<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
In a message dated 9/7/07 3:26:22 PM, tonyh@tekgear.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE="CITE"></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> ></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> 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".</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> 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?</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR="#004000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#008040" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> Tony - the adjective "suck-o" was said of QVGA, on day one. <BR>
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. <BR>
Now Microvision has increased the horizontal resolution by 80% -- for only ten times the price -- and it is quite good for graphic images.<BR>
<BR>
QVGA was good for getting first-time people excited about the </FONT><FONT COLOR="#008040" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><I>potential</I></FONT><FONT COLOR="#008040" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> for HMDs, back when. And is still good for simple alphanumerics at work and toys at home.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
As soon as I get these projects off my plate, I'll be back with the Final Solution™.....<BR>
A fully integrated wearable office.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE="CITE"></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">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.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> > </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">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. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> ></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> That's why a million night vision goggles have 40° FOV.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> ></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> > </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">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°.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> ></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> ></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">So there is no (zero, nada) value in ever putting better than a 600x800 display in a 40° FOV HMD.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> ></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> ></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">For anything less than SVGA -- either scale down the FOV to tunnel vision, or learn to love jaggies.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> 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. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">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.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> -Tony</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#008040" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"> Yeah; one has to assume that the designer will make the optics low aberration and distortion free. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#008040" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR="#008040" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE="CITE"></FONT><FONT COLOR="#008040" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">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.<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR="#008040" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">Oliver </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"></FONT><BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's new at http://www.aol.com</HTML>