Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MIT Develops Camera-Like Fabric

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the who-are-you-wearing dept.

Science 78

suraj.sun writes "Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have developed a fabric made of a mesh of light-sensitive fibers that collectively act like a rudimentary camera. The fibers, which each can detect two frequencies of light, produced signals that when amplified and processed by a computer reproduced an image of a smiley face near the mesh. 'This is the first time that anybody has demonstrated that a single plane of fibers, or "fabric," can collect images just like a camera but without a lens,' said Yoel Fink, an associate professor of materials science, who along with colleagues described the approach in a the journal Nano Letters. MIT suggested that the technology, if developed further, could give a soldier a uniform that would help him see threats in all directions. Optical fiber webs, by distributing the chore across a large area, would be less susceptible to damage in one area."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

new pr0n genre... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28634631)

live pants cam!

Pants? Where we're going we don't need pants... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635895)

Just photo-fabric condoms.

2030s are going to be a very strange time for porn industry.

Cloaking capabilities (2, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635959)

You may be joking, but I could foresee a fabric that could blend in seamlessly with it's surroundings. Sort of like a chameleon affect.

Re:Cloaking capabilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28637325)

Exactly what I was thinking, if one layer can 'see' its environment, then if another layer can have that image projected on to it, bingo--- cloak of invisibility .......... until you get skin cancer from all that extra radiation!!!!!

Optocam from Ghost in the Shell! (1)

StCredZero (169093) | more than 5 years ago | (#28637463)

You don't need anything more than the demonstrated capabilities and the ability to display color patterns in specific directions. (That second part's going to be a significant challenge, though.) Even though the cloth can't sense *exactly* what's behind you in a certain direction, that's not needed. All you need to do is approximate what's behind you. This would work for a large variety of backgrounds: tree Leaves, savannah grass, concrete, gravel, sand, asphalt, etc...

If you have a computer attached to the cloth programmed for specific sets of environments, then you can have a set of camouflage patterns tailored for the specific situation you are in. You don't have to be able to process the exact pattern behind you, just recognize what it is so you can project a close match from your database. (With some tailoring for ambient lighting, etc.) This way, you can project "leaves in sunlight" to your enemy to the north, but "tall meadow with wildflowers" to the guy to the west. Your two enemies radio each other, and they both can't spot you from two different directions, so they're *really* confident you're not there -- right up to when you shoot them.

It's just a step away from Ghost in the Shell Optocam!

Cuttlefish-Cloth? (3, Funny)

sgant (178166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28634635)

Give me a fabric that mimics the skin of a cuttlefish and I'll be impressed!

BTW, PBS's Nova just had a special on the cuttlefish...amazing creatures.

Re:Cuttlefish-Cloth? (2)

Tsaot (859424) | more than 5 years ago | (#28634879)

Give me a fabric that mimics the skin of a cuttlefish and I'll be impressed!

Heck, combine this with a cuttlefish fabric and boom, dynamic camouflage. All it has to see is what it's up against and change the colors of the fabric on the other side.

Re:Cuttlefish-Cloth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28635839)

I'd like to see those "terrorists" try to throw rocks at soldiers camouflaged by this stuff

Re:Cuttlefish-Cloth? (1)

Sabathius (566108) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635957)

I'd be willing to bet that this is somebody's objective over there...whether they admit it or not. The military has long been involved in leading tech college research. C'mon Predator camouflage!

Re:Cuttlefish-Cloth? Analog or Digital Predator (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#28641845)

Sexual Predator?

In the hands of the Pr0n (or, maybe Real Doll) industry, this could... be... very..... skin-tail-lating even titillating... Attach the sklens, point and SHOOT. I wonder how much depth of feel (hehehe) this "digital" camera can "probe". I bet it will have a NICE f-stop, and the fokkel point will have a wide range of vividness in emulsion production. Properly used, this skintaillating camera will have the subject shuttering and shuddering. But, which will have priority: Shudder or Appherchur?

Give a hole nude mean-ning to SLR: Sex, Lies and Ripple Tape... Butt, at least this will take "digital photography" to a whole hole new depth of feel as the subject is framed and jammed up into a pent-up prism taking/receiving multiple skingasm shots per second, singly reflexing and mirroring the input of the sklens... Whupps... battery juices winding down....

End...

Re:Cuttlefish-Cloth? Analog or Digital Predator (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#28641861)

Hehehe... Looks like mine above was comment 69.... LOL....

Re:Cuttlefish-Cloth? (1)

timlyg (266415) | more than 5 years ago | (#28637945)

Well, with nano-screens, we'll have a dozen of Predator Suits.

The Venture Brothers: On Cuttlefish (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28647213)

Dugong
Oh. Oh! You may have found my inner sanctum...


Dr. Mrs. The Monarch
Shut up! Now give us the key or plans or whatever the hell you have.


Dugong
I have a tank full of gentle cuttlefish.


The Monarch
Give us the cuttle..fish. Cuttle. I can't do this.


Dr. Mrs. The Monarch
Ah, you're so close sweetie. Just pretend he's Dr. Venture.


The Monarch
Give me that gun
(He takes the gun from Kevin and approaches Dugong)
You've abandoned me. You abandoned my hatred!


Dugong
I have cuttlefish.


The Monarch
Look into my eyes.


(The Monarch and Dugong stare into each other's eyes for a lengthy moment. The gun goes off.)

I can see it now... (1)

iCantSpell (1162581) | more than 5 years ago | (#28634643)

Voyeur shoe company.

Re:I can see it now... (1)

pRtkL xLr8r (1264376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635095)

Hmmm...I was thinking more in the way of underwear...

Re:I can see it now... (1)

Dread_ed (260158) | more than 5 years ago | (#28637929)

I plan to provide free bath towels to Natalie Portman.

Re:I can see it now... (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#28643347)

okay or as a slightly more useful product (well okay, that's an opinion) they could make it sense a more modern set of colors like 16 bit at least and make projection screens out of it. That would make it really easy to project reel to reel movies onto it and record it in realtime at a high resolution. Then tada, you've got a digital version of an old movie. Those giant, dark projection boxes are what they use these day. The picture is always little off though cuz of the keystone-ish effect of having to mount the camera somewhere above, below, or to the side of the projector. Just take a look at the non-digitally altered version of The Wizard of Oz and you'll see what I mean.

Sounds like Neuromancer (1)

helbent (1244274) | more than 5 years ago | (#28634667)

There is one character in William Gibson's "Neuromancer" [wikipedia.org] who wears a bodysuit that has the ability to display images, forms or pictures that reflect the mood or mind of the wearer.

This technology may very well be the first step towards that realization.

Re:Sounds like Neuromancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28634771)

This is a camera, not a display.

TTIUWOP (2, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28634669)

When an orange goes bad, it actually rots from the outside in. So when you see a moldy orange at the store, it is possible that the insides are still perfectly fine. But you never get to see the insides of that fruit, much less eat it. What you don't know is, though, just how delicious moldy oranges can be. Like grapes, the oranges get the moisture taken out by the mold, so what's left is an enticingly sweet fruit. But since no one makes wine out of moldy oranges, you'll never know.

But cameras don't rot like that. Why would you write a story about new camera technology and not include the photograph results?

Re:TTIUWOP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28634923)

Offtopic? It takes a moment to get that analogy but it is perfectly valid!

Anyways, the first thing I thought of when I saw this story was "I think I'll begin giving women a lot more clothes as presents. Everybody wins."

Re:TTIUWOP (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 5 years ago | (#28641315)

Bad analogy guy has actually pulled off one I like today. It's oddly on topic if you think about it slightly too long.

MGS tech (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#28634677)

I can see an application the military are probably working on already - instead of reflecting exact copies of specific detail, rather morph the fabric to take the general color of its surroundings, adapting itself as the soldier moves, providing a chameleon suit to ensure stealth movement. Solid Snake's suit comes to mind, here.

Re:MGS tech (4, Informative)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#28634871)

This is a camera not a display. It seems it only reads what is around, it cant display anything to mimic it. To repoduce the image on the suit for camo or whatever you would probably have to interweave the camera fabric with a fabric that can display images, but then youd have to be very careful not to fall into some feedback loop.

Re:MGS tech (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635127)

i think a 2 second latency feedback loop would be rather entertaining - jason and his amazing psychedelic flak jacket

Re:MGS tech (1)

hot soldering iron (800102) | more than 5 years ago | (#28636323)

This would revolutionize the field of industrial espionage! Many places require you to turn in your cameras/phones/purses & briefcases when going into sensitive areas, but this lets you get a camera past everything but a stripdown!

Re:MGS tech (1)

afxgrin (208686) | more than 5 years ago | (#28637087)

Just imagine witnessing an infantry division in a parade formation wearing this shit - it would probably be the trippiest thing anyone would witness. Even if the fabric would just adapt to the surrounding colours, it doesn't even need to reproduce a perfect image.

Re:MGS tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28634917)

Startlingly amazing how most of the posters totally miss the fact that it's a input technology, not an output. Do you use your eyes as a screen? No, you use it as a webcam. Do you use this cloth as a screen? Ditto...

Re:MGS tech (0, Offtopic)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635329)

Are you really amazed or are you just tired of idiots assuming the absurd and completely illogical?

Re:MGS tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28635785)

Actually on hindsight, good point. By now no feat of idiocy and ignorance should surprise me anymore.

Re:MGS tech (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28637433)

Startlingly amazing how anally retentive you are, and cant just see past your perfectionism and realize that most of the posters understand that its input tech as much as you do...they just extrapolating the possible uses of this tech to the extreme, sorta like having a wish or dream.

You remember wishes and dreams?, you used steal them from the kids in the neighborhood.....

Re:MGS tech (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 5 years ago | (#28634931)

The invisible car in a Bond movie.

Re:MGS tech (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635043)

I think Predator had that same space suit , no?

There is no spoon (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28635183)

I believe you are referring to this "Cloak [new scientist]" [newscientist.com] , an interesting application seems to also be to project a faux object that isnt there.

Either way there is no need for sampling of the surrounding area, no camera fabric needed.

Uniforms for soldiers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28634723)

Come on. We all know why they developed it. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.

Re:Uniforms for soldiers? (3, Insightful)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 5 years ago | (#28634961)

Of course. I'd love to see what's inside of that burly sergeant's uniform.

poor (inept) service, higher costs, may not delay, (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28634757)

our high speed descent into the abyss. or, if nothing changes,....

the gravity of the dissolution of our illusions is slowing things a bit.

the lights (camera, action?) are coming up all over now. it may soon become more clear to us that our ONLY (soul) purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, which we're prone to do, we're merely passing through being distracted by the disappearing/guaranteed to fail, trappings of man'kind'.

so, catch your breath, pay attention (that's making a comeback), & get ready to meet yOUR maker(s),(based on where YOU believe we came from).

that doesn't necessarily mean that we're going anywhere, but it would appear as though many of us will be doing just that (leaving). see you on the other side of it?

The information has to be reliable (1)

OutputLogic (1566511) | more than 5 years ago | (#28634787)

For a soldier to detect a threat the information coming from such a uniform has to be reliable:

- it should work in different weather (rain,snow) and light conditions (day,night)
- it should detect threats moving at different speeds (bullet,running person,vehicle) and different distances (helicopter, sniper)
- it should never produce "false negative" information: it's better to detect an invalid threat rather than miss the real one

Not a simple task

OutputLogic [outputlogic.com]

Re:The information has to be reliable (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#28634853)

It doesn't have to detect a "threat" and perform complex Identify Friend or Foe logic. All it has to do is trigger some signal that your real eye detects as motion. Your retina, brain, and body can process the rest.

Put another way, if we had evolved with a light sensing organ on the back of our heads that couldn't focus or discern shapes, but could at least give us some sense of motion, we wouldn't complain that it's useless because it's not reliable. It would keep predators from sneaking up on us, and we'd quickly adapt to dealing with the "false positives".

Re:The information has to be reliable (3, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635107)

Actually, I wonder if that's true. The only thing that would offer us is notice of an absolutely silent thing moving behind us that is not casting a shadow towards us. If there were already other movement behind us, it wouldn't even provide that.

It seems to me a very small back-mounted camera would provide a lot more info than a full-body fabric-camera that only shows motion.

I think the camo-cloth option is a lot more useful. Camo was never meant to truly conceal, it just does an excellent job of breaking up your lines when you're hiding. If someone is looking your way intently, they're going to see you. It's when they're scanning quickly that they'll miss you. This could do exactly the same, but would always match the colors behind you to create the camo pattern.

My house IS the forest (1)

Virtual Drama (1561413) | more than 5 years ago | (#28638381)

If the cloth can be developed to capture light/dark/color impressions of the space immediately around it and could transmit that info to a camo wrap (camo paint?) it could be used to mask really big objects, like the clapboard house your spouse has been trying to get you to paint for the past five years. "That isn't a grove of trees. That's my unpainted house. Watch for falling paint chips." No end of uses. Nighttime raids to cover garden gnomes. Teenagers who are heard but not seen.

Re:The information has to be reliable (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28648189)

Even an "intent" look can miss people in camo because your brain takes shortcuts. The minute they move, though, your brain's pattern recognition systems go into full effect and compares the ratios of their bones and joints to other creatures you've seen in motion...

Re:The information has to be reliable (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635251)

I could see this being used as kind of a modular motion detection system, as well. A solder (or anyone else for that matter) could drape the material over something and when it picks up motion it the area it could be investigated further by the appropriate party.

Re:The information has to be reliable (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635993)

Investigated further? Don't you mean blown to itty fucking bitty pieces?

Re:The information has to be reliable (1)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635553)

I see this as an attempt at getting DARPA or SBIR money.

If you invent something cool and can figure out how it can have a military use, you can continue work on Uncle Sam.

However, it really sounds far from being practical. How big is the camera on your cell phone? If you needed a camera in the back of your gear, wouldn't you just mount one of those?

Suspicious Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28634847)

MIT researchers: pics or it didn't happen

censorship alive & 'well' on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28634857)

don't forget robbIE (pitiful suckup that you've become), the real bosses that you have no concept of (yet) are watching. delete that.

Frink? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28634881)

Professor Frink, Professor Frink,
He'll make you laugh, he'll make you think,
He likes to run, and then the thing,
with the... mm-m person...

did they consider... (3, Funny)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 5 years ago | (#28634995)

Machine washable or Dry Clean Only?

George Turner's Brain Child (3, Informative)

allrite (322519) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635091)

A clothing camera was described by science fiction author George Turner [wikipedia.org] in his 1991 novel Brain Child.

Neat tricks with camera arrays (2, Informative)

de_smudger (971193) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635151)

Wouldn't do not to reference related work such as the Stanford Camera Array - video here showing the multitude of neat tricks that can be done by processing images from multiple apertures into a single image:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/CameraArray/CameraArray.mp4 [stanford.edu]

The advent of inexpensive digital image sensors has generated great interest in building sensing systems that incorporate large numbers of cameras. At the same time, advances in semiconductor technology have made increasing computing power available for decreasing cost, power, and package size. These trends raise the question - can we use clusters of inexpensive imagers and processors to create virtual cameras that outperform real ones? Can we combine large numbers of conventional images computationally to produce new kinds of images? In an effort to answer these questions, the Stanford Computer Graphics Laboratory has built an array of 100 CMOS-based cameras.

Multi-camera systems can function in many ways, depending on the arrangement and aiming of the cameras. In particular, if the cameras are packed close together, then the system effectively functions as a single-center-of-projection synthetic camera, which we can configure to provide unprecedented performance along one or more imaging dimensions, such as resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, dynamic range, depth of field, frame rate, or spectral sensitivity. If the cameras are placed farther apart, then the system functions as a multiple-center-of-projection camera, and the data it captures is called a light field. Of particular interest to us are novel methods for estimating 3D scene geometry from the dense imagery captured by the array, and novel ways to construct multi-perspective panoramas from light fields, whether captured by this array or not. Finally, if the cameras are placed at an intermediate spacing, then the system functions as a single camera with a large synthetic aperture, which allows us to see through partially occluding environments like foliage or crowds. If we augment the array of cameras with an array of video projectors, we can implement a discrete approximation of confocal microscopy, in which objects not lying on a selected plane become both blurry and dark, effectively disappearing. These techniques, which we explore in our CVPR and SIGGRAPH papers (listed below), have potential application in scientific imaging, remote sensing, underwater photography, surveillance, and cinematic special effects.

http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/array/ [stanford.edu]

Re:Neat tricks with camera arrays (1)

godel_56 (1287256) | more than 5 years ago | (#28643067)

Wouldn't do not to reference related work such as the Stanford Camera Array - video here showing the multitude of neat tricks that can be done by processing images from multiple apertures into a single image: http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/CameraArray/CameraArray.mp4 [stanford.edu]

The advent of inexpensive digital image sensors has generated great interest in building sensing systems that incorporate large numbers of cameras. At the same time, advances in semiconductor technology have made increasing computing power available for decreasing cost, power, and package size. These trends raise the question - can we use clusters of inexpensive imagers and processors to create virtual cameras that outperform real ones? Can we combine large numbers of conventional images computationally to produce new kinds of images? In an effort to answer these questions, the Stanford Computer Graphics Laboratory has built an array of 100 CMOS-based cameras.

I can see a scenario where the entire walls and ceiling of a room are a distributed camera, and the user could use a joystick controller to move the view point all around the room as required.

I can see it now (4, Funny)

wtansill (576643) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635221)

Many offices, courthouses, etc. ban cameras from the premises. "Excuse me ma'am -- you'll have to take off all your clothes before we'll let you in ... "

Re:I can see it now (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28636771)

"Excuse me ma'am -- you'll have to take off all your clothes before we'll let you in ... "

This would only be bad in America, every else in the world where the population isn't the size of whales it would be pr0nerific.

Re:I can see it now (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 5 years ago | (#28637903)

Heh... my first thought was that it would make a nifty suit for Agent 007 to wear... or for industrial espionage... or general spying...

Great, now anyone wearing CLOTHES is suspicious!

Re:I can see it now (1)

bar-agent (698856) | more than 5 years ago | (#28647235)

"Excuse me ma'am -- you'll have to take off all your clothes before we'll let you in ... "

I find your ideas intriguing, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Invisibility cloak (1)

Ruvim (889012) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635269)

Now, if they would only support at least 16 colors...

Re:Invisibility cloak (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635707)

At least 16? I thought there were only 16 colors. 17 if you count "light urple". Everyone knows things like mahogany and lavender are objects, not colors.

Re:Invisibility cloak (1)

daremonai (859175) | more than 5 years ago | (#28638521)

Wait - my box of Crayolas says "64 colors" on it. Were they lying to me?
I'd take it back for a refund, but I already ate the purple.

Copy Blu-Ray and HDMI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28635273)

What they need to do now to recoup some of their R&D Time Effort and Money is to start selling rectangles of these light-sensitive fibers that are equal to the standard sizes of modern Flat-Screen TV's so that Fair Use can be maintained for people who wish to copy Blu-Ray discs in an analog manner while still maintaining a high level of visual quality, since the MPAA and RIAA themselves have suggested using Camcorders pointed at TVs so that customers can make fair use copies of the media that they purchase since it is considered a lawful way of reproduction as opposed to breaking encryption.

Stealth potential. (1)

TheyCallMeBruce (1100313) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635287)

Integrate imaging of area behind fabric wearer to render back to viewers angle.

Obvious application (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635297)

1. Use this cloth to take a picture that vaguely looks like the Virgin Mary.
2. Publicize the cloth.
3. Charge people to see it.
4. Profit!!!

Re:Obvious application (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28637113)

Can they make a pair of pants out of this material? I'd finally have a way to take a picture of my butt without having to jump up on a copier.

To go on the back of your roll-up display... (2, Interesting)

Peet42 (904274) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635351)

...a roll-up flatbed scanner.

Re:To go on the back of your roll-up display... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28638545)

Heck, why even unroll it? It's a scanner you can use on arbitrary objects without "unrolling" the object itself.

Presuming there's some way to easily detect when cloth-touches-cloth, you just delete that data and you have a new 2D skin for a 3D object...

________

Add some sort of position tracking to the corners of a triangle of this stuff, and It's a voxel scanner.

Put the object you want to scan in a vise, and pat it down with scanner-cloth to build a gradually increasing resolution model of it, both in terms of increasing texture quality but also in terms of geometry.

This was done in Star Trek (TOS) (3, Interesting)

Trevin (570491) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635611)

In "Is There in Truth No Beauty?" (1968) [memory-alpha.org] , Dr. Jones wears a sensor web to compensate for her blindness.

fruit of the loom to the Front! (1)

MattFatt (1593755) | more than 5 years ago | (#28635871)

i knew wearing my underwear inside out would be cool one day

Solution looking for a problem? (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28636319)

"give a soldier a uniform that would help him see threats in all directions. Optical fiber webs, by distributing the chore across a large area, would be less susceptible to damage in one area"

Ok... that doesn't seem like a terribly practical idea to me.

Suppose the "one area" that's damaged is the processing unit, or the interface that relays threat information to the wearer.

Let's suppose we solve that problem. Maybe we can distribute the processing across the fabric - some sort of nanoprocessor for every square inch of fabric. Maybe we can leverage the soldier's tactile sense to take input everywhere so we don't need in-tact signal paths outside of his body. (And maybe the jokes that go along with that idea aren't worth repeating...)

Now, your soldier is going to have to take some sort of sensory input representing information from all around him in a way that the mind doesn't normally process. This will require considerable training to handle and respond to. It would be pretty much manditory to have some sort of fiiltering on this information, or the soldier will quickly tune himself/herself to ignore it and/or be overwhelmed. How much is "enough" pre-processing? I guess we'll only know if someone decides to try.

Further developing the sensors is only one dimension of the problem if you want to realize this application. Apart from being a new way to conceal a camera (assuming the fabric isn't conspicuuos), I don't see this as good for much, at least for a long while to come.

Re:Solution looking for a problem? (1)

Anonymous Struct (660658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28638801)

A-HEM... trying to get a little efense-day unding-fay here. Do you mind??

Re:Solution looking for a problem? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28654715)

Suppose the "one area" that's damaged is the processing unit, or the interface that relays threat information to the wearer.

Let's suppose we solve that problem.

Let's suppose the processing unit is near the vital organs of the soldier, and that the interface that relays threat information is near his eyes and ears.

Then, we might conclude that if the suit is broken, the soldier is broken too, and doesn't really need the information provided by the suit.

Screw millitary applications - Give me Star Trek! (2, Funny)

Naatach (574111) | more than 5 years ago | (#28636343)

How do you think they can pull up a camera display from anywhere on the Enterprise? Weave this stuff into the walls.

Oh, wait...

/me adjusts tinfoil hat.

Hmmm... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28636367)

I think this would be perfect to start a company that supplies towels, robes, etc to sorority houses the world over.

Of course there would need to be some adaptations, like a small wireless transmitter.

All of the sales come with specialized hampers that in the frame contain a transceiver to relay all of the images to a centralized server.

Imagine the possibilities.

nude-suits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28637905)

Cameras on the inside, display on the outside. 1-to-1 correspondence. Except you're warmer/cooler than you would normally be, and could take more damage at the risk of losing some imagery.

Plus, you could have presets that morph or replace whatever's really there with the "Arnold" or "Jenna" (or "Predator") versions...

Am I the only one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28638651)

That is thinking panty cam?

Fred put his clothes on inside-out again (1)

VisiX (765225) | more than 5 years ago | (#28639287)

We've been staring at his balls for hours.

hypercolor! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28639803)

We had this in the 80s with HyperColor shirts. Drop a stencil on the shirt and leave it in the sun and the design would be duplicated on the shirt. Hey! It's photosensitive!

Overkill (1)

Sum0 (1245284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28645931)

Might work as a helmet cover. A whole suit might be a bit much...how do you interpret that much information? LSD?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?