CEO test-drives Mojo Vision's smart augmented reality contact lens • Hacker News Board

Re: CEO test-drives Mojo Vision's smart augmented reality contact lens

#121

Post by 2143 » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 5:04 PM UTC

lttlrck wrote: post #62

hinkley wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it really is one and done. As in, they won't do it a second time, and your eyes are likely to change again in 10-20 years. For sure you all are going to have a conversation about reading glasses when you turn 40.

my eye doctor told me not to bother because chances are as I get older my eyes will natural start to go long sighted, and that'll cancel out my shortsightedness. If I had LASIK I would definitely end up needing reading glasses...

Can confirm. Anecdotal.

Both my parents' eyesight have actually improved significantly recently. They don't really need glasses anymore.

But I can also confirm that my sister who had severe long-sightedness got her eyesight corrected with lasik. That was about 15 years ago, and there are no problems so far.

Re: CEO test-drives Mojo Vision's smart augmented reality contact lens

#122

Post by lallysingh » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 6:47 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #115

justinclift wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples from a quick search: * https://arvrtips.com/eyeride-hud/ * https://shop.crosshelmet.com/ * https://www.dvision-hud.com/en * https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/new-tech/shoei-opticson-...

The shoei one is interesting to me, but afaik not yet available. I'm not going to trust my brain at 155MPH to a "move fast and break things" kind of startup.

At 155MPH, I think your eyes should stick to avoiding obstacles.

Re: CEO test-drives Mojo Vision's smart augmented reality contact lens

#123

Post by lallysingh » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 6:49 PM UTC

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #108

lallysingh wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can stick with glasses then. Liking contacts is a very reasonable prerequisite. I've had no trouble with my contacts for the last 20 years.

I shouldn’t have been snarky. You are free to like contacts. But there are billions of people who wear glasses. We wear them for pretty much everything. We don’t care that we have glasses. But contacts make the technology “invisible” for “seamless uptake”? Miniaturising things to contacts just sounds like they made everything at least an order of magnitude harder to achieve. Meanwhile they could have generated revenu…

There are other glasses-based systems in development and for sale. Vusix, Google Glass, Meta's stuff, etc.

Re: CEO test-drives Mojo Vision's smart augmented reality contact lens

#124

Post by Svoka » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #47

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.

There are quite a bit of motorcycle helmets with AR HUDs on them, in a wide price range.

Re: CEO test-drives Mojo Vision's smart augmented reality contact lens

#125

Post by ggm » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 7:07 PM UTC

robinduckett wrote: post #81

ggm wrote: post #40

I'd like to see an attempt by the subject to work with an artist to draw what they experienced. I believe what we're seeing is external "takes" on what people subjectively think it looked like, not a subject-centric view. Where the virtual field projects in 3-space. How it moves with head and eye movements, and focal shifts. What apparent pixel resolution it had, not the imputed DPI, the experiental effect of the act…

Sounded like it was a static monochrome image and the 3D space stuff will come later. Do they even have an accelerometer or gyro in the device or does it pair with a phone or other device to get those readings? Are they even integrated into the software at this time. I suspect not.

if you place an image inside or on the eye surface, the brain will interpret it as being a some distance in the real visual field. where is that distance?

Re: CEO test-drives Mojo Vision's smart augmented reality contact lens

#126

Post by RC_ITR » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 7:11 PM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #88

RC_ITR wrote: post #30

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'…

OLEDs are hitting 1000 nits, and from your own link: > MicroLEDs use 10% of the power of current LCD displays, and they have five to 10 times higher brightness than OLEDs

I don't disagree that those are the words, but the fact that the sample images are in a dim room is a huge red flag for me in terms of believing them.

Also don't forget that a lot of the crazy increases in brightness recently is just us learning you can run a ton of wattage through LEDs if you figure out heat dissipation. The 1 hour (non-rechargeable) battery life on these things likely means they are running very little power through the display (plus who wants anything even slightly warm on their eye?)

Re: CEO test-drives Mojo Vision's smart augmented reality contact lens

#127

Post by detritus » Fri, Jul 01, 2022, 10:59 PM UTC

tmp_anon_22 wrote: post #116

ricardobeat wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article, 3rd and 4th paragraphs: > It's got an ARM Core M0 processor, a 5-GHz radio capable of communicating at ultra-low latency, and enough accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers to track your eye movements with extreme precision, allowing the image to stay stable even as you move your eyes around. > you won't need hand controls, or a smartphone, or even Meta's crazy nerve-hijacking control inputs to…

Do I want a 5ghz radio broadcasting from my eyeball?

5Ghz apiece from each eyeball and i've got a nicely nanowave-warmed septum, thanks.

Re: CEO test-drives Mojo Vision's smart augmented reality contact lens

#128

Post by imron » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 12:47 AM UTC

ezekiel11 wrote: post #119

imron wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AR contact lenses are still a good 20+ years away And it’s things like this that will let us get there in that timeframe.

you can make the same argument for google glasses

You can.

Google glasses moved the needle a bit but were found lacking.

This will build on the lessons of Google glasses and probably also be lacking, and people will keep trying and building on the lessons learnt and in 20 years we may get ubiquitous AR context lenses.

Re: CEO test-drives Mojo Vision's smart augmented reality contact lens

#129

Post by Aeolun » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 4:30 AM UTC

IanCal wrote: post #102

0n34n7 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the one across the room is a laser, it does matter.

Nits aren't a measure of total light though. A 100 nits huge screen at a distance that covers 20% of my field of vision would be the same as a 100 nits tiny screen close to my eye that covers 20% of my field of vision. Or to put it another way, things don't look dimmer just because they're further away. It's less total light because it covers less of my field of vision .

Fair point, I imagined nits was something like Lumen.

But I think it certainly matters, since nits indicate the amount of light (candles per square meter) hitting a board 1m from the source, if the board/eye is only 10mm away, the intensity in that spot is much higher.

That said, the area changes much more than the distance I think, so overal brightness is probably still not equivalent to 100 nits (at 1m).

Re: CEO test-drives Mojo Vision's smart augmented reality contact lens

#130

Post by Closi » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 8:30 AM UTC

imron wrote: post #24

ezekiel11 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same I think its really skeptical that they have the economies of scale to produce ephemeral contact lenses that gets thrown out after a month. Even an AR glass that looks natural and works well with changing focus is tough to pull off, it's puzzling why they would skip that and go into a almost guaranteed failure. AR contact lenses are still a good 20+ years away and even then it will be hard pressed for adoption be…

> AR contact lenses are still a good 20+ years away And it’s things like this that will let us get there in that timeframe.

That's not usually how technology development works - usually it's tiny steps in adjacent problems/products which suddenly coalesce into a new product, rather than working for 20 years solidly towards a single product.

Take VR as an example - A company that worked on VR since the 80's wouldn't have been unsuccessful, but the reason that the Quest 2 exists today is because of the smartphone, and the smartphone was built on the basis of large flash memory, mobile phones and laptops.

Or AirPods, which built on the foundation of over-ear bluetooth headphones and wired earbuds. Bluetooth over-ear headphones obviously built on the foundation of wired over-ear headphones.

NB: All of the technologies these built on the shoulders on were stable technologies which were generally received well in the market allowing continued investment in R&D. The closest thing this builds on is Google Glass or Magic Leap, both of which have been a commercial failure and are both a long way off a polished consumer product - and neither of those solve a lot of the technology issues here.