Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays Businesses Apple

'EyeBud' for the iPod Video 231

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the wearable-hardware-hackers-rejoice dept.
JonathanGCohen writes "The SeattlePI is reporting that eMagin, a company that makes video display products for military and industrial uses, has a new headset accessory for the iPod that projects video on to a screen smaller than a quarter that is mounted in front of one eye. Its makers say this creates the illusion of watching a 105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet." The only problem is that the expected retail value of the EyeBud is around $600, about $200 more than a 60 gigabyte iPod.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'EyeBud' for the iPod Video More

'EyeBud' for the iPod Video

Comments Filter:

  • We are the Borg (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheSpoom ( 715771 ) * <slashdot&uberm00,net> on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:31PM (#14380894) Homepage Journal
    This would be great if they had a red laser on the other side of the screen.

    Course, I'd worry about putting it on the wrong way round.

  • Watch Speed 2 while you drive. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Morky ( 577776 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:33PM (#14380906)
    Oh great. And you thought driving with a cell phone was dangerous.

  • Link Directly to the Article .... (Score:5, Informative)

    by rewinn ( 647614 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:33PM (#14380908) Homepage
    here [nwsource.com]
  • Giving a whole new meaning to the term "road hazard."

  • Or... (Score:3, Funny)

    by NIK282000 ( 737852 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:34PM (#14380914) Homepage Journal
    Its makers say this creates the illusion of watching a 105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet

    I'd say it creats the illution of watching a 1 inch screen at a distance of 1 inch. Also it creats the illution that you are a smarter consumer then you really are.

    • Re:Or... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rogabean ( 741411 )
      Actually I would say wearing it creates the impression that you are the sucker that you really are.

      C'mon, while being a cool "toy", this thing is pretty much already dead in the water.

      From the article: "Devices which isolate auditory input to one ear are comfortable (i.e., phones) but splitting one's field of vision is highly disorienting..."

      This is very true. Not to mention the fact it looks really stupid. Who is really going to adopt and use this thing on a regular basis in it's current form?

      It's a start

    • "smarter consumer"? (Score:5, Funny)

      by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:45PM (#14380976)
      Also it creats the illution that you are a smarter consumer then you really are.

      There's no way in hell someone wearing one of these would be mistaken for a "smart consumer." It's pretty clear that anyone who spends nearly twice the price of their ipod to watch video on a screen smaller than the ipod on a contraption that makes the wearer look like an alien is pretty much a complete tool.

    • Re:Or... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by EnsilZah ( 575600 )
      I wonder if also creates the illusion that you're blind in one eye, because i usually watch movies with two of them.

    • Re:Or... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @08:10PM (#14381299) Homepage
      I liked that description, actually. I thought if you're going to claim it creates the "illusion" of having a huge TV, why not take it to the limit? "Its makers say this creates the illusion of watching a 46,200 inch screen from a distance of 1 mile!"

      Who wouldn't want the illusion of a 46 thousand inch screen? Seriously I should go into marketing.
      • I liked that description, actually. I thought if you're going to claim it creates the "illusion" of having a huge TV, why not take it to the limit? "Its makers say this creates the illusion of watching a 46,200 inch screen from a distance of 1 mile!"

        Who wouldn't want the illusion of a 46 thousand inch screen? Seriously I should go into marketing.

        It is because of the optics that the image appears as if it was at 11 or 12 feet. It is about how your eyes focus. Think about it. If you wear glasses are your e

    • [Responding to "It's a 105-inch screen at 12 feet...] I'd say it creats the illution of watching a 1 inch screen at a distance of 1 inch.

      This is a wild guess, but...

      Your eye can't focus on anything one inch away. Hold your finger up to your eyeball and try to see your fingerprint. Unless you're very nearsighted, you simply can't focus your eye that close. So, along with the small screen, there is also a lens in front of that screen that works together with the lens in your eye -- when it's focused at 12

  • For one eye??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BTWR ( 540147 ) <americangibor3NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:38PM (#14380938) Homepage Journal
    a screen smaller than a quarter that is mounted in front of one eye.

    So you're supposed to wink for an hour straight when you watch an episode of Lost?

    • Pirates (Score:5, Funny)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:52PM (#14381004) Journal
      I think this product will go down well with the Flying Spaghetti Monster crowd.

      Since pirates wear an eye patch to begin with, this is the ultimate product for them. No longer do they have to pay full cost for a pair of video goggles they will only use half of.

      I can see it now:
      Renounce your past relegion.
      Be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
      Free Eye Patch, Video iPod, and EyeBud upon conversion.
      • Renounce your past relegion.
        Be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
        Free Eye Patch, Video iPod, and EyeBud upon conversion.

        Sorry, I think The Who got there first [wikipedia.org].

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • So when will they setup the Ipod to transmit a real time picture of what is infront of the wearer? Would need to lash the ipod to the users fore head like one of those fore head lamps.

        The users of this stuff will get beaten up so bad.
    • Most people have a dominant eye. Put the screen in front of the dominant eye and the brain will focus on it, largely disregarding input from the other eye.
    • I have no problem independently looking out of one eye or the other, and can consciously "switch" between them. You just concentrate on looking out of one eye, and I don't see why anyone can't do it, unless they suffer from double vision or whatever.

      I think the issue is that although they say it creates the illusion of a giant screen, it still manages to give users one helluva headache despite the optical distance correction. I can't see that problem being solved in the near future, and would advise that

  • Sounds cool, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ruff_ilb ( 769396 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:40PM (#14380954) Homepage
    a) How well does it function? These things in the past have had dubious functionality, I'm not about to buy one now... coupled with
    b) It costs a LOT - Lets face it, this better be one amazing product if it costs 600$. And I haven't exactly seen any reviews yet, either.

    Another poster did mention that the apple market is trend-driven, but this is different. It's unlikely that this'll get the publicity needed to get off the ground, and unlike other apple products, this isn't immediately "hip". It's not visually appealing, it's not white or shiny, and it's not branded heavily with snappy commercials touting the apple logo.

    Sorry, I'm writing this one off.

  • QVGA on a 105" inch screen? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mark0 ( 750639 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:41PM (#14380957)
    Why would I want to look at a QVGA image on a 105" inch screen?
  • Or, a 16" monitor set to 800x600 when viewed from 2'.

  • Not the Only Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:45PM (#14380977) Homepage
    "The only problem is that the expected retail value of the EyeBud is around $600, about $200 more than a 60 gigabyte iPod."

    That's not the ONLY problem. It is also VERY dorky looking and you can't really move about with that thing on, which really takes away the reason for having an iPod. iPods are mobile. They function well and they look nice (huge factor for those outside of the geek/nerd crowd). So, you're left using this while stationary. If you're going to do that, why not just watch it on a TV or monitory and save yourself $600? I could imagine frequent business travellers using one of these but hard to imagine anyone else having an use for it.

  • digital camera use (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Maskirovka ( 255712 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:49PM (#14380992)
    Given that nearly all digital still cameras, and all digital video cameras have video out (usually RCA), I could see some photographers buying this as a chimping tool.

  • Yawn (Score:3, Informative)

    by djupedal ( 584558 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:51PM (#14381002)
    Devices such as this have been on the market for decades. Small ambient screen mounted in a set of glasses, just big enough that when you focus on the 'percieved' image, it appears more distant, and thus much larger.

    As for the price, how can that be a factor, when the cost of filling a 60 gb iPod can run into the thousands of dollars..? [rhetorical, so don't bother...]
    • As for the price, how can that be a factor, when the cost of filling a 60 gb iPod can run into the thousands of dollars..?

      Sure, you say it rhetorically. But in reality, if the US didn't have such draconian copyright measures, I could 100% legally fill my ipod with all my DVDs. But that doesn't fit into the business model that the cartels have chosen willingly.

  • This is not totally new (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ishmalius ( 153450 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @06:51PM (#14381003)
    If you have been keeping track of the "wearable computing" market recently, you would know that something like this has existed for years. The one I have seen is a clip-on for a pair of eyeglasses, and which holds the tiny screen a few cm in front of the left eye.

    I think that the "newness" part of this is that it is specifically designed for an iPod.

  • Only one eye (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mr. Freeman ( 933986 )
    Watching a video in one eye really sucks. It doesn't matter if it creates the illusion of seeing a 105" screen from 12', if it's only in one eye then most of that value is lost.

    This will also contribute to eye strain by having to focus on something that close, while one eye is still focused really far away, or vice versa.

  • Yeah, Like I'm Going to See This? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @07:03PM (#14381052)
    Even with correctable glasses I can't focus on anything closer than about 4 inches. You think I -- and anybody else my age with the natural progression of eyesight as we age -- are going to be able to watch this thing?

    And what about the eyestrain of focusing to close over a long period of time (e.g. 2hr35min Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire)?

    Until the laser writes directly on the retina and corrects automatically for vision problems, I don't think this is for me.

    • How dumb do you think these people are? All such devices have a lens in front of the eye so the focal distance is much further out. How much further out I can't say, but since they mentioned 12 feet it very well may be that.
  • I don't know that I'd want a viewing area that big. It's apt to make the low resolution of the videos much more apparent on the small screen.

  • Style over content (Score:3, Insightful)

    by atomic_toaster ( 840941 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @07:04PM (#14381054)
    It's a neat idea, but this particular model will never catch on as the EyeBud [nwsource.com] has the unfortunate effect of making the wearer looking like a Borg [btcorp.us] from Star Trek (and not 7 of 9, either!). While the iPod is a great device, the main reason that it was practically sold-out in stores and online this Christmas is its sleek look, small size, and stylish marketing campaign. In general, that's when all techy devices catch on in the general population, from home PC's to laptops to cell phones -- when they're small enough and attractive enough that the user doesn's look like a geek. Well, that and the price tag; nobody's going to pay $600 to look like the biggest dork on the block.

    Bring the price down under $200, and streamline the design so that it looks like an extension of a bluetooth headset [images-amazon.com] or maybe a pair of mirrored Oakley look-alikes. Sure, that'll probably take a couple of years. But only then will it be worth marketing this device as "the next big thing".
    • are the transparent orange eyeglasses like the ones Vegeta used in DragonBall-Z. They look WAY BETTER than the eyebud.
      (And that's about the only thing worth watching in DBZ lol)
    • We need more Eyetaps (http://www.eyetap.org/ [eyetap.org])

      I'd wear that around in public, borg-like or not.
    • It's a neat idea, but this particular model will never catch on as the EyeBud has the unfortunate effect of making the wearer looking like a Borg from Star Trek

      Not even that cool. The Borg look evil and ominous, whereas wearing this device makes you looks like you're got on some sort of orthodontic or post-cranial-surgery headgear.

      If they could make one that was VERY lightweight, and wrapped around the back of your head (but not the front) like those "behind the head" headphones, and had a transparent scree
  • Somebody call an ambulance!

    No, wait, look at all this expensive gear he's got. Just take it!

    Hey, what does this funny headset do? Oh it's a video display ... hey, porn!

    SCRRRRRREEEECH-WHACK

    Did anybody get the number of that truck?

  • But in all seriousness, what will this do to one's vision if you watch an hour or two of this every day, say in your right eye. Will your eyes get screwed up because of so much time with each one viewing different depths?
  • ... would you need a portable video display for a portable video display?

  • Used to Bluetooth? (Score:3, Funny)

    by michaelmalak ( 91262 ) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Monday January 02, 2006 @07:26PM (#14381147) Homepage
    From the nested link to Seattle Post Intelligencer [nwsource.com]:
    But eMagin executives say they expect people to get used to the appearance, in the same way that Bluetooth headsets are no longer uncommon.
    I don't know about you guys, but I think Bluetooth headsets make people look like Elvis, and I won't wear one for that reason. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I think a pre-2000 Secret Service wire looks cooler.
    • While you may be joking, you are in the minority as bluetooth headsets have caught on like you wouldn't believe. They are a permanent accessory for any cab driver or business man, and it only seems logical that business peoplewill want to have visual data in front of them as well on a large screen.

      Lets face it, one of the biggest problems with the video iPod is the screen size. True, I don't think this device will be the one that wins over the market, but I'm glad to see consumer versions of these things

      • but it doesn't take much imagination to see other possibilities.
        Porn.
      • People are all concerned about what kind of watch is on their wrist, spending $10k or more to make a fashion statement. People get all hung up about glasses, and spend way more on contacts or even lasik. People used to even be concerned that the Palm Pilot was too big to be worn on a belt clip -- thus the shrunken Treo and Pocket PCs. But they're willing to accommodate a facial modification -- not unlike glasses and certainly of much more concern than a wrist or belt?

        Has the time come where geek really i

        • Not only has it come, but it has been ushered in in part due to society's increasing necessity to have access to their technology at all times. Hence bluetooth for drivers. This is just another step forward in that trend. Eventually we will have implants, mark my words. Why? Because there will always be someone who wants to take that extra step and there will always be a company ready to cash in on that demand.

    • I want the projection to be in both eyes.
    • I want the projection ro be able to be moved from the center field of view to an off-center position, through an open software interface. Bonus points for being able to split it left and right and/or up and down.
    • In that software interface, I want to have full control of alpha for both the video display, and for the outside view. That way, I can use it for totally immersive stuff, or unobtrusive heads-up interfaces, or any mixture I find worthwhile.

    Is this uno

  • The only problem is that the expected retail value of the EyeBud is around $600

    I can see a bigger problem. Contacts are bad enough, an eyebud must hurt like hell. Also must be creepy to see a cord hanging out of some ones eye.

  • I've been wating for an improvement in this technology since the Private Eye HUD device patents were bought out and shut down. That device was great: Clear, crisp, easy to view and it had "Hercules" resolution - 720x384, not QVGA.

    I have been waiting about 15 years, and I've reached the conclusion that we'll only get a decent HUD when sufficient technology is in the hands of Open Source developers. So I'm working on the Open Source RepRap fabricator http://reprap.org/ [reprap.org] and we'll see who builds an affordable o

  • iBud (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sanman2 ( 928866 )
    Why didn't they call it the iBud? Doesn't that fit with the nomenclature more? Or did some marketing type not see what was plainly in front of their i's? Anyway, interfaces like this -- however good/bad this particular model is -- are the future way to go. iPiece? iLash? iPatch? Actually, an iPatch could look kinduv cool, in a Pirate sort of way. Pirates in the Slashdot crowd? Nah, perish the thought.

  • Just what I want, a 105" 800x600 screen from 12' (Score:5, Funny)

    by Fallen Kell ( 165468 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @08:02PM (#14381277)
    I mean come on... A 105" screen from 12 feet away... For THX standards, a 4:3 screen of 105" (diagonal assumed due to way computer screen size is measured) should actually be viewed from 10' 9 1/4", not 12 feet.
  • So far, all the HUDs I've seen that are less than several 1000 US$ are only VGA or SVGA.

    For movies, SVGA is adequate, but if you really want to be able to access complex data, you'll find 800x600 SVGA display lo-res and just on the limit of useability.

    the old glasstrons and eye-treks had even lower res, but again, we designed for movies and not for text.

    I think when HUDs and various virtual displays give the same performance as a 12" 1024x768 laptop display at 20" from the eye, then they might catch o

  • So...? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Monday January 02, 2006 @08:50PM (#14381471) Journal
    The only problem is that the expected retail value of the EyeBud is around $600, about $200 more than a 60 gigabyte iPod.

    It's too bad that nobody will buy a $600 television to go with their $200 VCR/DVD player, either....

  • Wouldnt another problem be the 320x200 (or whatever) resolution of the movies? 320 x 200 at 105" would look like crap.
  • Once we get past the blogdreck, the vendor site [emagin.com] and the product site [3dvisor.com] are more informative. The original article should have been titled "3DVisor head-mounted display now comes in low end model for Apple iPod." This is really a virtual reality display, originally with gyros for head movement sensing, that's been dumbed down for TV viewing.
  • welcome our Eyebud wearing overlords.

    FTFA: this creates the illusion of watching a 105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet
    I don't really want to pay $600 to watch an illusion.

    And it wouldn't be great to watch a 105 inch screen at 640x480 anyway (I don't think you could fit more on a 1-inch-screen (look at your digital camera, it's 3 inch and has merely a resolution of 320x240.

    And wouldn't it be tiring to look constantly at a screen with one eye, 1 inch away while your other eye is looking between 1-50ft

  • virtual pr0n? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by I_heart_chunli ( 941868 )
    This is the beginning of having hot virtual pr0n sex. W00t!
  • Same guys that said the Ipod would fail I suppose. Why do you care if it makes you look like the Borg if it is truly useful?

    Why does the discussion move from the possible to the merely fashionable? I guess the guys who see the potential to make this an extension of say a Nintendo handheld, or the PSP would actually go out and do it, and not be whining on /. Make it for both eyes, plug in to a PSP, play a game of Burnout:Revenge, or perhaps even a FPS? Instant immersion nearly anywhere (don't try this while
  • Stuff like this has been around for a while...I remember the iGlasses, then Sony, and the snazzy monicle used by 0Cool in the movie Hackers...

    You would think that they would have gotten the price down in a decade or more...

    ttyl
              Farrell

  • sony glasstron (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pintomp3 ( 882811 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @03:20AM (#14382762)
    how different is this from the sony glasstron from a few year's ago? seems worse, only one eye. i guess as long as you plug it into an ipod, it's cool again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasstron [wikipedia.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close