[Wear-Hard] Perhaps a cheaper HMD

[Charles Bolton]

What ever happened to the idea of using low level energy lasers to scan the
image directly on the optic nerve.  This would eliminate the problems of
real estate, Borg like eye glasses and all the other fashion NoNo’s that
keep HMDs from becoming consumer “must haves” instead of geek toys.l 

 

  _____  

From: Imagesys33 at aol.com [mailto:Imagesys33 at aol.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 4:02 PM
To: tonyh at tekgear.com; wear-hard at haven.org
Subject: Re: [Wear-Hard] Perhaps a cheaper HMD

 


In a message dated 9/7/07 3:26:22 PM, tonyh at tekgear.com writes:





 > Certainly QVGA, on which a simple clock face looks ragged, can only be
useful as a speedometer or heart rate monitor. As a video display it is
rated "suck". 
 
Oliver, being one of the Grandfathers of HMDs, you should remember a time
where QVGA was considered high res.  You were still making good products
with what would be considered "low res" today. What's changed other than the
availability of better, higher resolution displays?



         Tony - the adjective "suck-o" was said of QVGA, on day one.  
Private Eye (720X280) looked comparatively good, though only in red.  Looked
especially attractive at 2.25 oz and $795. It was a beautiful 25-line
alphanumeric display, but as a graphic display it...sucked. 
Now Microvision has increased the horizontal resolution by 80% -- for only
ten times the price -- and it is quite good for graphic images.

QVGA was good for getting first-time people excited about the potential for
HMDs, back when.  And is still good for simple alphanumerics at work and
toys at home.

I made VGA HMDs and they had to be squeezed in FOV to avoid the jaggies.
SVGA let me deliver 40° FOV where individual pixels could only be seen if
you really squinted.

As soon as I get these projects off my plate, I'll be back with the Final
Solution™.....
A fully integrated wearable office.




> SVGA gives a good enough image and will likely be the one that Makes It
Big... if ever people integrate enough useful functions to make a HMD worth
wearing in the mass market. 
> Say 40° diagonal FOV:  any less feels like tunnel vision;  any more just
can't be eye-scanned without muscle strain... and the optics becomes
cost-impractical.  
> That's why a million night vision goggles have 40° FOV. 
>
> Say the eye's resolution  limit at these modest light levels is about half
of the ultimate eye resolution... oh, about  2.4 arcsec.  = 1/1000 of 40°. 
>
>So there is no (zero, nada) value in ever putting better than a 600x800
display in a 40° FOV HMD. 
>
>For anything less than SVGA -- either scale down the FOV to tunnel vision,
or learn to love jaggies. 
 
You have it right - consumer acceptability is going to be about the optics
and not the resolution of the panel - we've reached the apex of panel
resolution.   New and innovative optics will give the industrial designers
something to work with to design an appealing product.  The panel really has
not much to do with the consumer acceptance of a product.  No panel can
compensate for bad optics - yet.
 
-Tony
 Yeah;  one has to assume that the designer will make  the optics low
aberration and distortion free. 





I still don't know how to make them less ugly than Jordi glasses.  40° FOV
on a 1/2" square display is an unavoidable 21 mm back focal length.
Something remains to be invented.

Oliver 



**************************************
See what's new at http://www.aol.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haven.org/pipermail/wear-hard/attachments/20070908/658765d9/attachment.html