×

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!

Augmented Reality In a Contact Lens

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the lookit-them-wires-in-there dept.

Medicine 196

Toe, The writes "Bionanotechnology researcher Babak A Parviz writes about his research toward producing a computer interface in a contact lens. At the moment, they have only embedded a single LED, but they foresee a much more complex interface such as detailed in Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End. Such lenses potentially could also read human bio-information from the eye, providing medical information on the order of what is now taken from blood tests, but on a continuous basis. An example would be monitoring glucose levels for diabetics. The author states that, 'All the basic technologies needed to build functional contact lenses are in place,' and details what refinements and advances will be necessary to bring this technology to reality."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

196 comments

Anonymous Coward (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275185)

Dylan Lainhart leet h4x0r

Cool (3, Funny)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275195)

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

Re:Cool (1, Redundant)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276331)

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 [slashdot.org] . 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.

Re:Cool (2, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276697)

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.

A 21st Century Contact Lens (5, Informative)

davide marney (231845) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275197)

Here's an illustration [ieee.org] that explains it all in a glance.

Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens (2, Interesting)

phayes (202222) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275455)

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.

Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275547)

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 (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275639)

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.

A better suggestion for power: (4, Interesting)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275459)

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: (4, Interesting)

Cedric Tsui (890887) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275597)

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: (2, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275703)

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.

Re:A better suggestion for power: (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276729)

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: (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29276089)

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 21st Century Contact Lens (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275513)

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.

I've got all those! (2, Funny)

autocracy (192714) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275947)

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.

Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens (1)

skirtsteak_asshat (1622625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276503)

Dude, wake up... the heisenberg compensator is CURRENT technology, albeit from the future-past. It's complicated, but they make it simple. I'm constructing an H.L. Mencken device, which makes it possible to lose money underestimating the intelligence of the great masses. Popular science is popular for a reason, Luser. Try to keep up, eh?

Re:A 21st Century Contact Lens (1)

jpyeck (1368075) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276023)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29276643)

Dandy. I watched a program about this on one of the science/learning channels... about 3 months ago.

yes! (3, Interesting)

Mr.Fork (633378) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275219)

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.

Re:yes! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275287)

Just imagine being able to watch porn while you're tagging that not-so-hot chick you met at the bar!

Re:yes! (1)

xenolion (1371363) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275399)

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! (2, Interesting)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275435)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275673)

IBM is way ahead of you...

Re:yes! (2, Funny)

mrrudge (1120279) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275859)

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! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275449)

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! (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275469)

TFA did mention that they are powering the current version via RF. (RF being the same as the RF in RFID)

The power problem. (1)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276163)

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.

Re:The power problem. (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276541)

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.

I have a request. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275267)

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. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276515)

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.

Small steps. (2, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275285)

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

Re:Small steps. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275453)

No doubt. I'm not sure I would want any kind of electronic metal device attached to my eye 24x7. Glasses sound safer and would allow for more space for components.

Re:Small steps. (1)

OpenGLFan (56206) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275529)

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. (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275775)

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. (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275917)

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.

Another inevitable function of this... (4, Interesting)

d474 (695126) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275325)

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.

Re:Another inevitable function of this... (2, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275439)

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.

There are lots of photons to go around. (2, Interesting)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275501)

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. (1)

d474 (695126) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275575)

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

Re:Another inevitable function of this... (3, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275657)

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...

Re:Another inevitable function of this... (1)

d474 (695126) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275753)

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.

Re:Another inevitable function of this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275829)

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.

Perception latency?

It seems like it could be manageable. Similar to the sibling post by jeffb, I wonder if people couldn't adapt to handle 100ms latency on their vision. It seems like the threshold could be found with today's technology, at least.

Also, though it seems like it would lessen the sci-fi-cliche aspect of rolling 24/7, with manual control of recording and/or the light hitting the sensor it would still be pretty awesome.

Re:Another inevitable function of this... (4, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276051)

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

Re:Another inevitable function of this... (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276775)

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... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276623)

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

Re:Another inevitable function of this... (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275467)

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... (1)

d474 (695126) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275543)

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...

Re:Another inevitable function of this... (1)

stfvon007 (632997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275557)

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!

Re:Another inevitable function of this... (1)

Explodicle (818405) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276185)

"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... (1)

unifyingtheory (1357069) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275535)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29276151)

Hey, I saw that in a documentary [wikipedia.org] .

Eye Fatigue, Ailments, Psychosis... (2, Interesting)

Xin Jing (1587107) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275381)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275601)

Easy to turn it off: take out the contacts, or perhaps have it so that it turns off if you close your eyes for X seconds.

Re:Eye Fatigue, Ailments, Psychosis... (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276041)

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

Why keep it external? (1)

jkyrlach (1076609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275425)

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.

Twitter updates too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275437)

So how long until those contact lenses can send twitter updates?

mod do3N (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275441)

centralized models noises out of the shit-filled, their hand...she moronic, dilettante Lite is straining go of the minutiae Fortunately, Linu8 Gone Romeo and That the project Reciprocating bad However I don't to have to decide Dim. Due to the users all over the others 3hat to mire of decay, Your own beer Perform keeping Not so bad. To the progress. In 1992, niggerness? And same worthless

Life Imitating Art (0)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275461)

They used this technology only a couple of months ago in Torchwood : Children of Earth [wikipedia.org]

Re:Life Imitating Art (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275665)

They used this technology only a couple of months ago in Torchwood : Children of Earth [wikipedia.org]

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.

K W Jeter's Noir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275463)

Be cool to be able to have these things do an overlay of reality like in K W Jeter's Noir so that we can live in an old black and white detective movie.

Of course once you can get an overlay for your reality things will get interesting. Swimsuit edition overlay: We can all let ourselves go and we'll still look great to people who have the contacts.

Going Green? (1)

mschoolbus (627182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275505)

At the moment, they have only embedded a single LED

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

A Town Called Eureka. (concept idea from there) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275555)

There were some glasses that had a display in them that showed a pretty interesting concept: augmented reality baseball.
You could extend on this.
How about Paintball? Now its all virtual, no wasting paintballs, all the same mechanics.
Or lasertag, or real guns emulated in AR.
AR basketball, no need for ball or goal, just AR glasses and maybe a set of gloves with feedback so you can feel where the ball is.
The glasses will have audio feedback as well.

As long as you are synced up to each other, a computer can process the AR world.
You could even place a small computer on everyone so there won't be any problems with distance. (in-game long distance sniping might not work in this case, but nobody likes snipers!)
Distance is really the only problem in this. I guess you could always have a transmitter placed in the center of the gaming area.
A visible end to where the transmission falls off will show on the display in some form.

improved contact lens (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275579)

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? (2, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275623)

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

Stamp out Reality! (1)

DrVomact (726065) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276369)

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!

what about focus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275653)

If you put your eye really close to a lcd screen, you'll see the image blurry, how are they gonna fix this, without limiting the vision beyond the contact lens?

Don't forget the cheating at Blackjack. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29275655)

...

Any day now (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275709)

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 (5, Interesting)

clt829 (820534) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275743)

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

Re:Science Reporting At Its Best (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29276099)

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 (3, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276105)

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

Basic optics FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29276073)

Try putting a picture 1cm in front of your eye.
You cannot focus this close, so how are you gonna focus on an image sitting on your eyeball?

Re:Basic optics FAIL (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29276161)

...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 [google.com] , 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.)

Re:Basic optics FAIL (1)

chadplusplus (1432889) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276387)

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.

I can't wait for the first hacker (3, Interesting)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276111)

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!

Ghost in the Shell (2, Insightful)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276265)

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.

Cybernetic Eyes (3, Interesting)

Baron_Yam (643147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276279)

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.

Retinal Image Stabilization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29276335)

If you have a image which is stabilized on the retina (appears in the same part of the retina) for an extended period of time will disappear from view. This is why we don't see the blood vessels in our eyes occluding our view of the world. If they produce a static image on the contact, it will very quickly fade from view. In order for this to be useful, they will have to track the movements that the eye makes dozens of times per second, calculate where the image should appear on the retina based on a projection of where it wants to be seen in real space, and switch the leds to the new image. Good luck making this performant enough to keep up with the eyes. There's a good chance the the leds that they are using won't even be able to switch fast enough to maintain the illusion.

Anime (1)

trapnest (1608791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276343)

Really surprised no one has mentioned Dennou Coil.

This would be awesome, but I'd rather have glasses then contact lenses. Probably easier from an engineering standpoint as well.

A on-eye web browser! It would take... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29276401)

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

Just wrote a review of Rainbows End (1)

Robotech_Master (14247) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276749)

Oddly enough, I just wrote a fairly lengthy review of Rainbows End [teleread.org] 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.

Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29276897)

I'm pretty sure if they come out with these, the whole DBZ meme will come back with a vengeance.

Me:Hey Steve, what's your contacts say about his power level? .
Steve: IT'S OVER 9000!
Me: What? 9000?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...