31–40 of 49 posts
So, while I can use my phone just fine, you can't cause it's calibrated to correct my vision deficiency. I guess that it can be used on something extremely personal; like a phone, but I don't see it becoming main stream for most displays, like a shared tablet or a computer or something.
If I understand this correctly, this is a light-field display. The implications are bigger than vision correction - LF display can reconstruct actual 3d images, as opposed to the stereo images being marketed as "3d" today. Stereo displays give two different pictures to two different eyes, but the don't provide perspective shift (the picture doesn't change when you move your head left and right), and they don't provid…
Yup, I wonder if this technology could be used to improve head-mounted displays, to be able to focus on different parts of the virtual scene, not just being always focused on infinity (probably together with high-precision eye-tracking to figure out depth where you try to look at).
Douglas Lanman, the researcher behind this technology work at Nvidia was hired a few months ago by Oculus VR.
I've always thought it would be interesting to correct vision at the brain/neural level rather than the physical level. Can anyone comment on whether this would be possible?
This is indeed an interesting question. Why can't the brain develop a reverse blur function? We can do this with algorithms ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics ). There was a fad (I guess) once about correcting your vision with practice ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method ). I guess this is a limitation of the plasticity of our brains. People who have hearing or vision or other losses as young chil…
Adaptive optics requires more than just algorithms -- the algorithms' output are fed into a rapidly moving reflective surface to de-blur the incoming light [1] -- so this is a bad analogy. You might be thinking of some of the deconvolution algorithms [2] that the Hubble Space Telescope used before its "eyeglasses" were installed in 1993 to improve its flawed images.
[1] "Adaptive optics works by measuring the distortions in a wavefront and compensating for them with a device that corrects those errors such as a deformable mirror or a liquid crystal array." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics
[2] "The error was well characterized and stable, enabling astronomers to optimize the results obtained using sophisticated image processing techniques such as deconvolution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Flawed_...
I've always thought it would be interesting to correct vision at the brain/neural level rather than the physical level. Can anyone comment on whether this would be possible?
Can this be done at the software level? I.e. feature built in to OS that modifies displayed image in the same way this screen does.
In the researchers’ prototype, however, display pixels do have to be masked from the parts of the pupil for which they’re not intended. That requires that a transparency patterned with an array of pinholes be laid over the screen, blocking more than half the light it emits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is indeed an interesting question. Why can't the brain develop a reverse blur function? We can do this with algorithms ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics ). There was a fad (I guess) once about correcting your vision with practice ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method ). I guess this is a limitation of the plasticity of our brains. People who have hearing or vision or other losses as young chil…
> Why can't the brain develop a reverse blur function? We can do this with algorithms Adaptive optics requires more than just algorithms -- the algorithms' output are fed into a rapidly moving reflective surface to de-blur the incoming light [1] -- so this is a bad analogy. You might be thinking of some of the deconvolution algorithms [2] that the Hubble Space Telescope used before its "eyeglasses" were installed in…
"Deconvolution in humans
A huge fraction of our brain is devoted to vision. One of the neglected features of our visual system is that the raw image falling on the retina is severely blurred: while most people can see with a resolution of about 1 arcminute (one sixtieth of a degree) under any daylight conditions, bright or dim, the image on our retina is blurred through a point spread function of width as large as 5 arcminutes (Wald and Grison, 1947; Howarth and Bradley , 1986). It is amazing that we are able to resolve pixels that are twenty-five times smaller in area than the blob produced on our retina by any point source. Isaac Newton was aware of this conundrum. It's hard to make a lens that does not have chromatic aberration, and our cornea and lens, like a lens made of ordinary glass, refract blue light more strongly than red. Typically our eyes focus correctly for the middle of the visible spectrum (green), so if..."
I recommend the read for those interested. There's even an experiment you can do yourself to experience your own eyes limitations!
I've always thought it would be interesting to correct vision at the brain/neural level rather than the physical level. Can anyone comment on whether this would be possible?
Don't get this, what's the point in 1 device being corrected while the rest of the real world is blurry? One use case example was a guy in a car with GPS navigation. So he can then see the GPS nav but how does he drive if he can't see properly!?
Many people have vision problems where the eye can't easily focus on a variety of distances. So if you have glasses, they're set up to make focusing on one distance easy, but things closer or farther (if that distance is not "infinity") is more difficult. I have progressive bifocals to get some amount of varying correction with distance, but this is thrown off for computers since they take up more of your field of vision than a book. (I also find looking at my phone through the bottom of my glasses to be pretty awkward, even though I've had bifocals since elementary school.)
One solution is an extra pair of glasses for computer work, but this is annoying because you can't get up and go to the bathroom without changing glasses. If the computer monitor were set to add the extra correction between my normal prescription and the intermediate distance prescription, my life would be much better. (Same for my phone.)
Right now, I can pretty much focus without using anything more than my distance prescription, but as I get older, this will become more and more difficult. So I'm pretty excited about this; less eyestrain is always good.
Also, the ability to tweak the correction in software is great. Where I have my monitor isn't quite what the optometrist was expecting when I had my computer glasses made, so I have to change positions to use them. With control in software, I could just adjust some config file somewhere when I rearrange my desk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone's far-sighted, as many people above the age of forty are, they might be able to see the street perfectly well, but have trouble reading a GPS screen that's only fourty cm away from their face. And speaking as one of the people whose vision defect can't be corrected by glasses, but only by uncomfortable contact lenses, there'd be immense value to me in a computer I can use without lenses - especially since…
> they might be able to see the street perfectly well, but have trouble reading a GPS screen that's only fourty cm away from their face So they would also not be able to see their speedometer, or their fuel guage... This is a technological solution looking for problems that are far more conveniently solved by conventional means.