Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Electronic contact lens displays pixels on the eyes

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: Electronic contact lens displays pixels on the eyes

#31

Post by tallanvor »

gbog wrote: post #29
tallanvor wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily it was only a single retina that was damaged, and it was due to a parasite when I was under a year old, so I've never actually known what it was like to have two good eyes. You can get by with only one eye, but you don't have any real depth perception and you don't get any benefits from 3D movies (although you still get all the downsides). Plus, although I would love to try laser surgery to improve my vision…

> any benefits from 3D movies Ha, there are some benefits? For me, it is the latest snake powder intended to boost sells in movie and high-end electronic devices industry. I tried just once but, as far as I can tell, it has no benefit, except being able to say I have seen a part of a 3D movie. I hear someone saying "improved immersion". Well, immersion is not a function of some "more realistic" rendering. I never pla…

Ok, I'm making some assumptions about 3D movies, admittedly. --I just figured that the only reason anyone liked Avatar was because the 3D effects made up for the horrible plot. At least, that's the only reason I can think of for why anyone would like it.

Re: Electronic contact lens displays pixels on the eyes

#32

Post by tallanvor »

generalk wrote: post #28
tallanvor wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily it was only a single retina that was damaged, and it was due to a parasite when I was under a year old, so I've never actually known what it was like to have two good eyes. You can get by with only one eye, but you don't have any real depth perception and you don't get any benefits from 3D movies (although you still get all the downsides). Plus, although I would love to try laser surgery to improve my vision…

I'm in the same boat; different circumstances but I've only got one functioning eye and the other one isn't fantastic. (-14 contact lens.) I often wonder if there isn't more I could be doing -- hanging out near research hospitals that have good retina teams, following research, anything -- to keep abreast of new developments or maybe even get in on some trials for new procedures.

It's actually sort of interesting how much the field of eye care has improved in my lifetime:

I was a year and half when I had surgery to shorten one of the muscles for my bad eye - they thought it was just a lazy eye.

When I was 5 I used to have to wear a patch over my good eye for an hour a day because the doctors still thought my other eye was just lazy and that I could be "trained" to use it properly.

At 6 we traveled 4 hours to Seattle to see an eye specialist at a hospital. It was a full day affair and I had to spend most of the day in a dimly lit playroom because my eyes were kept dilated so they could take multiple pictures. This is when they actually figured out that there was more going on, and decided what parasite actually caused the damage (I still can't remember the name of it).

15 years ago I went to an eye doctor who took another picture of my eye. He wanted to show the image to others because he had never seen anything like it.

Even 5 years ago pictures of the eye usually meant dilating it and putting in a dye so they could get a clear image.

Today I can go get an eye exam and they don't even need to put dye in my eye to take a picture. --Other tests still need the dye, but at least I haven't had to have my eyes dilated for around 3 years. And, of course, the images are stored online so they can quickly load them up and compare them to make sure nothing has changed.

If this sort of progress continues, I figure there's a chance that they'll come up with something that can give me vision in both eyes before I'm too old for it to matter. :)

Re: Electronic contact lens displays pixels on the eyes

#34

Post by sixtofour »

billybob wrote: post #17
leviathan wrote: post #16

That sound you hear is the sound thousands of advertisers creaming their pants. Now you will have to look at that ad, even if you close your eyes.

Not if the software is open source. On the contrary, you could run Adblock and never see another billboard.

Why would you think this could ever be open source. It will be expensive to develop, and no corporation will spend the money to do so and then open source the software. It may (not likely) be jail breakable, but you still have to pay (probably) thousands to get it.

I was thinking one way for people to afford them would be to accept ads. I would hate that, and I think I'd just wear glasses or normal contacts.

In fact I'd be much more attracted to this sort of thing in glasses, because they'd likely be cheaper, and glasses can probably support more functions. And you wouldn't have a radio receiver concentrating radio energy directly on your eyes.

Re: Electronic contact lens displays pixels on the eyes

#36

Post by DilipJ »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #26
patrickod wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That but with nice metadata associated with them. Imagine Rapportive in real life. That would be incredibly useful.

I look forward to the day when my enemies leave an unattended Facebook session open, and I can update their status so they have a big "I'm carrying five grand in my wallet right now" sign floating above their heads as they walk around dark alleyways.

I know that was in jest (if not, you may be turning into a supervillian), but the actual implications of having facial recognition built into contacts is immense. It will be a Minority Report type world, where anonymity would be completely gone.

I guess it would mean no criminal outlaws or parole violators walking around, but for a common man to not be able to walk anywhere without everyone around him knowing everything there is to know about him....that's scary

Re: Electronic contact lens displays pixels on the eyes

#37

Post by jerf »

sixtofour wrote: post #34
billybob wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if the software is open source. On the contrary, you could run Adblock and never see another billboard.

Why would you think this could ever be open source. It will be expensive to develop, and no corporation will spend the money to do so and then open source the software. It may (not likely) be jail breakable, but you still have to pay (probably) thousands to get it. I was thinking one way for people to afford them would be to accept ads. I would hate that, and I think I'd just wear glasses or normal contacts. In fact…

Hardware isn't software. I run open source on my hardware, but my hardware isn't open source. If your logic held, open source wouldn't be possible.

Re: Electronic contact lens displays pixels on the eyes

#38

Post by dkersten »

tallanvor wrote: post #31
gbog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any benefits from 3D movies Ha, there are some benefits? For me, it is the latest snake powder intended to boost sells in movie and high-end electronic devices industry. I tried just once but, as far as I can tell, it has no benefit, except being able to say I have seen a part of a 3D movie. I hear someone saying "improved immersion". Well, immersion is not a function of some "more realistic" rendering. I never pla…

Ok, I'm making some assumptions about 3D movies, admittedly. --I just figured that the only reason anyone liked Avatar was because the 3D effects made up for the horrible plot. At least, that's the only reason I can think of for why anyone would like it.

One of my eyes is a good bit stronger than the other and I've never been able to see those 3D holograms and don't have true depth perception.

Interestingly enough, Avatar did work in 3D for me (though the effect did seem to depend on how close I was to the screen - closer worked better). Its the only 3D movie that has worked, but admittedly I have not went to many since I figured its a waste of time if I can't see the effects anyway. I tried a 3D TV last year and it didn't work for me at all. Avatar did though and while I don't know if the effects made the movie more immersive or anything, they were certainly interesting. It was really the simplest effects that had the most impact: sparks, rain drops, clouds - stuff like that.

Making 2D movies into 3D seems completely pointless to me.

Re: Electronic contact lens displays pixels on the eyes

#39

Post by Symmetry »

DilipJ wrote: post #36
mike-cardwell wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I look forward to the day when my enemies leave an unattended Facebook session open, and I can update their status so they have a big "I'm carrying five grand in my wallet right now" sign floating above their heads as they walk around dark alleyways.

I know that was in jest (if not, you may be turning into a supervillian), but the actual implications of having facial recognition built into contacts is immense. It will be a Minority Report type world, where anonymity would be completely gone. I guess it would mean no criminal outlaws or parole violators walking around, but for a common man to not be able to walk anywhere without everyone around him knowing everyth…

It is, but then again that's what most humans have lived their entire lives doing, living in small communities where everyone knew everyone else since childhood.

Re: Electronic contact lens displays pixels on the eyes

#40

Post by Symmetry »

billybob wrote: post #17
leviathan wrote: post #16

That sound you hear is the sound thousands of advertisers creaming their pants. Now you will have to look at that ad, even if you close your eyes.

Not if the software is open source. On the contrary, you could run Adblock and never see another billboard.

Steve Mann is way ahead of you. :) http://cyborganthropology.com/Diminished_Reality
Post reply on HN