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!

Electronic Contact Lens Displays Pixels On the Eye

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the micro-display dept.

Science 126

An anonymous reader writes "The future of augmented-reality technology is here — as long as you're a rabbit. Bioengineers have placed the first contact lenses containing electronic displays into the eyes of rabbits as a first step on the way to proving they are safe for humans. The bunnies suffered no ill effects, the researchers say."

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

Pixels? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38157646)

A single pixel. One might even say, First Pixel!

Re:Pixels? (3, Informative)

MstrFool (127346) | about 2 years ago | (#38159966)

First time my butt... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080117125636.htm 2008, with photo of an even more complex working lens, on a rabbit's eye. From Slashdot, http://science.slashdot.org/story/08/01/17/1921217/bionic-contact-lens-may-lead-to-overlay-displays and http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/01/1619248/augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lens from 2008 and 2009, respectively. Took a while to sort through all the google echos of this being the first time, to get to the older pages where it had already been done. Though it is comforting to know that even more people are working to help create our soon to be our Human-Rabit hybrid Cybernetic overlords, whom I, for one, will welcome.

Re:Pixels? (2)

MstrFool (127346) | about 2 years ago | (#38160044)

Now that that's out of the way... Even a single pixel can be quite useful if applied correctly. Use it as a toxin/radiation alert in high risk situations. Covert navigation. Just always knowing due north in any condition can permit a skilled navigator to get most any where, and would be unlikely to be picked up by enemy nightvision, unlike a glowing compass. Communications, mores code as mentioned in a post below, useful in covert tactical, even if used for nothing more then a 'holy (whatever)! Abort! Abort! Evac!' signal. Covert display for a concealed radar detector for the states that do not permit radar detectors. A signal to let your pet bunny know that you put food out. Why, the possibilities are near endless. Incorporate eye motion, and you can even have Pong any where you are. Heck, work in augmented reality and you can Pong between buildings as you walk.

Re:Pixels? (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#38161140)

First post was modded down, in the usual knee-jerk reaction. I actually chuckled at it. Wasn't worth ROFL, but it was a bit funny. Some people should never get mod points.

Strange Coincidence (4, Interesting)

jenic (1231704) | about 2 years ago | (#38157648)

A strange coincidence that I happen to be reading Rainbows End right now.

Re:Strange Coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38157790)

Woot! Double relevant reference. Rabbit and AR contact lenses!

Re:Strange Coincidence (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | about 2 years ago | (#38157868)

... get out of my head!

I just started reading it; I'm about 10% of the way through. Since the raw text was freely available (for a while), I used it as an opportunity to learn about the ePub spec and to compile one from scratch. Looks awesome, IMO! Trickiest part was properly replacing the straight quotes with left- and right-quotes =S

Re:Strange Coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38157898)

I know I'm probably the odd man out, but I found that book dull and poorly written. I know this is off tangent, but this story topic is going to elicit many comments about the book anyway.

Re:Strange Coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38158016)

Yeah it's a pretty meh Vinge book compared to Fire Upon the Deep and Deepness in the Sky. Haven't read his newest yet.

Re:Strange Coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38158090)

Haven't read his newest yet.

Loved both of those you mentioned, but I do not recommend Children Of The Sky. At least skim over some of the negative reviews on Amazon first, so you have some idea about what to expect.

ooh pick me pick me (3, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#38157656)

I've been dreaming about this since forever.

If they can work CCDs into them too so they can function as an eyetap I'll sell everything I own except maybe my truck to get them. (gonna need a new portable computer to go with anyway)

Re:ooh pick me pick me (2)

KingMotley (944240) | about 2 years ago | (#38158076)

Now all I need is software to recognize my wife and overlay the image of Natalya Rudakova, Milla Jovovich, Kristen Stewart, Jordana Brewster, Ali Larter, Tara Reid, and Olivia Munn depending on the day of the week, and they will have the best selling product of all time. Oh wait, perhaps they should make it recognize the wearer's wife, cause I don't want every guy on the face of the planet oogling over my wife you perves!

Re:ooh pick me pick me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38158600)

if you need that much fantasy to have sex with your wife, i doubt all the other guys on the planet will want to ogle her.

amusing side note: the verification word is "consort"

Re:ooh pick me pick me (4, Insightful)

wiedzmin (1269816) | about 2 years ago | (#38159090)

For every hot woman on the planet, there is a guy who is sick and tired of banging her. It's not the fact that his wife may be ugly, it's just that she's his wife man.

Re:ooh pick me pick me (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#38159354)

^^^ Quite possibly the most insightful comment of the day. Many people really underestimate the whole "honeymoon is over" part of the relationship.

Re:ooh pick me pick me (2)

rakaur (984920) | about 2 years ago | (#38160006)

That'd be because of biology. It makes the most sense to bang as many women as possible as far as evolution is concerned. Men are thus driven to bang every (attractive to him) woman that he hasn't already banged.

Monogamy makes no sense for our species. It's a religious construct.

Re:ooh pick me pick me (2)

Kielistic (1273232) | about 2 years ago | (#38160708)

It's a social construct. And one that almost certainly has chemical/emotional and evolutionary backings. Ever noticed how people get jealous? Human infants are helpless and useless for years and require constant care. The spray the seed and run approach makes no sense for our species. Not if you want your offspring to survive.

Re:ooh pick me pick me (5, Interesting)

willy_me (212994) | about 2 years ago | (#38160872)

Hence the 4 year itch. Breakups frequently occur after 4 years - the biological time between insemination and the time a child/mother pair can survive without the assistance of a male. It's amazing how our instincts affect our daily lives without us even realizing it. We like to think our decisions are rational when in actuality, they are guided by biology.

Re:ooh pick me pick me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38160944)

When you do everyone in sight and you have 50 offspring, some are bound to survive. Just like exactly what happens in every other species.

Re:ooh pick me pick me (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#38161178)

What Keilistic says. It's a social construct. Most religions reinforce that social construct, but marriage seems to have preceded the major religions. How many tribes have ever been discovered that did NOT have nuclear families? Everything that I've ever read indicates that all the North American natives had nuclear families with a Mom, a Dad, some grandparents, and the kids. Can't blame that on Jehovah, or Allah, or whichever name you choose to use.

Your taste in actresses is all messed up (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38159102)

You seem to have some weird obsession with women who look like bitches.

Noticeably absent from your list:

Alyson Hannigan
Laura Bertram
Amanda Tapping
Megan Fox
Jewel Staite
Cate Blanchett
Julie Benz

Re:ooh pick me pick me (2)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#38159332)

You watch TV shows too much if you want that kind of woman for a wife.

Re:ooh pick me pick me (2)

rakaur (984920) | about 2 years ago | (#38159928)

Kristen Stewart is better looking than your wife? Geeze, dude. I'm sorry.

Re:ooh pick me pick me (1)

simoncpu was here (1601629) | about 2 years ago | (#38160080)

I know your joking, but the technologies required to implement this already exist.

Re:ooh pick me pick me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38160550)

The technology to auto-correct "your" and "you're" also exists, yet, you are still unable to spell correctly.

Re:ooh pick me pick me (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#38160718)

I know your joking, but the technologies required to implement this already exist.

Of course... maybe not contact lenses, but lenses nonetheless (aka goggles). These were invented by thirsty monks thousands of years ago.

Re:ooh pick me pick me (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#38160692)

(gonna need a new portable computer to go with anyway)

dude... are you stuck in 2003? Think about how small computers are now... think about Moore's Law... can the notion "portable computer" get any more redundant? They've been hiding them in greeting cards for some time. I guess one needs to be specific, though... had you just said "new computer" maybe someone would have thought you meant a data center... and would have criticized you for wanting to drag that around with you.

This makes no sense (0, Redundant)

Smallpond (221300) | about 2 years ago | (#38157676)

You can't focus on anything that close to the lens.

Re:This makes no sense (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38157690)

Read the article - contact lens is a fresnel lens [wikipedia.org]

Re:This makes no sense (1)

dbamps (802420) | about 2 years ago | (#38157842)

Could have been reading Watership Down while listening to Bright Eyes by Art Garfunkel.

Re:This makes no sense (2)

TheLink (130905) | about 2 years ago | (#38158984)

Does that mean you would have to take off the contact lens in order to see other stuff clearly (e.g. stuff not on the display)?

Otherwise you'd then have to wait for tech that can either focus for both or switch between display and "real world" (maybe even rapidly).

Re:This makes no sense (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38157742)

From TFA comment:

To focus the light on the rabbit's retina, the contact lens itself was fabricated as a Fresnel lens - in which a series of concentric annular sections is used to generate the ultrashort focal length needed.

Re:This makes no sense (5, Insightful)

AikonMGB (1013995) | about 2 years ago | (#38157870)

You should get a research position with the lab, you obviously have a far deeper understanding of the subject.

Re:This makes no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38158100)

Maybe you can't. People with severe astigmatism or any other deformation of the eye can have vastly different focal points. I, for one, cannot focus clearly other than within a less than half-inch range at about an inch from my eye. I can also see my nose more clearly than anything else I have ever seen, with or without my glasses, and I was amazed when I found out that most people I know cannot bring focus onto their nose without extreme difficulty.

Re:This makes no sense (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#38158630)

There's no magic in light, any object at any distance is just a pattern of light when it hits your eye. If we place a contact lens over your eye and emit that same pattern, you'll see the same. You're not focusing on the lens itself, the lens is sending light that will look focused when it hits your retina. It's an optical illusion, sort of like the opposite of a 3D screen - we can make things appear at any depth we want.

Electronic Contact Lens Displays PIXEL on the eye (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38157694)

Pixel, singular. Not Pixels. Just one pixel so far.

Re:Electronic Contact Lens Displays PIXEL on the e (1)

niftydude (1745144) | about 2 years ago | (#38157916)

I guess I'm going to have to relearn Morse code.

Re:Electronic Contact Lens Displays PIXEL on the e (2)

martijnd (148684) | about 2 years ago | (#38158146)

You only need very few pixels to make a working digital clock.

So first application: digital eye watch.

Re:Electronic Contact Lens Displays PIXEL on the e (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 2 years ago | (#38158184)

But what if they added a motion sensor so that they can switch the pixel on and off while the user is moving his eye, depending on the direction he's looking at? Would they be able to create a shape like that? (A bit like the clock with a single row of LED's swinging back and forth to display time). Of course you'd have to keep moving your eye continuously to see the shape...

No ill effects until (5, Funny)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#38157712)

The bunnies suffered no ill effects until one researcher rickrolled them (purely in the name of science) and well we can't post the footage of what happened then but use your imagination and then add more blood.

No ill effects, but can they see them? (2)

impaledsunset (1337701) | about 2 years ago | (#38157738)

I mean, the eye can't focus that closely, so the lens would have to project an image that appears to be coming from further away, or be aimed in such way that the current focus of the eye doesn't matter, and it always enters the retina at the right spots.

Re:No ill effects, but can they see them? (3, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 2 years ago | (#38158072)

Correct. Fortunately, this doesn't add greatly to the difficulty of the task. In any case, the first task is proving we won't put somebody's eye out with this thing. Getting a really nice looking picture comes later, since it pretty much requires putting it in a human eye (rabbits are lousy at describing what they're seeing), which requires us to know we won't be hurting said humans by doing so.

Re:No ill effects, but can they see them? (2)

kanto (1851816) | about 2 years ago | (#38158492)

Getting a really nice looking picture comes later, since it pretty much requires putting it in a human eye (rabbits are lousy at describing what they're seeing), which requires us to know we won't be hurting said humans by doing so.

Queue augmented reality carrots.

Re:No ill effects until (2)

ByteSlicer (735276) | about 2 years ago | (#38158244)

More likely, until they were dissected to look for any ill effects...

Footage (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 2 years ago | (#38159048)

This is what they don't want you to See!

They are trying to CENSOR the side effects!

Information wants to be free!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg [youtube.com]

You can't keep us silent

BPCRMRAV Forever!!!

~Brotherhood for the Prevention of Cruelty to Rabbits by Means of Rick Astley Videos

Re:No ill effects until (1)

zawarski (1381571) | about 2 years ago | (#38159734)

That rabbits a killer! Look at the bones, man!

Classroom Fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38157752)

Seems to pave the way towards a whole new way to goof off in the classroom: play the latest 3d shooter with eyes on the teacher and appearing to be paying complete attention.

Same on the keyboard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38157758)

Can the Bioengineers have placed the keyboard [hkcolordigital.com] into the hands of rabbits as a first step on the way to proving they are safe for humans?

Excellent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38157816)

Another place to put ads!

Fat party girls rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38157854)

This breakthrough should, among other practical uses, replace paper bags.

Re:Fat party girls rejoice! (4, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 years ago | (#38158058)

Unfortunately it cannot hide people being douchebags.

RF next to the eyeball? Bad idea!! (4, Interesting)

stevew (4845) | about 2 years ago | (#38157856)

It may very well be practical to put electronics next to the eyeball to do a display or whatever, but you do NOT want to put any kind of RF source/sink there. There would only be two ways to power such a unit - solar and RF energy beamed in ala RFID. The pictures I've seen suggest the latter. Having a resonant antenna at such frequencies would scare the heck out of me. Local heating or perhaps re-radiation at microwave frequencies next to something that is essentially H2O? You do KNOW that is why microwave ovens work.

I think I'll stick with LCD monitors.

Re:RF next to the eyeball? Bad idea!! (1)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about 2 years ago | (#38158080)

Hopefully further studies will show us if what you fear is true or not (hopefully not, as I want one of those :] ).

Re:RF next to the eyeball? Bad idea!! (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 2 years ago | (#38158340)

You do KNOW that is why microwave ovens work.

Actually, no I don't, because that's not how microwave ovens work. The resonance situation you are referring to only occurs in water vapor, not liquid, and then only at much higher frequencies. Microwaves operate by causing polar molecules, such as water, to repeatedly flip back and forth in an oscillating magnetic field. These spinning molecules impact each other, resulting in heat.

The bigger issue is that your eyes constitute a large volume of polar liquids with relatively little contact surface to conduct heat away, and no circulation. Where other parts of your body may be similarly affected by RF, your eyes have very little ability to cool themselves, meaning the sustained radiative energy they can accept is much lower.

Re:RF next to the eyeball? Bad idea!! (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#38159562)

To be fair, you want to restrict the amount of power on anything that shines that near to your eyes.

And, RF being present or not you'll need to take heat dissipation into account.

Re:RF next to the eyeball? Bad idea!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38158780)

Bullshit! Microwave ovens additionally require ROTATION. Otherwise it wouldn't heat even remotely as much, as it's essentially just stronger cell phone radiation. That's why it only works on water: The water molecules are the only ones that can freely rotate and have a polarization.

Also, those things won't need to reach as far as a cell phone, let alone have the power of a microwave. 2 meters reach would be enough.

Also: Do you know what also heats your eye balls with ultra-strong partially ionizing radiation? THE FREAKING SUN!
(For comparison: Sunlight photons are nearly exactly 1000 times stronger than cell phone photons.)

If you want to know how much effect it has on your eyes, calculate it like this:
1. How much energy does the device need?
2. How strong does the signal have to be, to deliver that amount of energy at that frequency over 2 meters?
3. Compare the wavelength and amplitude to sunlight and microwaves. Also note that the field doesn't rotate.

Wanna bet it's way below sunlight and even microwaves?

Terminator-style wouldn't be useful (5, Insightful)

RadioElectric (1060098) | about 2 years ago | (#38157858)

You can't read text in your peripheral vision. The best they could hope for would be sticking rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) text in the fovea (i.e. flashing up a rapid sequence of words right in the centre of the visual field). This could work, but it's hard to see why anybody would want it. You wouldn't be able to multi-task, because the text would be in the way. You wouldn't be able to access the text in a non-serial fashion either, which removes any advantage over having it presented in audio form.

Re:Terminator-style wouldn't be useful (3, Insightful)

frostfreek (647009) | about 2 years ago | (#38158158)

Well, what if there was a computer attached to it with sensors that could read your eyeball's orientation, and adjust the display so that the floating text appeared to be a stationary object.
Then, reading from a page would look about the same as looking at a semi-transparent monitor.

Is it possible to track an eye that fast?

I can see it now, "Vision Display 1.1, now with MotionPlus(tm)"

Re:Terminator-style wouldn't be useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38158336)

The movement tracking is already in version 1.0.
The lens is attached to the eyeball and moves with it.

Re:Terminator-style wouldn't be useful (1)

RadioElectric (1060098) | about 2 years ago | (#38159712)

He's talking about tracking the movement to simulate it not being attached to the eyeball.

Not yet (1)

DragonHawk (21256) | about 2 years ago | (#38158352)

Is it possible to track an eye that fast?

Probably not currently. But then, last year, we couldn't put pixels on your eye lens. I don't know of any absolute reason why applied technology couldn't solve this problem (i.e., no law of nature prevents it). So I would guess we'd get exactly that.

Combined with a good model of your environment, and the VR system can put the text on any surface. Now all T-shirts can have amusing slogans on them!

Re:Terminator-style wouldn't be useful (2)

RadioElectric (1060098) | about 2 years ago | (#38159674)

Once you've done that it's functionally no different to installing the tech into a wearable headset. Putting it into a pair of glasses would actually be a lot simpler because you never have to factor out the eye movements, comfort and safety are less problematic, and you have more space to work with. It's possible that the lenses for focusing the image at a close distance might not work when they're not fixed to the eye's position though.

Actually, the problem with the method you lay out is that I'm pretty sure you would have to have the lenses for focusing the display over the centre of your vision (though I don't know much about ocular optics, I study the brain side of things). In that case you would need the technology to be tiny if it wasn't going to obscure the most informative area of your visual field when you weren't actively using it.

Re:Terminator-style wouldn't be useful (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 2 years ago | (#38159066)

Replying to comment as requested.

I'm afraid I won't be able to attend.

Regards
Riv

Re:Terminator-style wouldn't be useful (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38159260)

You'd obviously have tot show the virtual image in an apparent fixed location in real space, or at least fixed relative to yourself. This would involve updating the display during eye saccades and head movements so that the virtual image can be perceived just like a real object.

I'm guessing that if you don't do this, you wouldn't see the image at all for the same reason that you see negative afterimages after staring at the same thing for a while: the photoreceptors in your retina get depleted.

Re:Terminator-style wouldn't be useful (2)

RadioElectric (1060098) | about 2 years ago | (#38159704)

You're right, you'd get fading for any perfectly fixed image. You could always modulate it to avoid that though.

The problem I find with doing as you say (simulating that the text display is at a position in space) is that next you might want some way to turn it on and off. Maybe a hand gesture? And then a way to manipulate the text? More hand gestures? Speech recognition? If it has to do significant processing you're going to need some external hardware. At what point are you basically simulating picking up a smartphone (for no benefit)?

Re:Terminator-style wouldn't be useful (2)

RadioElectric (1060098) | about 2 years ago | (#38159800)

I've just had a chat with someone else working in my lab who pointed out that beyond my problems with this, the projected image itself would appear to jump erratically around. This would be for the exact same reason that we usually don't notice our eye movements (i.e. stabilisation in the brain factoring them out).

Coming soon. Remove contact lenses before secuity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38157864)

We already have to remove shoes.
We already are subject to full body scans.
Soon we will have to remove our contacts just we receive messages from the devil whilst we are flying.

Then there is the chance that the CIA will quietly kill this tech.Farr too James Bond for us normal plebs to be alloed anywhere near it.

coming soon AdBlocker for the eyes (2)

TampaBay (1018216) | about 2 years ago | (#38157920)

Am I the only one who fears this simply for the possibility of advertisers using it to force us to view even more ads? FF a DVR past commercials? Ads. Popup block on . Ads. Walking down the street, in front of my business? Ads.

WYSIWYG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38158032)

Specially if you mix this with porn, POV movies would be perfect.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38158034)

I for one welcome our new lagomorphic cyborg overlords.

hijack strangers' eyes (5, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#38158064)

the next big thing: hijack other people's vision by cracking whatever needs to be cracked (and it seems there is nothing to crack there, except the frequency at this point), send advertising directly into people's eyes.

You can't even CLOSE your eyes at that point, you close your eyes and the images still keep on coming! (which, by the way, could be a new way to do something about insomnia for some people, just project the jumping sheep right into the eyes for a while).

Re:hijack strangers' eyes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38158518)

Are you suddenly incapable of removing a contact lens from your eye these days?

Re:hijack strangers' eyes (2)

grim4593 (947789) | about 2 years ago | (#38158584)

For an example of this watch Ghost in the Shell.

Re:hijack strangers' eyes (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#38159416)

Also, Transmet [imgur.com] .

Re:hijack strangers' eyes (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 years ago | (#38159462)

Well, I know that was meant as a joke, but...there is no backlight so the light has to come from somewhere. And if the eyelid is closed then there is no light-source.

Re:hijack strangers' eyes (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#38159816)

unless it's an OLED in there, in which case: Send Spam Directly to EYES with our new penis improving software.

Think of the children! (1)

davegravy (1019182) | about 2 years ago | (#38158110)

This will pave the way to a whole new way to goof off in class: Kids will have their eyes and "full attention" on the teacher, all the while playing 3d-shooters or watching porn!

Re:Think of the children! (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 2 years ago | (#38159108)

Until of course the teachers get access to your feed and can tell if you are paying attention or not.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38158136)

Direct brain interfaces are more interesting and will put augmented reality tech on the back shelf anyhow.

No damge? really? (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about 2 years ago | (#38158326)

>> powered remotely using ... gigahertz-range radio-frequency energy from a transmitter placed ten centimetres from the rabbit's eye

>> tests showed no damage or abrasions to the rabbit's eyes after the lenses were removed. ... so wait... sending high energy microwaves into an eye suddenly doesn't cook it any more?

put the display on glasses (1)

georgesdev (1987622) | about 2 years ago | (#38158380)

I wear glasses already, so I'm already used to it.
And frankly, I don't want anyone messing with my eyes.
Plus when it's broken you would not need a surgeon
And putting it on the glasses also solves the peripheral vision problem! If they can make the display small enough to fit in the eye, it's not really harder to make a non intrusive display on glasses.

Re:put the display on glasses (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38158544)

and... it's here !! although still heavily over expensive!!! (hope you guys over at vuzix take note, all yer products would sell like crazy if they were under the 100$ limit):
http://www.vuzix.com/consumer/products_wrap920ar.html
http://www.vuzix.com/consumer/products_taceye_lt.html

specially like the tac eye...

Robocop/Terminator Vision (3, Insightful)

Dusthead Jr. (937949) | about 2 years ago | (#38158448)

Yes I know it's all fiction and all that, but I always seem to imagine the whole "Robocop/Terminator" vision thing as taking place inside their brain rather than on the surface of their eyes. Something like video gen-lock that takes the video feed and overlays text on top, bypassing the whole focusing issue. I remember trying to visualize what how that would work in a pair of glasses, so I put my cellphone right up to my eye while trying to keep the screen in focus. I could, sort of painfully. Then I also realized that I would need to focus on the everything else. I would have to focus on something very close and far away, at the same time. I would like to know how they accomplished this.

Animals First! (1)

jovius (974690) | about 2 years ago | (#38158450)

I find it interesting that animals are actually the forerunners in practical use of almost any technology. I bet they still can't beat the poor future tripper whose lenses have dried up and stuck to the eyeballs. If only people would apply as much care and reason to applying the tech as the scientists when handling the poor beings.

Bright eyes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38158684)

Burning like fire.

Like those seen in Terminator? Ummm...no (2)

Digital Vomit (891734) | about 2 years ago | (#38159360)

The first version may only have one pixel, but higher resolution lens displays - like those seen in Terminator

No character -- that I am aware of -- had electronic contact lenses in the movie Terminator. I don't recall John Connor or Kyle Reese wearing such lenses. The titular character had a graphical display overlay on the visual input from it's "eyes", but it did not wear contact lenses [tumblr.com] .

silly rabbit.... (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about 2 years ago | (#38159622)

px are for kids!

Ouch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38159716)

Contact lenses are not at all comfortable. If I ran a company that makes eye drops, I'd be pouring all the money I could into that technology's development.

It does bode well with research like that, for glasses displays which don't suck. After all the lens material could just as well be embedded in glass/plastic and framed.

take cheating to a new level (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#38159834)

With our super contacts just look at your paper and copy the results.

Endless Possibilities (1)

Droog57 (2516452) | about 2 years ago | (#38159960)

Once everyone gets RFID chipped, you could get name info as you see them, and tag the name with comments, so next time you see that a-hole in a crowd, there would be a bubble over her head displaying "A-HOLE" Useful, too bad you can't do it with car drivers already.. The future is bright.

Need new rendering paradigm(s) needed (2)

cowtamer (311087) | about 2 years ago | (#38160112)

I hope someone out there realizes that contact lens display will require an entirely new rendering paradigm for virtual reality (or 3D graphics in general -- but if you have a contact lens display with essentially 360 field of view, why NOT do Virtual Reality?).

The eye only sees about 2-3 degrees at once, and scans the scene so that your brain can create a 3D reconstruction. Instead of just pushing a high number of pixels at a high FPS, it will make a LOT more sense to track the eye and render what the viewer is looking at in very high resolution, and the rest of the scene in lower resolution. This needs to be done with both eyes while taking into account vergence and accommodation (which object each eye is pointing at, and where the eye is focusing).

If 3D graphics researchers are smart, I see a LOT of good research coming up in rendering paradigms made possible by this type of display which give an effective 100+ megapixel display while using only several megapixels of rendering capability...

If they are NOT smart, we'll see some heads-up display type of applications with annoying text which moves with your eye movement ...

There is some preliminary work being done which may aid this in Foveated Rendering [psu.edu] .

Rose Colored Glasses, check. (1)

retroworks (652802) | about 2 years ago | (#38160188)

Now for the digital hearing aid, which will transform anything said to me into a compliment.

Re:Rose Colored Glasses, check. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38160866)

I thought you were going to say the digital hearing aid turned everything you heard into Cylon speech.

about these babies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38160338)

I've actually been to one of the lectures of the team that makes this. Guess who contracted them? The DoD.

Nevertheless, the samples I've seen are pretty good. Too bad they can't go beyond 16x16 right now, and that's around $10k a piece.

This actually is the future of monitors (3, Interesting)

BlueCoder (223005) | about 2 years ago | (#38160462)

But there are technical hurdles.

One is the power requirements. How bright do the LED's need to be being so close to the eye. Next there would need to be very fast electronic processing in the contact lenses, and it would have to be very fast. It would need to be able to process a radio signal and display the results in real time and there would need to be enough radio spectrum and data throughput for at least three people or four people within a cubic meter. So obviously the first displays will be monochromatic and a very simple self generated text/vector displays rather than video. That would be sufficient for a HUD setup. The lenses will probably be expensive so more than likely they would be implanted within the eye like artificial corneas and will likely take up the entire surface of the eye and require removal of the eyeball from the socket for implantation.

They will need a refresh rate at least ten times faster than the eye and be able to detect orientation and focus and be able to compensate. Only what is in the center of vision would need to be in focus.

Then there is the question of heat generation. Even a small amount of heat my degrade the health of an eye. The more processing the contact lens does the more heat it generates. While I do think that someday electronics may be low power enough to run on the equivalent power of static electricity shock for an hour we are nowhere near there yet and probably won't be for a hundred years.

I see implants that tap into the optic nerves as far more likely and realistic. They could run on glucose and oxygen in the blood and could generate a little heat while being tolerant of our bodies latent heat. If the device doesn't generate a signal the the optic nerve would operate normally but with an active signal and under normal circumstances it would be switched to an artificial processed signal. Imagine televisions being no more than a green screen but having an overlay of a video signal generated electronically inside your head. I can also imagine artificially perfect eyes mechanically similar to our natural ones but far superior being offered as replacements once the optic nerve can be tapped. The bionic eye could be feasible to where you could recognize someone a football field away and or focus on things very close up. A greater sensitivity to light to see in the dark as well as frequency shifting effects so you can see infrared and ultraviolet light.

Re:This actually is the future of monitors (2)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 years ago | (#38161164)

The real killer here may be that the eye differs greatly from what we see. Eyes focussing on a fixed object have stochastic type movement (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0042698969901126) yet what we see is a stable 3D image.

Any display that moves similarly is likely to be highly distracting.

Sociopaths can't feel the pain of others. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38160960)

"The bunnies suffered no ill effects, the researchers say"

Ha ha ha... how amusing...

Remember, they're "bunnies" now, so that nobody dares to think about them as living, feeling beings.

So if they "suffered no ill effects", where is the video of what these sociopaths did to them? Do you imagine that having an operation on your eye, being performed by a sociopath who views you as an inanimate toy, to be played with and used in any way he thinks fit, is not agony?

What if it was YOUR eye? Would that be okay? What if it was YOUR life? Would that be okay?

Perhaps somebody can tell me why you think a human is worth more than an animal.

Last time I looked, animals weren't killing millions of human beings every year. And animals weren't killing tens of BILLIONS of animals every year either, because there are too few carnivores to do such a thing. And animals aren't raping human beings, attacking you in the street, breaking into your house and ruining your life, or bombing innocent people in countries all over the world.

Yet these same human beings are put forward as the epitomy of all that's good, and animals are just 'not human' and therefore worthless.

You'll notice that none of the jerks on Slashdot are capable of feeling the suffering of others, which means they haven't progressed beyond the emotional abilities of a six month old baby...

Contact lens moves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38160968)

How will they address the contact lens movment? Usually the lenses move with each blink.

What about the corneas oxygenation? It will go lower with each thing (more pixels, power lines, etc.) they put inside the lens.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?