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!

Companies To Invade Your Retinas As Soon As Next Year?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the play-with-it-and-you'll-go-blind dept.

Displays 245

Engadget is one of many reporting that Brother and NEC both seem to have retina display technology in the works for release next year. Brother, at least, seems to have a fully functional prototype, while so far NEC is mostly talk. "Naturally, there are a few considerable limitations compared to more traditional displays, but the company's as yet unnamed goggles do promise to beam an 800 x 600 image directly into your retina that'll appear as a 10-centimeter wide image floating about one meter in front of them -- which is certainly no small feat, even if it may not be the most practical one. Slightly less specific, but also working on a retina display of its own is NEC, which apparently hopes to incorporate a microphone into their display and use it as a real-time translation device that would quite literally display subtitles as you talk to someone."

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

oblig (4, Funny)

Vo1t (1079521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877449)

I for one welcome the retina-porn overlords

Re:oblig (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877491)

Year 2011: It's now commonplace for the average man to walk around with an erection. Average male IQ drops 40 points.

Re:oblig (1, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877923)

2012: study confirms, men are still smarter than women. Film at 11.

Re:oblig (4, Insightful)

ZekoMal (1404259) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878191)

2013: study confirms, women are still not having sex with the self-righteous nerds.

Re:oblig (1)

buswolley (591500) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878273)

2014: Cancer Cancer Cancer.

Re:oblig (1)

sofar (317980) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877497)

imagine the subtitles.....!

Re:oblig (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877825)

Meh, you know that as soon as the auto-translation headphones that beam directly into your eardrum come out, it'll be nothing but petty infighting between the retinal sub and eardrum dub sides, and everyone else will wonder what the hell they're arguing about, since we won't see or hear any of it...

Re:oblig (2, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878671)

Imagine the burn-in.

Re:oblig (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877773)

When my fists can look like disembodied vaginas i'll never leave the house again. There's delivery services for tissue paper right?

Tsk. That's the best Simpsons meme you've got? (2, Funny)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878025)

Naturally, there are a few considerable limitations compared to more traditional displays, but the company's as yet unnamed goggles do promise to beam an 800 x 600 image directly into your retina that'll appear as a 10-centimeter wide image floating about one meter in front of them -- which is certainly no small feat, even if it may not be the most practical one.

I would've pointed out that this is currently vaporware.
In other words: THE GOGGLES! THEY DO NOTHING!

Re:Tsk. That's the best Simpsons meme you've got? (2, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878395)

HEY WORLD: GET IT RIGHT.

"My eyes! The goggles do nothing!"

A Little Bit Backwards? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877455)

...a real-time translation device that would quite literally display subtitles as you talk to someone.

Wouldn't it make more sense to display subtitles as someone talks to you?

Re:A Little Bit Backwards? (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877625)

Wouldn't it make more sense to display subtitles as someone talks to you?

Indeed it would. And even better, it could then make that scene from Austin Powers [youtube.com] an every-day reality. I love technology!

Re:A Little Bit Backwards? (3, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877665)

Wouldn't it make more sense to display subtitles as someone talks to you?

I can't speak for others, but I've had enough foot-in-mouth moments that maybe seeing what I currently am saying might help on occasion.

And a 2 second lead time would be even better.

Re:A Little Bit Backwards? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877689)

...a real-time translation device that would quite literally display subtitles as you talk to someone.

Wouldn't it make more sense to display subtitles as someone talks to you?

That depends. It could have a heuristics system to ensure that the next word coming out of your mouth doesn't get you in trouble:

Wife: How do these pants make my butt look?
Husband: It makes your butt look extremely HALT, FULL STOP. EXCEPTION ERROR. ALTERNATE VALUE very small, dear.

Boss: So, Peter, what do you think about my proposal for extended work hours with no overtime?
Peter: I think you are a fu-HALT, FULL STOP. EXCEPTION ERROR. ALTERNATE VALUE -n person and a brilliant leader!

Son: Hey dad, what's an erection?
Dad: Well, you see, it's when a man HALT, FULL STOP. EXCEPTION ERROR. ALTERNATE VALUE asks your mother.

Oh the applications.

Re:A Little Bit Backwards? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878209)

You seem to have purchased the sad-sack model.

Re:A Little Bit Backwards? (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878691)

No spluh, that is the model with by far the biggest market!

Re:A Little Bit Backwards? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29878291)

Most likely outcome: It would make more sense for a company to display subtitled advertisements that it believes are relevant to your conversation.

Invasion is such a strong word... (5, Funny)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877471)

I think "Liberation" would be a better word. The companies will enter the eyeball (in small numbers), and will be cheered by all the cells... at first. But then they'll get caught up in the bitter rivalries, with renegade Rods lobbing bombs at the Cones, who will in turn blame the support cells in the Sclera for fomenting dissent.

This can only end badly.

Doctor ? (1)

freaker_TuC (7632) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878039)

Do you know by any chance the Doctor ? ...

Because he'd only bibblabobbli wobblidoodli like that!

Obligatory joke (2, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877473)

Do not look into goggles with remaining eye.

Seriously, though, does anybody else find the idea of projecting directly on the eye a little disturbing?

Re:Obligatory joke (2, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877565)

The writers of Star Trek: TNG certainly did. On a related note, there could be Hypnotic [wikipedia.org] applications to such technology.

Re:Obligatory joke (3, Interesting)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877629)

Not just projecting onto the retina - projecting directly onto the retina with lasers.

Many people shy away from laser eye surgery - I can imagine this device will be a bit difficult to market. Imagine the "phosphor burn" effect on your retina.... not pretty. My bet is that this won't appear in the lawsuit-happy USA any day soon.

Re:Obligatory joke (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877761)

No.

How do you think you see?

That's right, light on the retina.

What's this?

That's right, light on the retina - no different.

Re:Obligatory joke (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29878011)

It is very different. This system uses a scanning system to disperse the light energy over the retinal display area. If the scanning system fails for any reason and the laser stays focused on one "pixel" for an extended period of time, all the energy will be focused in one spot. Result: instant scitoma.

Re:Obligatory joke (3, Interesting)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878059)

It is very different. This system uses a scanning system to disperse the light energy over the retinal display area. If the scanning system fails for any reason and the laser stays focused on one "pixel" for an extended period of time, all the energy will be focused in one spot. Result: instant scitoma.

Phew! Good thing I have eyelids. Never leave home without 'em!

Re:Obligatory joke (4, Interesting)

ThatMegathronDude (1189203) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878151)

You won't know anything's wrong until its far too late.

Re:Obligatory joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29878275)

then windows mobile for retina displays crashes, the beam stops moving and burns a small hole in your retina before you can close your eye.

Re:Obligatory joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877817)

Definitely not. I've been dreaming of something like this since I was a child.
And I'm *so* waiting for neural implants as well.

Re:Obligatory joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877947)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Goatse images laser-engraved into your retina and this time the goggles really do something ?

Re:Obligatory joke (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878071)

Seriously, though, does anybody else find the idea of projecting directly on the eye a little disturbing?

Having been hit in the eye with a laser at a light show (flight path was supposed to terminate below where I was, but something went wrong), and lucky to escape without long term injury, I do.

Re:Obligatory joke (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878215)

"Seriously, though, does anybody else find the idea of projecting directly on the eye a little disturbing?"

Very. I have had gas-permeable contacts for almost 30 years, and have no problem poking around my eyeball to bind those little bastards if they slip out of place. But I absolutely freak out if anything else comes near my eyes. They'd need to give me general anesthesia to perform Lasik - I don't think I'd react well to a laser projector that close.

And no, it's not rational. BFD - I'm still not doing it.

Re:Obligatory joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29878245)

There are many applications to this... http://www.microvision.com/wearable_displays/index.html

Khlarr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877505)

I am really looking forward to being blinded when these start malfunctioning.

Finally I could run for political office (4, Interesting)

speedlaw (878924) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877517)

I always remember faces, but names are tough. Here I could finally know everyone's name (combined with some facial recognition software).

Re:Finally I could run for political office (1)

Z1NG (953122) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877563)

Yeah and the goofy goggle will probably get you as many votes as knowing names. Look, when you win I'll give you a ride to the inauguration in my spaceship.

Re:Finally I could run for political office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877979)

I always remember asses, but names are tough. Here I could finally know everyone's name (combined with some ass recognition software).

 
Fixed it.
 
I don't know, it just felt right.

"Fun" Mods (5, Funny)

StaticEngine (135635) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877539)

Replace that low power LED with a super-high-power multi-Watt LED!

Hilarity ensues!

(As does screaming, and permanant blindness.)

Re:"Fun" Mods (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878423)

Help! The goggles, they do too much!

I'm no biologist... (1)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877557)

But aren't all images we see the result of light beaming into our retinas?

Re:I'm no biologist... (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877631)

But aren't all images we see the result of light beaming into our retinas?

That... is... kind... of the point...

Re:I'm no biologist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29878195)

No, the lens focuses all light that is reflected or emitted by an object in the direction of the pupil and creates an image on the retina. Beaming an image onto the retina means that there is no real equivalent to the image. You are not looking at an area: the laser emitter is a point light source.

Send This Retina Display Error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877609)

To Microsoft [microsoft.com]

or

Cancel [youtube.com]

I can't see the screen cuz the lasers BURNED my retinas.

Yours In Novosibirsk,
Kilgore Tour

Re:Send This Retina Display Error (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877725)

It's not a bug, it's a feature. Some people pay lots of money for laser eye surgery...

Too little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877695)

It might have been interesting ten years ago but computer monitor resolutions have improved so much you're talking about an extremely low res picture on an expensive monitor. The only purpose I could see are handheld devices and most aren't designed for external monitors. Add it to an iPhone or a similar device and it might be a way to watch a movie on an airplane otherwise I just don't see the point.

Re:Too little too late (2, Funny)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877953)

I'm sorry to be the first to inform you, but you have been judged as having an imagination which is unfit to be used in conjunction with this website. Please remove this URL from your favorites and hand in your geek card on the way out.

Thank you.

Prototype in article doesn't seem very practical (2, Informative)

rhdv (748688) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877697)

I mean the thing is right in front of one of your eyes. This means the other eye is free to look at the environment. This leaves the brain the arduous task to merge the two images into something useful.

Also the retina isn't that big. You are practically forced to look just right into the display to see something at all.

I'm working at a device to make pictures of the retina and it's pretty hard to make good images of the retina. These guys projects something on it that must be sharp enough to be useful. Kudos if they pull it off, but I'm skeptical. Show me the goods. This is just marketing blabla.

Re:Prototype in article doesn't seem very practica (5, Interesting)

StaticEngine (135635) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878035)

See, that's the awesome thing. They put a tiny camera on the other side, then project what the camera sees/the device obscures right onto your retina, plus some extra info. It's like the projector isn't even there!

Sure there are some parallax issues, and one day you forget it's there, go to bed with it on, roll over, and gouge your eye out, but hey, that's the price of progress!

First Person Shooters (5, Interesting)

robvangelder (472838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877715)

This will be awesome for 3d games (first person shooters).
One image per eye, producing a 3d scene.

I imagine generation 1 will look weird with all the images being in focus, even though the Z distance varies.
With a little more work, generation 2 could detect what you are trying to focus on - like those eye test machines do - and produce a more realistic scene - blurry in the background, sharp foreground.

It would be cool to hit a key and have the scene zoom on what you're looking at.

Re:First Person Shooters (3, Informative)

caseih (160668) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878189)

Having sensors detect eye movement and focus is essential for making 3d goggles. Your brain is constantly moving your eyes in order to get depth information. That and head movement. Regular goggles are very tiring to use because when your eyes move around, the scene does not. This is very confusing for your brain and causes my eyes to really hurt after a while.

Invasion? (3, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877719)

How is this "invasion" if you need to willingly put on a special pair of goggles that enable it?

It's sort of like calling someone accepting a gift at Christmas robbery or theft..

Imagine this (3, Insightful)

abbynormal brain (1637419) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877759)

Imagine a world with many "blank" surfaces ... dull? Not without your wireless network retina vision (WNRV) - projected advertisement on "billboard surfaces" just around the (metaphorical) corner!

Re:Imagine this (2, Funny)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877867)

Google Goggles.

I'm surprised no one has said this yet but.... (1)

KraftDinner (1273626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877769)

WOOHOOO Universal Translator, one step closer!

Re:I'm surprised no one has said this yet but.... (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877951)

I'm surprised no one has said this: My hovercraft is full of eels.

Re:I'm surprised no one has said this yet but.... (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878113)

Are you kidding? People have been saying that for forty years!

Re:I'm surprised no one has said this yet but.... (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878181)

Yes, very good. Gold star material, you are. People quote Monty Python. Proven fact, been going on for decades.

However, I was referring to this article. But you still get a gold star, because everyone is a winner! Yay!

Re:I'm surprised no one has said this yet but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29878433)

Everyone but you, shitstick.

Re:I'm surprised no one has said this yet but.... (1)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878697)

Let's get on this so we get our 2 free tech advances!

How big again? (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877781)

10 cm square at one meter?

No matter how good the focus is, 800x600 is wasted at that small a visual angle.

Or you could buy something now (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877799)

http://www.vuzix.com/iwear/products_wrap310.html [vuzix.com]

Available right now for under $250. Also one of the only head mounted augmented reality systems that is commercially available today.

Re:Or you could buy something now (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877895)

This is entirely different (though not entirely new).

Re:Or you could buy something now (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877967)

So with these goggles, two high resolution webcams, and a netbook, I could have an expensive "vision replacement system" which would work less well than nothing at all.

As Spock would say, "Fascinating."

Ads (1)

Looce (1062620) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877819)

Who knows what ads they want to burn into our retinas.

I just hope it won't be an unignorable HeadOn ad [youtube.com] , because that is liable to give me unignorable... headaches.

Now if only I had unignorable audio too, so I could know where I apply the HeadOn...

Whoops (1)

Looce (1062620) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877959)

Err, goggles. I posted the parent comment without even reading the summary. (Ha!)

That's not so bad then. And don't we already have virtual-reality glasses and goggles and other things already? How would this be revolutionary?

Head On (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878053)

Thank you, I was previously unaware of this product.

You can die now. Your life is complete.

Re:Head On (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878357)

Snuggie?

ShamWow? (I really can't believe that name...)

Snuggie for Dogs?

10 cm x 10 cm or 10 cm^2? (3, Insightful)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877835)

The Engadget article says "10-centimeter wide image" where as the Register article that Engadget uses at its source says a 10cm^2 object.

That's quite a difference. If the image displayed is also in 4:3, that makes the Engadget image 7.5 times larger (10x7.5 cms).

Re:10 cm x 10 cm or 10 cm^2? (1)

jcoy42 (412359) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877927)

Were you thinking "10-centimeter wide image" was referring to a 1-dimensional image?

Re:10 cm x 10 cm or 10 cm^2? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878205)

I'm thinking that possibly someone didn't know the difference between (10 cm^2) and (10 cm)^2 ... I've seen that a LOT of times, where someone talks about two miles squared and actually mean two square miles.

Thus it is very possible that Engadget meant 10x10 cm (hense my title). Obviously they didn't mean 10 cm x 1 cm. And either way, we have two sources giving very different reported sizes - hence my question.

Re:10 cm x 10 cm or 10 cm^2? (3, Funny)

Jay L (74152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878259)

Either way, if I'm trying to read a 10cm-wide display that appears to be a meter in front of me, I'm going to lean forward to read it. Of course, that's futile with a retinal display... I predict a lot of hunched-over early adopters!

Re:10 cm x 10 cm or 10 cm^2? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878437)

(10cm)^2 !

They can beam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877861)

but they can pay me for the use of my Hardware - same as they do for billboards

Hopefully society will rid us of the faggots (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877877)

Faggots suck the shit out of other faggots asses and suck their own shit off the dicks of other faggots. They're diseased and they add nothing to society. They need to be removed from society for once and for all for draining resources from good living people.
 
The more faggots that just kill themselves the better our lives will all be.

Re:Hopefully society will rid us of the faggots (0, Troll)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878271)

Sounds like somebody is struggling with some repressed sexual urges in the locker room!

Just come out. You'll feel SO much better.

-FL

Re:Hopefully society will rid us of the faggots (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29878577)

yeah, you're a barrel of laughs. i'm sure you're one of those bitches who goes on and on about religion being a drain on society when faggots are a drain on society too. anyone who thinks religion needs weeded out shoul agree that faggots need the heave-ho too.

Hardware Request, Please (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877881)

Given the size of the Prototype shown in TFA, how much heart burn would it be to make the hardware 1600x1200? Basically use 4 units combined into one?

Re:Hardware Request, Please (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878501)

i think in this case the purpose of it is to take -part- of your field of vision to -add- something to it, not to replace it so you can play WoW without a monitor.

Re:Hardware Request, Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29878699)

Because 800x600 retina porn is not as good as 1600x1200 retina porn.

ob (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877901)

Shouldn't it be retinae?

Cool! (1)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877919)

I found a bluetooth headset that does mono A2DP (bluetooth audio streaming) and enjoy listening to podcasts while doing whatever. I'd have no problems keeping this on as well.

Four thoughts... (1)

TheGreatOrangePeel (618581) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877949)

  • Thought 1: Finally. A potentially practical HUD for daily mobile computing.
  • Thought 2: Oh. Watch a movie at work and no one will know.
  • Thought 3: Huh. Watch porn wherever you are.
  • Thought 4: Wow. Why wasn't thought 3 thought 1?

3D & the Environment (1)

CatoNine (638960) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878077)

Finally, perfecting this technology will be the final introduction of *true* 3D (2.5D).
(Without the need for extra glasses ;-)
And it will be the end of big TV screens sucking up power and manufacturing resources.
As a bonus, in games I can really look around with my head.
Can't wait...

Subtitles for real life? (1)

tengeta (1594989) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878079)

Seriously? For disabled people this is great, but otherwise its 1. lazy and 2. going to get spam broadcasting right into peoples heads.

So, I guess you could say... (2, Funny)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878089)

The goggles (from NEC), they do nothing?

Not me (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878103)

I'm not projecting anything directly on my retinas until there has been at least 5 years of letting large numbers of other people test the safety of doing that on their eyes.

If it works out it really holds promise for people with color blindness and other vision problems. Not to mention the possibilities for enhanced reality. Talking to some gal while Googling for naked pictures of her and then trying line up the body image with her real face while you're talking.

No, not distracting at all...what was the question?

Re:Not me (1)

wfstanle (1188751) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878511)

"If it works out it really holds promise for people with color blindness and other vision problems."

It's unlikely that it will fix color blindness because that problem is in the retina itself. In fact, it probably won't fix most eye problems with the possible exception of near/far-sightedness and astigmatism, which are due to the shape of the cornea.

Too bad it won't work well for me (1)

haaz (3346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878223)

Not that I want any advertising blasted onto my retinas as it is... but this event saw to it [slashdot.org] that my left eye became pretty well useless for this application. No pun intended.

Lumus already doing this for several years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29878235)

But I don't know when it's coming to consumer-level market:
http://lumus-optical.com/

Back in 1999... (1)

Amarantine (1100187) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878303)

...so ten years ago, i had the pleasure of visiting a startup (back then) called Microvision, developing what seems to me like exactly the same thing. Looking at their site now, they are still in business and working on the same stuff, which i think is cool.

I recall wearing a similar device, with a Windows 98 desktop being laser-projected directly on my eye, altough at 640x480. I recall the nervousness of what would happen if lightning would strike at that very moment. Just the idea of a Windows desktop etched on my retina...

Problems, yeah (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878313)

Naturally, there are a few considerable limitations compared to more traditional displays,

There's also the problem of me taking a hammer to any system that tries to project something onto my godamned retina. I'm not kidding, Brother/NEC. My hammer, your fucking projector, guaranteed.

First pass a law..... (1)

stoicfaux (466273) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878401)

prohibiting people from operating a vehicle while wearing them.

retinas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29878403)

My retinas! The goggles, they do... something?

Imagine the scams I could pull off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29878471)

This would be great for liars! Combine facial recognition with a recent lies' database and voila! Most consistent liar ever! Finally, an invention for us sociopaths!

subtended angle (1)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878519)

Just one thing to keep in mind: the display, no matter what, won't be any larger than the subtended angle of the display apparatus as viewed by the eye. In other words, if you have a display covering 90 degrees of your field of view, then the apparatus generating that display will have to cover 90 degrees of your field of view.

Now, that apparatus may be transparent and not interfere with viewing the rest of the world in that 90 degrees, but this doesn't mean that some little bug-like object on a lamppost twenty feet away is going to be able to target your eye and draw an advertisement that subtends 90 degrees of your field of view, since the little bug-like object doesn't subtend that 90 degrees - it will be able to make an advertisement no bigger than the bug looks to you.

Really, this isn't much different than the head mounted display I was playing with years ago, which had a small mirror in front of the eye, and a display module that clipped to the side of your glasses. This just uses lasers rather than diodes.

Old technology? (0, Troll)

ACMENEWSLLC (940904) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878531)

A girl I knew over 10 years a go had a 3D set of these hooked to her computer. I walked around her house during a party with them on, playing Doom in 3D. You turned your head to control your movement.

It was pretty cool seeing Doom in 3D projected in the room in front of me.

So how is this new technology? What's new about it? That this version is not 3D? That the resolution is 800 wide and not 320 pixels wide?

lasers pointed at my retinas.... (1)

CFD339 (795926) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878681)

what could go wrong?

I think I'll wait for version 2.1 on this particular tech. First, because I don't want 800x600 on a 10cm screen a meter away. That's not useful to me. I want 1080p visible as a 52" 16x9 screen about 10 feet away. NOW we're talking.

Aside from that, I think we'll wait and see just how much eye strain these things cause first -- and how well they travel. COOL would be if they'd sit at the hinges of fully functional sunglasses so the display could be a heads-up while you do other things (maybe not driving).

Did you see a ghost? (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#29878687)

I'm personally looking forward to being able to beam images into peoples retinas. I can imagine all sorts of delightful pranks.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?