
I love that porn rates higher than editing. :)
Think of this: I could be EDITING PORN on the subway. ;)
$250 for their cheapest is not terrible, but that’s for the 320 resolution, which I find unacceptable. at 240 height, that’s about 2/3 Standard Def TV.
On the other hand, at 640×480. you’re talking well over standard def, even if it is abysmal when it comes to normal monitor resolution. I think it’s gotten to the point where I could definitely get some enjoyment out of it, even though it has much greater potential down the line, still.
I love that porn rates higher than editing. :)
Think of this: I could be EDITING PORN on the subway. ;)
$250 for their cheapest is not terrible, but that’s for the 320 resolution, which I find unacceptable. at 240 height, that’s about 2/3 Standard Def TV.
On the other hand, at 640×480. you’re talking well over standard def, even if it is abysmal when it comes to normal monitor resolution. I think it’s gotten to the point where I could definitely get some enjoyment out of it, even though it has much greater potential down the line, still.
I love this idea, and have for a long time. For me, though, the price is still too high, and the resolution a bit too low. I am greatly looking forward to even lighter displays for lower prices. Someday.
Also, this sort of thing will add the potential to watch more than just video editing videos in public. Wouldn’t surprise me if people used them to watch porn at the airport/on the subway, etc.
A few years ago, my dad brought home a device that covered your eyes with an LCD screen. (covered completely, it wasn’t transparent) It actually had a camera on it to act as a magnifier or telescope, and an input for movies or computers. It was pretty cool to watch a movie on it. It was a prototype device to be used as a visual aid for people who were almost blind.
That was about 6 years ago, I can only imagine what the actual product turned out to be (sadly, we couldn’t keep it, it was a demo unit to test with his students)
A few years ago, my dad brought home a device that covered your eyes with an LCD screen. (covered completely, it wasn’t transparent) It actually had a camera on it to act as a magnifier or telescope, and an input for movies or computers. It was pretty cool to watch a movie on it. It was a prototype device to be used as a visual aid for people who were almost blind.
That was about 6 years ago, I can only imagine what the actual product turned out to be (sadly, we couldn’t keep it, it was a demo unit to test with his students)
I’m still waiting to find out how companies overcome the issue of eye fatigue and confusion, since primarily the vision (speaking screen- or through-the-lens- based) is so close to the eye that the retina needs to focus consistently at that near distance… on top of that, the brain thinks an object is much farther away, but each eye says it’s right up close for focusing. That’s why a lot of the past VR HUDs had usability problems, or warnings saying not to use them for prolonged periods of time; it can be damaging to the eye.
As if staring at a monitor for long periods is bad enough for your eyes, now we’re bringing the monitor to within inches :P.
I think that’s a major obstacle that has to be tackled before real huds can go mainstream.
Now, eye lasers may be a different issue, since it’s not a matter of focus any more. In theory, the laser sharpness itself could be adjusted so your eye can relax to standard focal ranges and still receive a sharp image. Then with each eye getting that same image, your brain would also consider the ‘object’ at that distance, and the optical confusion would be eliminated.
*shivers in anticipation*
The only potential problem I can see are malfunctions causing blindness since laser are being directly inserted into your eye…
Well, laser LIGHT is in your eye – I don’t care how cool it is, I’m not having surgery to put a laser literally in my eye. *grin*
Actually, I do believe the LCDs have some sort of glassware that changes the focal point, which is why they say it is like “looking at an 80 inch display from one meter”. I’m completely incapable of focusing on anything closer than 4 inches or so from my eye.
Let us keep in mind that the laser would require precise calibration – any jostling of the laser would be hideous unless it was designed to constantly recalibrate for the center of your retina.
I’m not having surgery to put a laser literally in my eye
touche ;)
the laser would require precise calibration
well there’s also image stabilization… rather than require non-jostling equipment, the projection can be adjusted on the fly being controlled by a stabilization system, much like most digital cameras now include (though I’d expect much more sensitive in this case)
I’m not having surgery to put a laser literally in my eye
touche ;)
the laser would require precise calibration
well there’s also image stabilization… rather than require non-jostling equipment, the projection can be adjusted on the fly being controlled by a stabilization system, much like most digital cameras now include (though I’d expect much more sensitive in this case)
Well, laser LIGHT is in your eye – I don’t care how cool it is, I’m not having surgery to put a laser literally in my eye. *grin*
Actually, I do believe the LCDs have some sort of glassware that changes the focal point, which is why they say it is like “looking at an 80 inch display from one meter”. I’m completely incapable of focusing on anything closer than 4 inches or so from my eye.
Let us keep in mind that the laser would require precise calibration – any jostling of the laser would be hideous unless it was designed to constantly recalibrate for the center of your retina.
That’s actually pretty nifty, and similar to the laser(light)-in-your-eye, but using a diffractive glass rather than your own retina…
If the projection can accurately be spread and focally controlled through the glass, then that’s pretty sweet… almost holographic in that sense
That’s actually pretty nifty, and similar to the laser(light)-in-your-eye, but using a diffractive glass rather than your own retina…
If the projection can accurately be spread and focally controlled through the glass, then that’s pretty sweet… almost holographic in that sense
It sounds bad, but think of the lasers in grocery store scanners and the toy lasers available everywhere. The display lasers would be even less powerful than those; far too weak to do damage to the eye. Better yet, imagine turning your computer monitor or television all the way up and getting right up close to it. It might feel strange or unpleasant, but it still wouldn’t damage your eye. That’s the same kind of risk you face with laser displays. Just not enough power to do any damage.
It sounds bad, but think of the lasers in grocery store scanners and the toy lasers available everywhere. The display lasers would be even less powerful than those; far too weak to do damage to the eye. Better yet, imagine turning your computer monitor or television all the way up and getting right up close to it. It might feel strange or unpleasant, but it still wouldn’t damage your eye. That’s the same kind of risk you face with laser displays. Just not enough power to do any damage.
The power of the laser is quite low – it’s concentrated, sure, but there’s not much energy in what they’re concentrating. That very point came up when we had the chance to try one out at university – according to Tom Furness (of the HIT Lab in Washington where it was invented), if the mirror assembly broke down and stopped scanning across the eye, shining the light at only one point on the retina, it’d still take wearing the display for another 15 minutes or so for it cause any kind of damage.
The power of the laser is quite low – it’s concentrated, sure, but there’s not much energy in what they’re concentrating. That very point came up when we had the chance to try one out at university – according to Tom Furness (of the HIT Lab in Washington where it was invented), if the mirror assembly broke down and stopped scanning across the eye, shining the light at only one point on the retina, it’d still take wearing the display for another 15 minutes or so for it cause any kind of damage.
I’m still waiting to find out how companies overcome the issue of eye fatigue and confusion, since primarily the vision (speaking screen- or through-the-lens- based) is so close to the eye that the retina needs to focus consistently at that near distance… on top of that, the brain thinks an object is much farther away, but each eye says it’s right up close for focusing. That’s why a lot of the past VR HUDs had usability problems, or warnings saying not to use them for prolonged periods of time; it can be damaging to the eye.
As if staring at a monitor for long periods is bad enough for your eyes, now we’re bringing the monitor to within inches :P.
I think that’s a major obstacle that has to be tackled before real huds can go mainstream.
Now, eye lasers may be a different issue, since it’s not a matter of focus any more. In theory, the laser sharpness itself could be adjusted so your eye can relax to standard focal ranges and still receive a sharp image. Then with each eye getting that same image, your brain would also consider the ‘object’ at that distance, and the optical confusion would be eliminated.
*shivers in anticipation*
The only potential problem I can see are malfunctions causing blindness since laser are being directly inserted into your eye…