Programming a Wearable Android Device

CowboyRobot writes "Dr. Dobb's reviews an alternative to Google Glass and goes through the steps of coding your own Android-based Heads-Up Display. 'By tucking their 428x240 pixel WQVGA heads-up display in the lower right corner of ski goggles, Recon has effectively created an unobtrusive HUD with a decent 600 MHz ARM Cortex A8 processor running Android 2.3.3 (Eclair). Network connections can be made via a Bluetooth-paired Android smartphone.'"

Re:

[InvisibleClergy]

Did I wander onto 4chan? This is trolls, trolling trolls!

Re:

[ackthpt]

Let's not forget that Microsoft Research [microsoft.com] has done remarkable job at discovering and developing real life HUDs. For example back in 2004 Bill Gates himself assigned the goal of

I think you are confused with FUD research.

Re:

[Spy Handler]

Remember the old MS Slashdot icon? That was Bill wearing one of these!

Re:How would HUD even work?

[ackthpt]

How would HUD even work since your eyes need to focus on elements between far and close? Would you need to focus on the HUD? Does glasses work the same way? Could some nerd with glasses explain how do you focus on things?

I don't focus on the glasses lens, I focus on whatever object I'm looking at, the light reflected from which is modified by the structure of the lens.

HUD I don't know about, but can tell you, focusing on something an inch in infront of your eye is near impossible, so whatever a HUD does it must project like the image is at a distance. Probably works great for people with good eyesight already, but us aging geeks may require some adjustment as the old eyes don't want to focus up close like they once did.

Re:How would HUD even work?

[Anaerin]

Typically, the image project into the HUD is "Focused" optically at (or close to) "Infinity". Try asking the US Air Force how that works out for them (rather well, actually), as they've been using it in fighter planes for decades now.

Re:

[sgunhouse]

Presumably that would require curved lenses (parabolic) reflecting the actual image to the wearer, like they use in those "holo sights" for firearms. Not impossible obviously, but not something from a standard ski goggle either.

Obviously focusing on a nearby object would be something of an issue though.

Re:

[MrEricSir]

Seems to me you could have a lens that's always focused to match your eye. All you have to do is bounce light off the wearer's eye to measure the eye focus, then correct for it automatically.

Not saying it would be easy, but it's certainly doable.

Re:

[Anaerin]

At the moment, technology has great difficulty tracking the position of the human iris unobtrusively. Given the amount of detail that would be required to watch an eye for the minute deflections and ocular muscle movements that determine the current lens' focal length, along with the necessary personal ocular detail necessary to accurately determine the current positional-space focus point of that eye, while taking into account astigmatism, hyperopia, presbyopia and myopia, such a task is currently beyond t

Re:

[jochem_m]

Try asking the US Air Force how that works out for them (rather well, actually), as they've been using it in fighter planes for decades now.

Yes, but aren't those HUDs at about arm's length, on top of the console? Instead of less than an inch from your cornea?

Re:

[Anaerin]

Even so, optically speaking, the same rules apply. You just have to ensure you're focusing the image that much further away.

Unobtrusive Ski Goggles

[T.E.D.]

Umm...unobtrusive if you are skiing, perhaps. If you are walking around town in the middle of September, not so much.

Re:

[MindlessAutomata]

My vision is augmented.

Re:

[binarylarry]

Perhaps the googles do something?

Re:Unobtrusive Ski Goggles

[Beardo the Bearded]

No, because once everyone is wearing these, the goggles will just photoshop out the goggles everyone else is wearing.

Re:

[zbobet2012]

Being that I am a skier, this is awesome. Altitude, speed, acceleration, mountain maps, incoming calls, music controls, weather reports. Fuck yes!

Re:

[mrchaotica]

Those who do not learn from Sonny Bono are doomed to follow him (into a tree).

Re:

[ackthpt]

"..running Android 2.3.3"

4.1 is the latest, right? Thats your problem right there.

What ability of 4.1 is not present in 2.3.3 which is essential to a working HUD?

Re:

[4wdloop]

I'd guess 2.3 is much lighter on RAM/Flash/CPU/GPU?

2.3 is gingerbread

[Desler]

Eclair was Android 2.1. I can definitely see why soulskull was scared about dice imposing standards on the editors. Any other media outlet would have long since fired these flunkies.

Not a HUD

[Picass0]

A heads up display allows you to look straight ahead without adjusting your focal point or moving your eye. This doesn't look as though the image is projected onto the surface of the googles. the user must make an effort to view information, it is not overlayed with the normal field of view. It's just a mini-display tucked into the corner of diving googles.

Re:

[spire3661]

A HUD is literally a Heads Up Display, which this certainly is. Projected overlay within normal field of view is an implementation of HUD, but not its defining characteristic. In this type of application, both implementations are attached to the head rendering the inferred head position of HUD a bit moot.

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

"No effort required, it is a bit like glancing at the speedo [wikia.com] while you're driving."

So you're saying that it takes a while to get the image out of your head?

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

"It's just a mini-display tucked into the corner of diving googles."

You need to learn to ski better.

Re:

[tom17]

It is, yes.

Not sure a side display in skiing is a good idea

[SuperKendall]

Skiing is already kind of dangerous, and has lots of opportunities to run into things and people.

I'm not sure embedding a display that can distract you is necessarily a great idea...

A pure HUD overlay over the whole view that was primarily about warning you of collisions might be useful though. Especially indicators of things to the side just out of your FOV, or terrain radar warning you of ripples in the terrain you could not see because of flat light or snow.

Re:

[spire3661]

Driving is dangerous too, yet every car comes with a vast array of readouts and inputs.

Re:

[SuperKendall]

Driving is dangerous too, yet every car comes with a vast array of readouts and inputs.

Not as dangerous: the view ahead of you is clear, the other displays are out of the way and (most importantly) not impeding peripheral vision.

I would also argue that most people skiing have much less control ability than they do in a car to react to sudden peril. Hitting brakes or steering is very easy; braking/turning sharply on uneven terrain is difficult on skis or a snowboard.

Re:

[chrismcb]

I'm not sure embedding a display that can distract you is necessarily a great idea...

It is just as distracting as the edge of your goggle frame, your hand as it moves into view, the hot skier chick who skied by.
How distracting is your speedometer when you are driving? That is about how distracting the Recon device is

Humble name suggestion

[ThatsNotPudding]

Opti-Grab

Re:

[jdbuz]

Branded for Oakley: Oakley Omni-vision (Omnies for short); Apple? Apple Eyes (may end up patenting vision). Ray-Ban? Ray-Scans. Serengeti? CanzaSeeyas. Ok, your game is is harder than I thought...

2.3.3 = Gingerbread

[jackaroe]

The article and summary both get this wrong. Also, most people would not consider ski goggles unobtrusive.

Usable on a motorcycle?

[Traksius Egas]

I'm a bike rider (Motor, not foot powered) and I can think of many uses this would be handy for when on a cruise around the country side. The standard email/speed/weather apps would be handy. But how about adding a rear, wide-angle camera view that I could glimpse at without turning my head around. That would be pretty useful.