51–60 of 137 posts
Here's an idea for a AR device: It will be a wearable glass like Google Glass - it holds majority of the processors, sensors, battery and networking radio. This wearable can be built to very high quality today. Now for overlaying AR content - Use a low power laser (mounted on the frame) to project on the retina directly. This is the harder unsolved tech. Low power laser would project a monochrome image as in the cont…
My dream application: Google maps hud for when I go motorcycling. Right now the options are 1) Mount an arm to the handlebar and risk my phone detaching or breaking in a crash 2) phone is in my pocket so I can hear instructions, but not see the screen. having my phone in my jacket pocket, but transmitting to my contact lens would be pretty great.
> a green monochrome MicroLED display measuring less than 0.5 mm (0.02 in) in diameter, with a resolution of 14,000 pixels per inch So, that's 280px at the widest part of the display, and a total of ~62k pixels, right? There's a decent amount you can do with that, but I think even the demo picture in the PR shot's probably ambitious for the amount of data this can display.
The fact they didn't give an actual pixel count makes me think they mean 14,000 per square inch, which with these measurements means four pixels.
It would seem difficult to view images or read a teleprompter via 4 pixels. More likely they mean exactly what they wrote - 0.02 inches at 14,000 pixels per inch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is right overall. Making an AR headset requires serious compute and power and there’s no way that will fit in a contact lens anytime soon. This demo is a HUD, which is much easier and already solved by glasses. So I think this tech is way early for practical use-cases. On the other hand, AR glasses have some challenges of their own. Allowing the user to see through the lens and focus their eyes on the wo…
assuming a wireless way of transmitting to the contact lens i'm not sure the value of putting all the compute in the lens vs having it external like say your mobile phone. it's like bluetooth headphones, but for your monitor instead...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LASIK is a one and done operation performed under the careful supervision of a doctor, and it has been tried and tested hundreds of thousands of times. The probability of failure for this device is nonzero and and increases the longer you wear it. The failure modes are potentially disastrous, and there's likely no medical personnel nearby to intervene.
Anecdotal but lasik seriously messed with my dads eyesight for over a year. And he drove an OTR truck (at night quite a bit). Had he been aware how bad it was and that it only lasted 10 years or so he said he would have stuck to glasses.
Now, in 2022, I still have no need of glasses, although I'd say my vision has degraded somewhat - still good enough to pass the driver exam uncorrected, however.
Night vision is objectively worse after lasik. Poorer light sensitivity, and for the first year, I had halos and starbursts around night light sources, especially when my eyes were tired/dry. This improved over time, however.
I'd do it all over again if I had to. I couldn't wear contacts anymore, they hurt my eyes, and I got used to navigating like a blind person when I didn't have my glasses, so lasik is a miraculous improvement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, let's diligence this, so our skepticism isn't unfounded: >Invisible to people around you. Except for the not-built body-wearable computer that will eventually run the things [0] > literally captures the entirety of your retina This prototype covers >no motion sickness, higher fidelity I think you're comparing this to headsets, but I can tell you from [1] that this is not 'high-fidelity' by any means (for one, it'…
> IT will be nearly impossible to see the display outdoors. There’s probably something to be said for having 100 nits right on your eyeball.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a functioning prototype. Who are you and why does your opinion matter? (I’m just sick of skepticism automatically being associated with intelligence).
Whatever tech could make these AR contacts comfortable to wear all day would be worth a fortune for plain old prescription contacts. I’m willing, he’ll I’d be happy and excited, to be proven wrong here, but it seems to me that the balance of probability tips in favour of them having something half-baked and non-viable, and my eyes are definitely too precious to risk them on a bad v1 product
Yes, it would be good if contacts were more comfortable, but maybe it's a cost problem rather than a lack of capability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People said the same thing about LASIK.
LASIK is a one and done operation performed under the careful supervision of a doctor, and it has been tried and tested hundreds of thousands of times. The probability of failure for this device is nonzero and and increases the longer you wear it. The failure modes are potentially disastrous, and there's likely no medical personnel nearby to intervene.
For sure you all are going to have a conversation about reading glasses when you turn 40.