Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Designer Glasses With Microdisplay Unveiled

Posted by kdawson on Tue Dec 12, 2006 04:54 PM
from the heads-up dept.
Displays Portables Hardware
An anonymous reader writes to tell us about an Israeli company, Lumus-Optical, and their nicely designed eyeglasses featuring twin microdisplays and mini projectors. They will be demoed at CES in January. From the article: "The firm's latest prototype boasts dual 640 x 480 resolution displays as well as two wee projectors on each arm; the Lumus glasses can accept video inputs via an undisclosed connection, and projects an image akin to a '60-inch screen from 10 feet away.' Its Light-guide Optical Element technology allows the imagery to be reflected back on to the lenses so users can view them, all while being transparent enough to allow you to focus on the humans, trees, road block, or board room presentation ahead of you."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Computer Monitor In Eyeglasses 109 comments
ozancakmakci writes "We have all seen science fiction ideals of computer displays concealed in eyeglasses. One of the earlier spectacle-based designs was created by David Bettinger and disclosed in US Patent 4,806,011. Advances in fabrication technologies are now allowing complicated surface profiles to be manufactured. Exploitation of a complicated surface profile leads to low element count designs. Researchers at the University of Central Florida, CREOL/College of Optics & Photonics have designed and fabricated a computer monitor in eyeglasses that uses sophisticated surface profiles to achieve a compact design. The current specifications include an 8mm exit pupil, 20-degree field of view, 15mm eye clearance, and a resolution of 1.5 arcminutes. Follow the link for two pictures of this latest prototype." Read on for some of the challenges in designing a workable eyeglasses-based display.
Offsite: Israeli 21C coverage
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Designer Glasses With Microdisplay Unveiled 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • The goggles... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tackhead (54550) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @04:56PM (#17214558)
    ...they do something!

    • Nerd goggles (Score:5, Funny)

      by eclectro (227083) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @05:31PM (#17215104)
      ...they do something!

      Can I get a date by wearing the goggles? Or can I get a girl to date me by her wearing them? Or can I date the girl in the picture? How do they work exactly??

  • Finally, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rednip (186217) * <(rednip) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday December 12 2006, @04:57PM (#17214562) Journal
    A way to watch porn 'in public' without being hassled by 'the man'. Better yet, can you imagine driving at 75 mph while your favorite 'artist' performs her special talent. Seriously, we'll look back to the 'good old days' when people were just distracted by their cell phones, and not email, porn, and shopping. Hopefully cars will drive themselves before 'Joe SUV' gets his hands on 'this'.

    • Re:Finally, (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2006, @05:37PM (#17215224)
      A way to watch porn 'in public' without being hassled by 'the man'.
      Ah, to be young again...

      When you grow other, you'll be hassled by "the woman" when you watch porn...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by drsquare (530038)

        Personally, I'd rather spend 45 minutes of stress-free commuting playing with some techno gizmo than worrying about paying for and maintaining an SUV.

        Public transport is stress free? So what of:
        1. Standing in the rain for an hour waiting to see if it turns up
        2. Being thrown off because you don't have the right change
        3. Sitting amongst unruly, foul-mouthed kids
        4. Your shopping spilling all over the floor
        5. Getting there late
        6. Only being able to travel at certain hours
        7. Having to walk several miles to and f

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by McTaggart (893466)
          Just maybe the public transport where he is is better than where you are?

          1. Never had a bus not turn up
          2. Never had a bus driver not break a note for me (although I've never tried to buy a $1.30 fair with a fifty)
          3. Depends on the time, mornings and evenings, none. 3 in the afternoon it's still better than the unruly foul mouthed drivers that clog up the streets around where I live (I live near two schools)
          4. Bags are awesome
          5. I've only ever been late when it was my fault (ie, missing the bus)
          7. Nearest bu
        • I can afford a car and I'm looking forward to getting a job where I can take mass transit to work.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mandelbr0t (1015855)
          I never said I couldn't afford it. I just said they are a waste of money given the lack of stress and general efficiency of public transit. Of course, I can understand that the brainwashed masses might have an emotional attachment to their vehicles which they have worked Oh So Hard to pay for. Enlightenment is difficult to acheive, n00b.

          mandelbr0t

          • Efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Colin Smith (2679) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @06:25PM (#17216044)

            general efficiency of public transit
            This would be the definition of efficiency whick leads a public transit journey to take 2 hours, 15 miles, a change of route and a 30 minute wait in the rain compared to a 20 minute, 5 mile warm, dry journey in relative comfort.

            Enlightenment is easy.

             
  • Yet another way for people to get into car accidents, fall down stairs, and walk into poles!
  • displays as well as a wee projector
    is that like the sensor bar?

    allow you to focus on the humans, trees, road block
    for those of you driving in motor vehicles equipped with media players and the proper output connections. and if so - why not a hud built into the wind shield?

    i could see this as a cool thing but the whole lightness and cool factor drops a bunch when there's a cable running down your back and your tethered to whatever is feeding the projector.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      for those of you driving in motor vehicles equipped with media players and the proper output connections. and if so - why not a hud built into the wind shield?

      In order for a hud to be viewable on the windshield in daylight the windshield must be special, which translates into expensive. People lose windshields to rocks falling off of semis and the like every day. That is why this is a stupid idea.

      Note that the HUD in a military aircraft does not display on the canopy. It displays on a transparent scr

      • i'm pretty familiar with huds in jets. (and i wouldn't call the ihadss helmet setup goggles) that's a good point about glass damage - but it seems you could do something similar by placing the hud inside. but with cutting edge stuff you can't really talk about cost -- of course any of this is going to be expensive. the point is, this doesn't make sense if you are driving - as they allude to in their example. it also doesn't make a lot of sense for walking around, unless whatever is connected to the proje
      • Good point. Why can't they make a windshield that doesn't fucking break every time a pebble falls off the rock in front of me?

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by 644bd346996 (1012333)
          "They" can. It would just be very expensive. Lexan, for example, is used in race cars.
          • However I doubt you'd want a Lexan windshield on a passenger car, because it would scratch too easily. Particularly since most people don't really wash their windshields, and just sort of let the wipers grind the stuff around while the nozzles squirt some blue water on it.

            A cracked windshield is probably preferable to one that's translucent from being sandblasted with road grit. I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that the ones on race cars probably have a very short lifespan.
      • People lose windshields to rocks falling off of semis and the like every day. That is why this is a stupid idea.

        Right... I've been driving cars for ten years, and never once had to replace a windshield. I've been wearing glasses far longer and replace them, on average, every 1-2 years. That is why putting a display in my glasses is a stupid idea.
      • In order for a hud to be viewable on the windshield in daylight the windshield must be special, which translates into expensive. People lose windshields to rocks falling off of semis and the like every day. That is why this is a stupid idea.

        It isn't really as bad as you make it out to be.

        The "specialness" is really just a coating to prevent double-reflections (one from the front of the glass and one from the back of the glass). You can purchase a user-applicable version of this coating yourself. Various c

  • Augmented Reality (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Apocalypse111 (597674) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @05:01PM (#17214632) Journal
    Lets get some higher resolution in these things and start doing some augmented reality! I can finally store a face next to a name, recall it in a subtle form through my glasses, and never have an awkward moment at a cocktail party every again!
    • I agree. 640x480 sucks ass, and is no better than the i-glasses stuff that was out in '95. Yeah, the chassis is better, but I'd gladly use a larger setup to get better resolution. That make it less expensive, of course.

      • Re:Augmented Reality (Score:4, Funny)

        by IdleTime (561841) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @05:22PM (#17214958) Journal
        I need glasses that give me an image similar to watching a 23" from an armlength's distance
        • While replying to an AC is usually not worth the time, it is true that if you were doing _only_ augmented reality with simple text displays, 640x480 would probably be sufficient. For general purpose use, however (say I wanted to watch a movie on my glasses on the bus on the way home, or look at pr0n or something), 640x480 is still lacking in it's ability to show detail.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by DragonWriter (970822)

            For general purpose use, however (say I wanted to watch a movie on my glasses on the bus on the way home, or look at pr0n or something), 640x480 is still lacking in it's ability to show detail.

            640x480 resolution is exactly enough to show a standard size and aspect ratio 480i/p TV picture; it'll be the equivalent of 480pX where X is whatever its refresh rate is, at 60Hz, it'll do DVD-quality playback (either at 480i60 or 480p24/30) and better (480p60).

            Admittedly, its not enough to show HD content.

    • Ah yes. I don't know which is sadder. The fact that you're nerdy enough to think that out loud. Or the fact that I'm right there with you. ;P

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Das Modell (969371)
      You could do a lot of neat stuff with those glasses if they had Internet connectivity and the right software. An overlayed GPS map should be easy enough. It could even three-dimensionally show your destination as an icon, and your distance to it.

      Artificial eyes and a computerized brain would be more handy, though.

      • Re:Augmented Reality (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Virtual_Raider (52165) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @08:53PM (#17217736) Homepage
        You beat me to the GPS example =) But I thought of a couple more... I recently bought some bluetooth stereo earphones to listen to mp3s on my mobile. Imagine if you could also conect this 'designer glasses' to a cell phone and be able to read your sms =)

        It would be really neat to have the small envelope icon pop up in a corner of your vision as another mean of informing you. Of course, this is not for everybody and I'm already anticipating the reaction of the I-don't-want-that-therefore-it-sucks crowd. It would also take some good design to make it so that it doesn't block your field of vision, I wouldn't want to be driving in the middle of a busy road and have a giant sms envelope popping right in front of my eyes. Yet, done well it would absolutely kick ass.

        Since I'm day-dreaming, how about coupling that with those keyboards made of light ala Final Fantasy Movie that came out for the Palm. You could see the keyboard in your glasses and type in thin air a reply. And don't forget a cyberpunk favorite, the digital watch.

        The future in the mirror is closer than it appears.

    • Re:Augmented Reality (Score:5, Funny)

      by RealErmine (621439) <{commerce} {at} {wordhole.net}> on Tuesday December 12 2006, @05:21PM (#17214954)

      never have an awkward moment at a cocktail party every again!

      How about "Look at the stupid glasses that guy's wearing!"

      • How about "Look at the stupid glasses that guy's wearing!

        You bring up a very good point. This technology has existed for a while. Unfortunately its developed by geeks, not fashion accessory designers. What I mean by that is if it is not as sexy as an iPod, or a Bluetooth earpiece etc. then it will not be picked up by the mainstream. And the mainstream is DYING for something like this if they can make it sleek, sexy, cheap and simple enough for the mass market.

        If they made one of these suckers able to p

    • More excitingly, link up your small web browsing device of choice, surf to Wikipedia during your college exams, and sleep your way to the top!

      I, for one, hope these things don't take off until I'm out of school or people will raise the bar for those of us who don't cheat.

      And then there's always the ability to watch porn anywhere, but that's a whole other can of worms.

    • Lets get some higher resolution in these things and start doing some augmented reality!

      Why do you need a higher resolution for that? There was a time when computers worked with 320x200 resolution and people seemed to do well. How much info do you really need to be there? How well will you be able to focus on both the digital info and the reality in front of you? It's not because 1600x1200 is now the lower limit for graphics cards that _every_ application suddenly needs them.

  • I can see severe beatings in store for users of these glasses on plane trips.

  • Gadget Makers: get some fashion sense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday December 12 2006, @05:06PM (#17214702) Homepage Journal
    How freakin' dorky do those "designer" glasses look? What's so hard here, integrate your displays into a normal looking pair of sunglasses and make them no more bulky while doing so. Yes, that means you are going to have to do something revolutionary and hide that revolutionary technology in something that looks normal. Cause that's what people want when they are out in public; to look like everyone else; and that's where this product will be used.

    • How freakin' dorky do those "designer" glasses look? What's so hard here, integrate your displays into a normal looking pair of sunglasses and make them no more bulky while doing so. Yes, that means you are going to have to do something revolutionary and hide that revolutionary technology in something that looks normal. Cause that's what people want when they are out in public; to look like everyone else

      1.3 billion people would disagree with you. That's a pretty large fraction of the Earth's population who wears glasses (ignoring contact-lens wearers). Once 1.3 billion people are doing something, it *becomes* normal, and frankly, it's not only stupid but downright idiotic that you would imply that all 1.3 billion want to "look like everyone else" or "look normal".

      No to mention that you'd look pretty stupid wearing sunglasses indoors or when it's dark outside. But then, I'm guessing you do that alre

      • Well, ya know, if they can make it look normal in a pair of regular glasses, that's fine too, I just think you have a lot better chance of doing it with sunglasses first.
  • when I can go buy a 60" widescreen plasma tv and sit 2 feet away from it?

  • It's a really nice design, but how does it function? Their website (www.lumus-optical.com) doesn't specify beyond potential application. Does it allow you to clip onto existing glasses, or do you have to use their display as well? It has a clean display in comparison to the My Vu specs (www.myvu.com), but there doesn't seem to be a lot more to it. Does it have built in audio, does it have a bulky adapter/controller? I for one would like to see more information on the website.

    Assuming these question

  • Undisclosed? (Score:5, Funny)

    by grassy_knoll (412409) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @05:14PM (#17214838) Homepage
    Lumus glasses can accept video inputs via an undisclosed connection


    Undisclosed? What, does the input jack require lube or something?

    "...So you see, the electrical impulses are carried along the central nervous system then back out through the epidural layer near the magnet on the glasses... "

    "Look, I don't care how it works that is Not an entrance!"

    [badum-ching]

    • Lumus glasses can accept video inputs via an undisclosed connection

      Undisclosed? What, does the input jack require lube or something?

      "...So you see, the electrical impulses are carried along the central nervous system then back out through the epidural layer near the magnet on the glasses... "
      "Look, I don't care how it works that is Not an entrance!"

      Of course, that input requires a special implantation surgery... From Hot Shots:
      "It's called a multipupiloptomy, but in order to keep from damaging

  • Home page, earlier products (Score:4, Informative)

    by Victor Fors (987095) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @05:28PM (#17215060)
    link to home page: http://www.lumusvision.com/ [lumusvision.com] They have a technology section displaying an overview of the refraction elements used to display the image. They also seem to have developed (and brought to market) an earlier model of these glasses. I admit they do look shiny, but if i bought VR goggles i'd primarily use them at home. It's a cool toy, but would lug around something like that for everyday use?
  • microdisplays have been available at 320x240 resolutions for a long time now. i'm just waiting for a res boost. however, given the long sordid history of microdisplays, i suggest you not hold your breath for product releases. place little faith in a press release.
  • "This looks like VGA resolution displayed on a screen so big you can see the individual pixels!"

  • Dangers of extended use? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dave562 (969951) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @05:41PM (#17215288) Journal
    What are the implications of using something like this on a regular basis? It's pretty well documented that people experience eye strain from staying focused at a fixed focal depth for too long (ie. when looking at a monitor). I've had my own vision deteriorate pretty significantly since I have started using computers despite genetics to the opposite (ie. my mom and dad both have great vision and they are in their late 50s). I shudder to think about the implications of remaining focused at a depth of less than inch from the eye for extended periods of time.

    • Re:Dangers of extended use? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mpoulton (689851) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @06:17PM (#17215914)
      I shudder to think about the implications of remaining focused at a depth of less than inch from the eye for extended periods of time.

      You're not. The focal distance is much further away than that -- the apparent focal plane floats in front of the user at a comfortable distance. Thus, eye strain should be reduced compared to normal computer use.
  • I can't wait to see people hanging out at the grocery store or at the local mall, just walking around with those hideously ugly glasses, completely oblivious to their surroundings and watching some tv show. I can see how it can be useful in some situations, but to the folks that I'm sure I'll see walking about in crowded shopping areas, I ask what the point of all that is, other than to simply show off?

  • Wii Controller (Score:4, Funny)

    by TranscendentalAnarch (1005937) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @07:29PM (#17216852)
    I was going to say that, at least with this type of display, you won't get any idiots chucking their Wii controllers at their 60" plasmas... But then I thought that, if you're stupid enough to do that, you'll be stupid enough to swing the nun chuck around and smack the crap out of your face and the glasses.
    • Yes -- but with large, heavy goggles that blocked out external light. Not with lightweight, normal glasses that still allow you to see through them normally, as the ones in TFA do.

      • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

        by MustardMan (52102) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @05:42PM (#17215314)
        http://www.bradleyrhodes.com/Papers/thad-glasses-h alf.jpg [bradleyrhodes.com]

        Thad Starner, formerly of MIT and now at Georgia Tech has been using a wearable computer with a display built into his glasses for YEARS. This is NOT a new idea. It wasn't a new idea a month ago when slashdot posted an article from another company doing the same thing, and it won't be a new idea a month from now when they post an article about ANOTHER company developing the same thing. Problem is, none of these things ever actually comes to market, so you get a bunch of people reinventing the wheel and no one actually mass producing it.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.