Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Hardware

Liquid Lenses For Camera Phones 216

Posted by CmdrTaco from the my-camera-is-leaking dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "In this article, the Register writes that "camera phones will soon have lenses made from nothing more substantial than a couple of drops of oil and water, but will still be capable of auto focusing, and even zooming in on subjects." The lenses, developed by the French company Varioptic, contain drops of oil and water, acting respectively as conductor and insulator, and sandwiched between two windows. These liquid lenses could replace glass or plastic ones because of several advantages: no moving parts, leading to better reliability; a very small power consumption; very small dimensions (diameter: 8mm; thickness: 2mm); and a very fast response time of 2/100th of a second. You can expect the first camera phones using these liquid lenses as early as Christmas 2005. These lenses might also appear in medical equipment, such as endoscopes, optical networking equipment or surveillance devices. This overview contains other details and references."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Liquid Lenses For Camera Phones More

Liquid Lenses For Camera Phones

Comments Filter:

  • Durability (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fembots ( 753724 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:10PM (#10977684) Homepage
    This company was only founded two years ago, I wonder how much has been put into testing the quality and durability of the oil, which is subject to voltage going through it every now and then. However given the rate people change their mobile phones, durability might not have to be a feature.

    Other than that, it's a great invention, no wonder the guy will pursue an aggressive intellectual property strategy, so anyone who wants to build something like this will need a licence from them.

    There's also a mentiond of true zoom capability, using two of the liquid lenses. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of being very small, since you need more depth to create the zooming effect, no?

    • Zooming (Score:3, Insightful)

      by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 )
      Two of these lenses will still be considerably smaller than two glass lenses so a zoom lens will be much smaller.

      On mobile phone cameras quality is not a huge deal but I am still rather skeptical about use in medical equipment though. Medical stuff needs to be far more precise and hold its precision over a long time. "Hard stuff" like glass will be hard to displace with sqishy lenses.

      • Re:Zooming (Score:4, Interesting)

        by tambo ( 310170 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:43PM (#10978077)
        So uh... it's liquid, right? And liquids have some annoying tendencies... freezing, boiling, expanding/contracting, leaking, drying up? Liquids respond much more dynamically to temperature changes than solids, especially glass.

        Even if they won't freeze or boil within normal operating temperatures - they're still running current through it, right? Even if the liquid is stable and inert from -10C to +40C, an electric problem could cause it to heat up in a hurry.

        - David Stein

        • Re:Zooming (Score:3, Funny)

          by kent_eh ( 543303 )
          Even if the liquid is stable and inert from -10C to +40C

          Your temperature range is too narrow. It was -24C this morning here in Winnipeg, and it hasn't gotten real cold yet.
          We average13 days [ec.gc.ca] below -30C each year, and about the same number above +30C.

    • Re:Durability (Score:5, Insightful)

      by harrkev ( 623093 ) <kevin.harrelson@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:22PM (#10977837) Homepage
      Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of being very small, since you need more depth to create the zooming effect, no?

      Yes, it would. Bit it would still be a lot smaller than having a tiny threaded barrel, a tiny motor, tiny gears, etc. So it would need some length, but probably a lot less than the alternatives.

      The only thing that worries me is how well something like this would handle shock. If you drop you phone, what if a small drop of oil broke off and was then floating around in the water. Maybe shaking it would get it to merge back again, or maybe not.

      Other than that, it's a great invention, no wonder the guy will pursue an aggressive intellectual property strategy, so anyone who wants to build something like this will need a licence from them.

      I believe that I remember reading about this concept in the original Star Wars movie novelization (or maybe it was some other book, but I DID read it a long time ago in a city far, far away). So the concept is not new. Making it work is. I have no doubt that the particular materials and methods used are definately covered by patent, but I wonder if somebody came up with a different method of using oil lenses, if they could use the "prior art" of sci-if?

      • Re:Durability (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jdray ( 645332 ) *
        I believe that I remember reading about this concept in the original Star Wars movie...

        I was thinking one of the Dune novels. I've heard of it too, and I've never read a Star Wars novel.

      • Re:Durability (Score:3, Informative)

        by Reziac ( 43301 ) *
        How about from history? Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632 - 1723) Quick overview: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/lee u wenhoek_antonie_van.shtml [bbc.co.uk]

        When I was a kid I had a book with his detailed biography. Quite an interesting fellow. (See also my post above, regarding his primitive lenses.)

        As to telescoping lenses, I'd think a droplet lens pair and its "zoomer" could be very small, so small that surface tension would be the most powerful factor affecting the lenses, thus quite stable for applica
    • There's also a mentiond of true zoom capability, using two of the liquid lenses. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of being very small, since you need more depth to create the zooming effect, no?


      But it would still be smaller than a standard camera zoom lens setup, and would also use less power. That is the conceivable advantage.
    • They'll probably discover an interesting new way to make margarine.
    • I wonder about the ability of the lens to sustain shock (and not just the kind from bad composition). If you've ever put oil and water in a jar and shaken it you get tiny "bubbles" of oil that don't immediately mix back into the large mass of oil.

      Given the jarring hits I've seen some phones take I wonder what that would do to the oil/water barrier. Or perhaps it's just too small with not enough mass to act in the same way as the jar of oil/water analogy.

      • "I wonder about the ability of the lens to sustain shock (and not just the kind from bad composition). If you've ever put oil and water in a jar and shaken it you get tiny "bubbles" of oil that don't immediately mix back into the large mass of oil."

        Animal cell membranes are made out of oil (triglycerides, with a phostphate group), the fluids surrounding the cell are essentially, water.

        When we jump up and down, or do something like that, our bodys cells don't fall apart.

        I figure if it's small enough, it's

  • sigh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:10PM (#10977690) Homepage Journal

    When reading the article my main thoughts were "Pretty cool sounding tech..." then I read the final paragraph.
    Varioptics has just filed a further two patents, and will pursue an aggressive intellectual property strategy. "We think, and out patent advisors think, that this is the only way you can do it [build an auto focussing lens] with liquid," Paillard says. "So anyone who wants to build something like this will need a licence from us."
    I just lost so much enthusiasm for this idea.

    • Re:sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rude Turnip ( 49495 ) <valuation&gmail,com> on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:13PM (#10977723)
      This is the kind of stuff that patents were intended for...novel inventions. Moreover, by the context of that quote, they are focusing (no pun intended) on a specific way of building such a lense...again in the true spirit of what patents are for.
      • This is the kind of stuff that patents were intended for...novel inventions. Moreover, by the context of that quote, they are focusing (no pun intended) on a specific way of building such a lense...again in the true spirit of what patents are for.

        Since Mickey Mouse is copyrighted rather than patented, this patent will expire in about 20 years, so we'll be able to buy these in kiddy toys for our grandkids. If Mickey were patented, then it would be patents which run forever, and we would never be able to b

      • Re:sigh (Score:3, Informative)

        by Reziac ( 43301 ) *
        Well, maybe not entirely novel. The concept of a variable oil or water lens was used by microbiology pioneer Antony van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), in his studies of the "wee beasties". His primitive microscopes used drops of liquid as lenses, and as I vaguely recall, he'd worked out a way to wobble the "lens" to change its shape, thus its magnification.

        What does seem to be novel here (well, *I've* never heard of it before), and worth noting, is using voltage gadgetry to control the shape and position of the
        • "Frex, it might be used as a tiny pump"

          Correction: It is being used as a tiny pump. A guy where I used to work was experimenting with one. And I seem to recall him mentioning that he had to licence a patent of some sort for it. I'd really like to go more into it, but while that part's open (due to the patent), I'm fairly sure the rest of the thing is still 'classified' ('propriatary' always makes me wince). Which is really too bad... everything this dude did was cool (ever see less than a single dro

          • Heh heh, great minds think alike :) So he's using it to "pump" water through nominally-solid stuff? (Would osmosis be "prior art" ?? :)

            This gets me to thinking about patent licensing, tho -- it's too bad there's not some standard license that could apply to ALL patents, where a percentage of the income it generates is trickled back down the chain of patents (given that one may rely on another, as in your example). Also, that a certain percentage of the licensing royalties has to go back into R&D, or i

    • Re:sigh (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )
      If it truly is the only way, rivals might be able to get a patent overturned in court. (It's going to be passed. The US patent office'd patent a flying sleigh to a Mr. Clause, if someone coughed up the money.)

      Although you can patent inventions, there are certain restrictions. You can't patent anything that's "obvious" and there are limits on what you can patent, when there are no other ways of solving the same problem. (Which is what these guys are claiming.)

      The reason for the latter restriction is that

    • "I just lost so much enthusiasm for this idea."

      Yeah, same here. It'd really cramp their style if they suddenly started making money.
    • this is what pisses me off about /., all of you seem to think patents are all evil.

      what do yo uthink drives innovation? money. people could care less about everything else. you can't eat without money, you can't survive. i don't understand this communist crap that constantly is spewed out.

      someone invented something compeletly new, they probably spend a good chunk of change to develop it, to get it to market, why can't they make a buck off of it.

    • Re:sigh (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
      I'd say this probably is a good patent, within the original intent of patenting. The real problem with the patent system is that it is abused that many patents go against the patent law.
    • it's a fucking Roland Piquepaille advert, you think he cares about the tech he spams, or ads anything to it?

    • The idea of a liquid lens is not new, but they've done a lot of work to actualy figure out HOW to do it. So long as the patent is not so broad as to aply to the idea it is the perfect example of a GOOD patent. If someone comes up with another, completely different and novel way to make a liquid lens then they could still do it.

      This isn't a software or process patent (which IS bad). A lot of capital and research has to go into these kind of inventions. You also have to spend money to manufacture and dis

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:10PM (#10977691)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • 2/100ths of a second? (Score:3, Funny)

    by The Other White Boy ( 626206 ) <theotherwhiteboy@gm a i l .com> on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:10PM (#10977697)
    reduce! ack!

    • he he... I don't think he got the point...

      Let's try this a 2nd time...

      1/50th! How's that ;)

    • [laughing] Oh man, does THAT bring back memories of grade school math classes! We'd all have been embarrassed to be caught writing such a fraction.

  • With liquid lens and OLEDs, very soon most electronics will be sprayed into place!

  • speed (Score:5, Funny)

    by kaleco ( 801384 ) <greig.marshall2@btinternet . c om> on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:12PM (#10977721)
    2/100ths of a second? That's much faster than those common-as-muck 1/50ths ones.
    • 2/100ths of a second? That's much faster than those common-as-muck 1/50ths ones.

      Actually as far as the measurement of time is concerned, it is usually measured in divisions of 10, so 2/100ths of a second actually sounds more comprehendable than 1/50th of a second.

      Just being pendantic...sorry.
      • I understand that 100ths of a second makes it easier to compare lens speeds rather than properly reduced measurements. It was I who was being pendantic and siezing a cheap joke :)

      • Just being pendantic...sorry.

        You mean you're being a piece of jewelry hung about the neck from a chain?

        Pedanticism mandates proper spelling.

        • You mean you're being a piece of jewelry hung about the neck from a chain?

          Pedanticism mandates proper spelling.

          ***Bling!***
  • Touch that drop of water/oil or expose it to a change in humidity and BANG! You need a portable lens maintenance kit. Imagine having to respond to an error message on the phone by putting drops of fluid into a tine aperture! Or maybe you'd have to send it back...

  • Liquid Lenses Rock! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gilesx ( 525831 ) * on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:13PM (#10977725)
    I love liquid lenses. I often indulge in testing sessions where upon I don my own pair of "liquid lenses" by drinking 8 pints. It's sooo cool how it makes all the ugly chicks look like Jennifer Aniston!

  • Roland? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WhatAmIDoingHere ( 742870 ) *
    I wonder how much he paid for this article.
  • rest that mobile phones will replace consumer digital camera... This is a good article to see that they will go a different direction.
  • Wasn't there a story a while back about glasses that changed their focus by pumping water between two membranes? I think they were being touted as a solution for poor comunities where the users could sort of self diagnose.
    • They were indeed intended for poor communities(countries), but they weren't really intended for self diagnosis. They were intended to be simple and cheap to set at a given prescription by an individual with the proper training. Compared to grinding, twisting a knob is pretty cheap. And it is even quicker.

  • Space lens (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:17PM (#10977780) Journal
    Just thinking about the hubble and other spy-sats, this may really be a god send for cheap telescopes. Depending on maximum sizes it should be possible to build a system with parellel cameras. Cheap and accurate.

    • Uh... Liquid doesn't do too well in space...
      • Try this instead: Liquid water doesn't do to well at temperatures below freezing ...

        So don't forget your camera phone in your car on a cold day.

        Or leave it in the outer pockets of your ski jacket.

        Also, don't click on the last link in the story - it's more site whoring by Roland "the pipsqueak" Pippique.

        • " Try this instead: Liquid water doesn't do to well at temperatures below freezing ...

          So don't forget your camera phone in your car on a cold day. "

          Very insightful, water actually expands when frozen. Ever put a plastic glass in the freezer with water in it?

          You'll wake up the next morning with a ruined plastic glass, big old crack in it.

          Usually water bends and twists when in a liquid, but the way the molecular structure is, when it freezes it actually expands.

          It'd expand and break your lense on your ca

    • Re:Space lens (Score:4, Funny)

      by harrkev ( 623093 ) <kevin.harrelson@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:27PM (#10977901) Homepage
      At small scales, drops appear spherical. But I am not sure that this would scale well. I would imagine that at some point (probably around 1mL) the surface would deviate from spherical enough to cause problems. AFAIK, most things in space need big lenses, so it might not be suitable.

      Also, could this type of contraption survive launch? Itallian dressing is oil and water. But if you shake the bottle really hard...

      Hey. Wait a second.... They patented Itallian Dressing!!!!!
    • While as someone else replied, this probably wouldn't scale well in single-lens format -- am I imagining tech that doesn't exist, or is there a concept involving a bazillion tiny lenses to make a composite telescopic image, kindof like a bee's eye?? no idea if such a thing would be useful or even possible.

      As to the "whoa, it's COLD up here" issue someone else mentioned, I'd think solar panels etc. could be used to keep temperature constant, and an oil with a very low freezing point.

  • Dune, anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by evanbd ( 210358 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:18PM (#10977787)
    Unless I'm mistaken (it's been a while), they had oil-based optics in binoculars in Dune. Always cool when a science fiction idea sees real life :)

  • SciFi to Reality (Score:5, Informative)

    by NardofDoom ( 821951 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:18PM (#10977795)
    Frank Herbert wrote of oil lenses in Dune: Link [technovelgy.com]

    It's pretty cool that this is coming to pass, even if they're not sandwiched between force fields.

  • I wonder how these lens will function in cold or hot weather.
  • Is this a "freedom lens"?
  • I have that beat.. The solid glass lens in my Kodak digital camera uses no power at all!

  • Biomedical, but patented (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:21PM (#10977828)
    Artificial eyes and camera capable of very fast, accurate focus could be built from these. But they have patented the technology (such as it is) up the ying/yang. What this means is they are now sitting on their duffs, waiting for money to roll in. They technology could be improved and create real breakthroughs...but it's patented, so those good ideas will languish for your great great great great grandchildren. When the patent expires in 2196, the technology will be improved, patented again, and improved again in 2305 when that patent expires. Millions could have benefited from it in the interum, but alas, why improve things when you can patent and stifle?
    • No. You're thinking of copyrights [slashdot.org], which have become infinite. Patents only last 20 years [google.com]. And to complete the trilogy, trademarks last as long as the holder actively enforces them.

      Slashdot really needs to add this to the FAQ.
    • I bet they would have researched the idea for 2 years using their own money if there wasn't patent protection. Spending a few million dollars, so a competitor can reverse engineer it. BTW patents only last 15 years.
    • "Artificial eyes and camera capable of very fast, accurate focus could be built from these. But they have patented the technology (such as it is) up the ying/yang. What this means is they are now sitting on their duffs, waiting for money to roll in. They technology could be improved and create real breakthroughs...but it's patented, so those good ideas will languish for your great great great great grandchildren."

      What are you talking about. If someone could make it work as an artificial lens for an eye
    • um... so why dont they just license them, and not have to worry about the cost of R&D for a lense for an artificial eye. Also, i belive that the patent expires in 20 years not 192, correct me if i am wrong. These guys put time and money into developing this technology, why should they not reap the rewards? what would happen if they were not allowed to have exclusive rights over thier invention for a set amount of time? Maybe then they could try selling thier idea, and in doing so, whoever they attemted

  • What about prosthetic uses? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by beef curtains ( 792692 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:22PM (#10977830)
    From my (very, very shallow) understanding of the technology, it sounds like it could do pretty well (in theory, at least) in "prosthetic-eye/lens-type" uses...at least for people with lens-dengenerative issues.
  • From the article: "It also has the potential to be made very small. Paillard says that at the moment, the limit is a couple of millimetres, but that the company is researching ways of shrinking the lens further."

    Would it then be possible to have a Camera phone that didn't look like a camera phone?

    And wouldn't that throw in a whole new set of risk favors for buisness?
  • When I first started reading the /. article, I thought that this was somehow going to have the benifit that you could defocus the lens using some strange jamming technology so that they could not be used in sensitive places (like locker rooms). But I guess not.

  • Prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dtmos ( 447842 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:24PM (#10977858)
    I wonder how Philips [slashdot.org] feels about it.
    • I remember thinking that this sounded quite familiar (apart from Dune of course), and of course this was the story I was thinking about. Oddly The current article seems to think they have the corner on the market, what with the patents and all.
  • Remember the news item about the biodegradable phones?

    Water, fuel ane seeds. Drop this one too often and you may end up with daisies poking in your ear.

  • Refractive? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gninnor ( 792931 )
    Refractive indexes are different for different wavelengths. Wouldn't this give a rainbow effect like cheap binoculars? I also wonder about long term stability of the liquids and solid. I could see the images getting cloudy, but I guess not in the life span of a Cell phone. For a new technology, though, it looks promising.

  • Flash! Thousands of cell phones die.... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    when their owners take them out of the warm store and into the freezing winter air, except for those who purchased their phones in Southern climes.....

  • Lasers and liquid optics (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I thought they've been using liquid optics [iastate.edu] for years with lasers. Is this an application of that? Liquid for telescope mirrors [space.com] is also well known for creating a cheap mirror.

  • What about the winter? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I live in Minnesota, and during the winter, it's not uncommon to have subzero temps. Would you need to worry about the lense freezing? Even worse, becoming damaged if the small amount of liquid were frozen solid.

  • Another recent article on liquid lenses (Score:3, Informative)

    by natural rah ( 768107 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:31PM (#10977935)
    There is another recent article on this topic here [ieee.org] in the latest issue (Dec 2004) of IEEE Spectrum. From this article it looks like this technology will be commercialized within the next 2-3 years.

  • If you ever get stuck on a desert island... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...you'll be able to dress a very tiny salad after you call for a rescue.

  • Similar to atmospheric correction? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Woogiemonger ( 628172 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:33PM (#10977958)
    I wonder if the technology is similar to what observatory telescopes are using to warp mirrors for atmospheric correction. The difference offhand is the feedback mechanism that sensors provide the telescope to warp its mirror constantly, but it has to adjust very fast, and therefore I just pictured a liquid camera phone lens having a similar viscosity, controlled by similar technology. Now digital cameras with atmospheric correction built in, where you have heterogenous warping of the lens would be neat, so you can take clear pictures through fog and smoke.
  • Granted, theirs used force fields, but the characters in Dune used oil lenses [williams.edu] in their telescopic devices.

  • um. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:37PM (#10978008)
    A really small image sensor requires a really short focal lenght, which translates itself into a really small lens, which further translates itself into a very big depth of field. This means that the area behind and in front of the plane of focus that's sharp is large, and that accurate focus is very often not needed.

    Therefore, I'm not yet impressed by the claim that this lens can be focused without moving parts. First I'd need to be convinced that it needs to be focused at all, for the intended application.

  • Bell Labs talked about this almost two years ago (Score:4, Informative)

    by malakai ( 136531 ) * on Thursday December 02, 2004 @03:45PM (#10978116) Journal
    Tunable Microlens [optics.org]

    No idea if they had patents on it. If this French company got there first, these would seem to be very lucrative patents.

    As for SciFi being there first, that's hardly an argument we (Geeks) want to see used. If companies can't make money off a technique or concept because a SciFi writer wrote about it abstractly, they will not invest the money needed to create such a technology. We'd have to sit around and wait for some gigantic government initiative like the Space Shuttle to get technology we've long dreamed for. And even then.. it's rarely in a form we can benefit from.

    Remeber, its 1% inspiration/ 99% perspiration.

    It's gret these SciFi writers inspired our engineers, but the effort that goes in to producing viable products should not remain un-rewarded.

    • As for SciFi being there first, that's hardly an argument we (Geeks) want to see used.

      Heinlein claimed that the water bed couldn't be patented because he described exactly how one worked in _Stranger in a Strange Land_. So, there's at least a precedent for such a thing.

      He also said that one of the manufacuters sent him a free water bed in thanks.
    • A patent is a contract between an inventor and society. The inventor agrees to disclose all the information that would enable anyone "skilled in the art" to reproduce what he has done. Society agrees to give him a monopoly. That's why "obviousness" and "prior art" is so important: society doesn't want to interfere in the market and get something worthless in return.
      Science fiction writers can't in general get patents on their ideas because they don't tell a suitably trained engineer how to create oil-lens b
  • I wonder if this Paillard is any relation to the Paillard in Paillard-Bolex. For those who aren't as old as me, Paillard used to make the tiny short focus lenses used in 8mm and 16mm cine cameras. Even I can barely remember these, but I had three of them during the 1970s and they were real geek technology of the time.(One was "overclocked" to 100fps to do slow motion shots.) It would be nice if it is the same family and still working on this kind of technology.

  • This can be used to help people... (Score:3, Informative)

    by bbdd ( 733681 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @04:59PM (#10979286)
    I saw a similar idea a few weeks ago on a TV show (Next@CNN).

    Adaptive Eyecare's [adaptive-eyecare.com] adaptive lenses are fluid- filled and the power is changed by varying the amount of fluid in the lens.

    The lenses are built into a universal fitting pair of glasses frames, which allow the wearer to adjust the amount of fluid in each lens using a syringe-like device. This results in an individually tuned custom set of corrective vision lenses without an eye-doctor or expensive equipment for vision testing or lens grinding.

    From their website: "The starting point for the development of Adaptive Eyecare's technology was the astonishing statistic that according to the World Health Organization [who.int] there are currently around one billion people - including 10% of school children - in the world who would benefit from vision correction, but are as yet uncorrected. Most of these people live in the developing world, and the problem arises principally because the numbers of personnel trained to deliver vision correction in the conventional way are simply inadequate to meet the needs of the people. These statistics have profound implications - they mean that hundreds of millions of adults do not have the vision correction they need to be socially and economically active, and many children are educationally and socially disadvantaged."

    This is a very cool technology that could really change the lives of many disadvantaged people worldwide. I hope that whatever patents are out there do not stifle this sort of use...
  • Philips announced they were doing it in March. http://optics.org/articles/news/10/3/8/1 [optics.org] At that time they were doing it too.
  • Using this for cameras sounds cool, but I want adjustable eyeglasses. I have bifocals and a separate pair of reading glasses. I want something that either automatically focuses on what I'm looking at, or that I can easily adjust, say with a small knob on the side. (My own lenses used to do that for me, but my eyes and I were younger then.)

    Obviously we're not there yet, but I'm looking forward to it (though with some difficulty).
  • Whoa, I guess Frank Herbert totally called it on this one. He describes exactly such lenses in Dune. Neat !

Slashdot Top Deals

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.

Close