It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Researchers put circuits on contact lenses

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
simply amazing...

futurismic.com...



There are many possible uses for virtual displays. Drivers or pilots could see a vehicle’s speed projected onto the windshield. Video-game companies could use the contact lenses to completely immerse players in a virtual world without restricting their range of motion. And for communications, people on the go could surf the Internet on a midair virtual display screen that only they would be able to see.


This is some awesome technology. Imagine seeing a digital display, predator style, pointing out everything in your sight for you. It seems that the fantasy-inspired sci-fi inventions of the past are all becoming a reality, much sooner than expected.

I would get a pair of these if I could afford them, seems like an awesome step forward.




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
This is some awesome technology. Imagine seeing a digital display, predator style, pointing out everything in your sight for you. It seems that the fantasy-inspired sci-fi inventions of the past are all becoming a reality, much sooner than expected


It's not new. It's called "augmented reality" and is related to HUD in avionics. Having it in contacts has its coolness factor, but even glasses would to.

By the way, the idea is not to "point out everything"... Just the important stuff that you choose.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
yup, very familiar with the concept - I worked on HUD systems for avionics actually, and for a "wearable computer" that had these huge glasses. I just find this very interesting that they shrunk it down to a contact lens, and that it's actually working!

Seems like they are beyond the prototype stage. It wouldn't be much harder to integrate other HUD-related technology, like scanning the iris to see where the person is actually looking. They do that with pilots now, to lock onto targets depending on where their are looking. Cool stuff!



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Well, I'm not sure where your coolness frequency lies but I think its frightening. Its a fact some new born babies get microchipped already from whom the parents agreed. In the end its all about control. As the world population is booming the government is hastly looking for ways to stay in control. This is one way and the futuristic contact lenses are another. Sure, its cool to see 'predator style' and have a HD movie played in your eyeballs without the need of any other equipment. But be aware that these lenses could also be used to show you (or cloak) things to hide reality.

By the way, here's a link to the official online release of these freaky lenses!



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   
control? I disagree. It CAN be used for that, but the possibilities for technology like this don't all have to be bad. It's not like this is a surgical implant - it's just a contact lens/



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Yep, just what I want, radio waves transmitting right on my eyeballs. Seriously, then folks wonder why cancer is on the upswing with younger people.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Exacty! Just contact lenses. That means people can easily buy them without having the feeling thats something has been implanted. An easy way to get to the masses.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Oh boy... Technophobia rage...

We might as well stop producing and using steel, because weapons and handcuffs are made of that. Stop growing barley, because somebody just might make whisky and that, you know, will make somebody an alcoholic. And the Hiroshima bomb was dropped from an airplane, so we should avoid air travel.

Wow. Just wow.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
heh, I agree. Why hate technology? Hate it's implementation by unethical corporations. Like, hate the player, not the game.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Dude, im totally with you. both of you. I'm f***g hypocrite myself. I buy the newest ipod on the market and complain on hot wired contact lenses. But hey, please do understand; there is a borderline between being a human and enjoying the 'free' world with all its excellent gadgets AND a world in which so called 'cool' gadgets have the tendency to have a controlling aspect. Millions of people love to watch Big Brother (the show i mean) but would cry hysterically when the gov decided to install some cams in your front yard. It's just how close you allow all these new (some great) gadgets interfere in your daily life.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I wonder how they intend to solve the problem with the focus...

Simply displaying an image on the lense is not enough. They would become a transparent blur.

That's why in VR helmets you need lenses, that make the screen appear as if it is further away from you.

But if they created these lenses in such a dioptry, to allow you to see what is displayed on their surface, the rest of the world around you would be a blur..


This really is amazing technology, but i wonder how they are gonna solve this issue.

Another thing i can't help but wonder about is the computer and power source.. I hope we are not going to have a computer in our pocket, with wires going to the eyes... That would suck...

I'm gonna go for the wireless version, that shoots microwaves at the eyes...



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by deezee
I wonder how they intend to solve the problem with the focus...

Simply displaying an image on the lense is not enough. They would become a transparent blur.


Well the optics side of things has been very well understood for a very long time - even hundreds of years for contact lenses, rudimentary were developed, but of course they were never practicable until better materials came along. (I have a rare condition that ment they kinda used my as a teaching aid for student opthamologists ~ scared me for life ~ now I just put up with less than perfect vision through glasses!
)

Any who, rather than simply displaying on the lense (in a similar way as an LCD screen) which as you say would be useless... I would guess that the image is projected from several points around the rim in such a way as the internal refraction of the separate images combines ~ in that way you should be able to fine tune the picture.. And If I understand correctly have amazing 3D.

Wonder what resolution will be available?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
I would guess that the image is projected from several points around the rim in such a way as the internal refraction of the separate images combines ~ in that way you should be able to fine tune the picture..

This would be an interesting possibility. Much harder to accomplish than simply displaying it on the surface tho..



Originally posted by Now_Then
And If I understand correctly have amazing 3D.

If you have a way of projecting visible images to the eye with a contact lense, the 3D is easy. It is simply achieved by a small difference between the image for the left eye and for the right.

Many years ago i was programing 3D visualisation software, and when LCD shutter glasses came out, i immediatelly went and bought them.

Then, by separately calculating the 2D representations of 3D objects for the left and the right eye (simply spaced apart) and using these LCD shutter glasses, i was able to make an object appear to float in front of the computer screen, or even deep beyond the screen's surface.

The brain does all the hard work. You just have to provide two 2D images taken slightly appart (the distance between eyes) and the brain then creates an illusion of a 3D object from the differences between the two images.


What would be special about such contact lenses is, that they could completely immerse you in a simulated 3D world.

VR helmets only present a screen, that appears to float several feet in front of you. With contact lenses, it could be MUCH more realistic.

[edit on 21/1/08 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 


Oh I should point out that I only ever wore one lens in my right eye - I was sorta coming from that background. So with two smart lenses it should be a simpler affair as you described.




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
Oh I should point out that I only ever wore one lens in my right eye - I was sorta coming from that background. So with two smart lenses it should be a simpler affair as you described.


With one lense, real 3D would be impossible.

The brain calculates the distance from the objects from how far appart the two images are and creates the illusion of their 3D shape from the tiny differences between them.


The amazing thing here is, that using two cameras spaced appart, you can use trigonometry to calculate the exact distance of an object in the image.

But our brain does it automatically.. We are always aware of how far away an object is. Cover one eye, and this feeling get's lost.

You can still guess how far an object is, from it's size, relation to it's surroundings and your experience, but the feeling itself is gone. This is most obvious, if you close one eye while driving. Suddenly you are not sure anymore, how far away the next car is.



EDIT to add: We are so used to seeing everything in 3D, that we are not even aware of how important this is. But once you see a simulated 3D world with a VR helmet or at least LCD shutter glasses, the effect becomes profoundly obvious.

[edit on 21/1/08 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
After the focus issues are solved, there is still the problem of getting the image to cover the iris of the eye at exactly 100% at all times. The iris is constantly expanding and contracting, so you would need sensors to adapt the size of the display. Turning the entire contact lens into a mini-tv screen is useless, as you would only see the very middle bit.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Horusnow
 


Remember those are just lenses , if you think something is fishy about them , you can always take them off



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
The iris is constantly expanding and contracting, so you would need sensors to adapt the size of the display. Turning the entire contact lens into a mini-tv screen is useless, as you would only see the very middle bit.


I think a focus solution might solve this issue as well. Even when the iris expands or contracts, the eye doesn't change it's focus and the positions of objects don't move. So the images from the lenses would still be projected on the same spot inside the eye.

But how to solve the focus?


I read they used tiny LEDs in these contacts. I think i have an idea as to how this problem could be solved.. Since they are using tiny LEDs, they could simply put tiny lenses on top of them, with a fixed focal length.
When off, they would be pretty much transparent, but when on, you would see tiny pixels.

Actually, this is the most likely solution.. At first i thought a fixed focal length wouldn't allow positioning of the images in 3D, but then i remembered, this is done by the difference between the left and the right image anyway..

It's quite possible that i saw a problem, where there isn't any.. I tend to do this quite often..



The only problems now are the resolution and the power source. But even these will be overcome eventually.

The article mentions a combination of a radio frequency power source and solar panels on the lenses... I wonder where they'll put the battery..



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee
With one lense, real 3D would be impossible.

The brain calculates the distance from the objects from how far appart the two images are and creates the illusion of their 3D shape from the tiny differences between them.


Well.. By 'real 3D' I would assume you are referring to the set up that God intended (for want of a better phrase) that is to say two eyes, and a brain that is set up to perceive a world in a way that we might have a good chance at surviving.

But if one is totally blind in one eye ~ and and that person views TV (2 dimensional) do they not get a 3 dimensional representational view? You do not need stereoscopic vision for the brain to interpret things in 3 dimensions.

The brain is extremely adaptive!! I learnt riding motorcycles and wondering why exactly I knew things before I should of! I could not reflect on such things whilst in motion, so when at rest I would quickly assume precognition
on much deeper reflection I concluded my unconscious mind (of which there are many levels) was twigging subtle clues that was not worth the detail burbling up to what I term as consciousness, but non the less, when added up they were absolutely vital - my life mundanely saved - happens all the time,



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
But if one is totally blind in one eye ~ and and that person views TV (2 dimensional) do they not get a 3 dimensional representational view? You do not need stereoscopic vision for the brain to interpret things in 3 dimensions.

Well, if you view TV with two eyes you also don't get a 3D representation of what's on it. But you do get a three dimensional representation of the TV itself and the room it's in.



Originally posted by Now_Then
The brain is extremely adaptive!!

Indeed it is. And i said, that if you close one eye, you can still estimate the distance of objects through their size and their relation to their surroundings - from your experience.

And if someone looses one eye, the brain will adapt and he'll get used to it.

But he will never again see objects in three dimensions or have that specific feeling of distance.
A new feeling might eventually replace the old one but it won't be as exact.

Seeing in real 3D requires us to see two images taken slightly appart. This means two things:
- The objects are seen in a slightly different position by each eye and
- the object are seen from slightly different angle by each eye.

Look at something up close, and alternatively close one of your eyes and then the other very fast. You will notice the differences between the image.

If you compare these two images, you notice the objects are slightly appart from this distance the brain "calculates" the distance and gives you that feeling i mentioned.
And from the objects beeing seen from slightly different angles, the brain does something amazing - it gives us an impression of seeing in 3D.


Even tho we see this all the time, or rather because of that, it is very hard to explain. We just take it as self evident..

If you cover one of your eyes, the difference is not so apparent.


But if i were to put a VR helmet or LCD shutter glasses on you, and show you a normal 2D representation of 3D objects on a computer screen, then switch the stereoscopy on, you would be amazed at what you would see.

It looks completelly different.

If you ever played or at least seen a 3D shooter, you know how a 2D representation of a generated 3D scene looks like.

But with stereoscopy you suddenly see the thing in real 3D. You get that feeling you have when looking at real surroundings - the distance.
And that's not all. The objects become three dimensional.


For some strange reason, this difference is MUCH more profound there, than it is in real life. Even tho it works the same way. Probably because we're not used to it.


In my oppinion, this effect is simply amazing. I mean, we can use two cameras, take two pictures and using trigonometry, calculate the distances to objects in the image pair.

But our brain does this automatically and can even make a 3D representation of objects from two 2D pictures.

We have only recently made software, that can do the same - create a 3D model of something from two 2D images. NASA for example, is currently using two sattelites, that don't orbit Earth, but Sun in the same orbit as Earth. One of these sattelites is slightly ahead of Earth, the other is behind earth in the orbit around Sun.
From this, they can now make exact 3D models of the Sun and it's coronal mass discharges and study them better.

This takes a lot of computer power, but if you don't make a 3D model and simply show the two pictures, one to each eye, our brain would do the same thing automatically.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join