7 ms·

Tunable eyeglass lenses to replace bifocals

45 points by candiodari 10y ago

jaclaz 10y ago
Just in case: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-smart-glasses-automatically-focus-wearer.html https://phys.org/news/2017-01-smart-glasses-automatically-fo...
- kapauldo 10y ago
  Thank you, better than the stupid paywall.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Original: http://www.ece.utah.edu/2017/01/26/i-can-see-clearly-now/ http://www.ece.utah.edu/2017/01/26/i-can-see-clearly-now/ Phys.org often just republishes university press releases.
  - jaclaz 10y ago
    Yep, good catch, though the "I CAN SEE CLEARLY NOW" title seems clickbait (even if it is the original, University one)!
tyingq 10y ago
A different approach...not automatic, but the form factor is much nicer: https://www.eyejusters.com/technology/ https://www.eyejusters.com/technology/
- saidajigumi 10y ago
  It's worth noting that this is a research prototype, and that the team is anticipating rapid progress towards a better form factor. From the utah.edu link posted by maxerickson above: Mastrangelo said a lighter, more attractive pair could hit the marketplace in as early as three years and that a startup company, Sharpeyes LLC, has been created to commercialize the glasses.
- Groxx 10y ago
  Huh. That's a super simple and affordable approach. I'm somewhat surprised that they're able to do that without problematic distortions though.
Dylan16807 10y ago
> Shift your gaze from the wall menu of your favorite fast-food joint down to the smartphone in your hand, and these glasses can make the adjustment in 14 milliseconds. That's how it should work, not how it actually works. You have to move your head to focus, same as with bifocals. It might even be harder to use to focus on a small object like a phone.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > You have to move your head to focus, same as with bifocals. In the given example, I'm going to be holding my phone within the field of the reading lenses, and looking over them at the menu. No head movement is required.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Based on Their clunky prototype—sleeker versions are in the works—is based on an infrared distance meter built into the bridge of the frames. I think head movement is required. If it used pupil tracking to determine where the wearer was looking it wouldn't required head tracking, but it sounds like the focus is set based on what is in front of the distance sensor.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      That's the point I'm making. The clever adjustable lenses require head movement. My boring old bifocals do not.
mrfusion 10y ago
Would this be useful for VR?
- epmaybe 10y ago
  How so? To "automatically" focus on different things? Maybe with some eye tracking and foveal rendering? Seems like it'd be a more immersive experience.
  - Groxx 10y ago
    Only thing I can think of is to adjust for people who can't see clearly at VR focal lengths (~1-2 meters from what I can find, which is a sweet spot for many, but not all). In that case, space around the lens exterior doesn't matter much, it could be a great fit. Eye tracking and foveal rendering: I really hope we get that, and soon. It'd look more natural, and seems like it could substantially reduce rendering costs.
    - epmaybe 10y ago
      Oculus bought the eye tribe for this purpose, I believe.
  - mrfusion 10y ago
    I guess dynamically changing the focal distance in VR. So when you are looking at something close it adjusts so that the focal length of the eye is close. Right now VR has a fixed infinity focal length which feels a little strange for things close by.
bagrow 10y ago
Tunable glasses are great for developing countries as well, where eye doctors are scarce, even when the focus is not automatic [1]. These glasses still require perfectly circular lenses, right? That's a bigger hindrance than slimming down the clunky prototype. [1] https://www.wired.com/2010/07/fluid-filled-adjustable-eye-glasses/ https://www.wired.com/2010/07/fluid-filled-adjustable-eye-gl...
lutusp 10y ago
No matter what glasses I wear, I still can't get past the WSJ paywall. It would be a public service for people to stop submitting links to this site.
- ihuman 10y ago
  What's wrong with a paywall? Websites don't have to give you their content for free.
  - Groxx 10y ago
    The other half of that though: should this site allow links that require payment to view?
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Yes. It's super easy to ignore an article/discussion, even without the "hide" button that completely disappears it from the front page.
      - derekp7 10y ago
        Problem is, the topic itself may be worthy of discussion -- but then you limit the people involved in the discussion (who have read the article) only to those who have a subscription to that given site. What would be more useful is, where possible, post a non-paywall link, to maximize the number of potential participants in the discussion. An alternative in cases where the paywall link is the primary source, is to post a summary in a comment. But then you risk having the editorial slant of the summary be tilted towards whoever wrote up the summary.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        I think it's maybe a little optimistic to assume that only people that read an article will brave a comment. And even so, is it that big a problem if subscribers to some publication are the ones that can make an interesting comment about an article? Where's the downside to hosting that discussion?
Groxx 10y ago
Beyond a built-in motor, rangefinder, and extremely minor circuitry, are these actually different from a 2008 version? http://cvdw.org/ http://cvdw.org/ Seems like you could use off-the-shelf stuff and still fit it into that enormous frame. edit: ah, maybe this? (from: http://www.ece.utah.edu/2017/01/26/i-can-see-clearly-now/ http://www.ece.utah.edu/2017/01/26/i-can-see-clearly-now/ , thanks! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13572830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13572830) >Hasan says the lenses can change focus from one object to another in 14 milliseconds Pretty speedy, especially if that's the total time to focus and settle. Might miniaturize enough to be a normal-ish set of glasses, given time.
- dorfsmay 10y ago
  So these are autofocus for you eyes (there's not much meat in the article)?
  - Groxx 10y ago
    Basically. There's a rangefinder in the frame, whatever you point your head at shifts the lens focus for your prescription, which means it can handle bi/tri/infinite-focal with no problem. A more 'real' example would probably use eye tracking, but the demo is much more about the lens adjustment than auto-tracking (seems tacked on to make it more interesting / a more complete demo).
DonHopkins 10y ago
I think they look quite stylish, in a nerdy sort of way! Some day young hipsters with good eyesight will be wearing huge klunky glasses like that but without any lenses, just to look cool. They could even include big batteries and a USB phone charger!
ScottBurson 10y ago
Presbyopia is certainly a major drag, and it would be great to have a fix for it. The ultimate fix would be to replace the lens in the eye with one that can focus. There are people working on that (e.g. [0]). [0] http://ocumetics.com/ http://ocumetics.com/
- bitwize 10y ago
  Thhis is already possible, but it's a fairly expensive and delicate procedure, so doctors only do it when you have a severely debilitating condition of the lens, e.g., cataracts. Still, old folks who undergo lens-replacement cataract surgery often end up with fantastically restored vision -- beyond even what the lack of cataracts would give them.
pavement 10y ago
...which they can do thanks to a smartphone app. I'd like my glasses to not require a bloody app, please.
janwillemb 10y ago
I increasingly find these articles not worth the time, because the promise is never fulfilled. Therefore I prefer the original title: Could This Pair of Eyeglasses Mean the End of Bifocals?, which contains one of the words could, might, may. My automatic internal parser will read this as This Pair of Eyeglasses Will Most Likely Not Mean the End of Bifocals.
dorfsmay 10y ago
I had to watch the video twice, here's the important piece of text: "the curvature of each lens changes," "responding to input from an infrared distance meter build into the bridge of the frames" So the glasses have to know your personal prescription. I know very little about optic, but one thing I've been wondering for a long time is why can't there be a camera pointed to your eyes that adjust the lens until the image on your eye is in focus?
- Hello71 10y ago
  that already exists, it's the machine at the optometrist with the picture in it, usually of a farm or road for some reason. I imagine that technology is too bulky and too expensive as is to put in reasonable glasses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor
- psi-squared 10y ago
  I had an eye test recently (in the UK, if it's relevant), and they had a device which seemed to do that. You sit down, look into the device and see a blurry image, which sort of "snaps" into focus as it works out the shape of your eyes. That device was a fairly big thing linked to a desktop, though - no idea if it could be miniaturised or not. In addition, they followed it up with more "traditional" tests, which in my case disagreed with the results from that device. So maybe it's not quite there yet?

45 points by candiodari 10y ago

Just in case: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-smart-glasses-automatically-focus-wearer.html https://phys.org/news/2017-01-smart-glasses-automatically-fo...

kapauldo 10y ago
Thank you, better than the stupid paywall.
maxerickson 10y ago
Original: http://www.ece.utah.edu/2017/01/26/i-can-see-clearly-now/ http://www.ece.utah.edu/2017/01/26/i-can-see-clearly-now/ Phys.org often just republishes university press releases.
- jaclaz 10y ago
  Yep, good catch, though the "I CAN SEE CLEARLY NOW" title seems clickbait (even if it is the original, University one)!

tyingq 10y ago

A different approach...not automatic, but the form factor is much nicer: https://www.eyejusters.com/technology/ https://www.eyejusters.com/technology/

saidajigumi 10y ago
It's worth noting that this is a research prototype, and that the team is anticipating rapid progress towards a better form factor. From the utah.edu link posted by maxerickson above: Mastrangelo said a lighter, more attractive pair could hit the marketplace in as early as three years and that a startup company, Sharpeyes LLC, has been created to commercialize the glasses.
Groxx 10y ago
Huh. That's a super simple and affordable approach. I'm somewhat surprised that they're able to do that without problematic distortions though.

Dylan16807 10y ago

> Shift your gaze from the wall menu of your favorite fast-food joint down to the smartphone in your hand, and these glasses can make the adjustment in 14 milliseconds. That's how it should work, not how it actually works. You have to move your head to focus, same as with bifocals. It might even be harder to use to focus on a small object like a phone.

throwanem 10y ago
> You have to move your head to focus, same as with bifocals. In the given example, I'm going to be holding my phone within the field of the reading lenses, and looking over them at the menu. No head movement is required.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Based on Their clunky prototype—sleeker versions are in the works—is based on an infrared distance meter built into the bridge of the frames. I think head movement is required. If it used pupil tracking to determine where the wearer was looking it wouldn't required head tracking, but it sounds like the focus is set based on what is in front of the distance sensor.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    That's the point I'm making. The clever adjustable lenses require head movement. My boring old bifocals do not.

mrfusion 10y ago

Would this be useful for VR?

epmaybe 10y ago
How so? To "automatically" focus on different things? Maybe with some eye tracking and foveal rendering? Seems like it'd be a more immersive experience.
- Groxx 10y ago
  Only thing I can think of is to adjust for people who can't see clearly at VR focal lengths (~1-2 meters from what I can find, which is a sweet spot for many, but not all). In that case, space around the lens exterior doesn't matter much, it could be a great fit. Eye tracking and foveal rendering: I really hope we get that, and soon. It'd look more natural, and seems like it could substantially reduce rendering costs.
  - epmaybe 10y ago
    Oculus bought the eye tribe for this purpose, I believe.
- mrfusion 10y ago
  I guess dynamically changing the focal distance in VR. So when you are looking at something close it adjusts so that the focal length of the eye is close. Right now VR has a fixed infinity focal length which feels a little strange for things close by.

bagrow 10y ago

Tunable glasses are great for developing countries as well, where eye doctors are scarce, even when the focus is not automatic [1]. These glasses still require perfectly circular lenses, right? That's a bigger hindrance than slimming down the clunky prototype. [1] https://www.wired.com/2010/07/fluid-filled-adjustable-eye-glasses/ https://www.wired.com/2010/07/fluid-filled-adjustable-eye-gl...

lutusp 10y ago

No matter what glasses I wear, I still can't get past the WSJ paywall. It would be a public service for people to stop submitting links to this site.

ihuman 10y ago
What's wrong with a paywall? Websites don't have to give you their content for free.
- Groxx 10y ago
  The other half of that though: should this site allow links that require payment to view?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Yes. It's super easy to ignore an article/discussion, even without the "hide" button that completely disappears it from the front page.
    - derekp7 10y ago
      Problem is, the topic itself may be worthy of discussion -- but then you limit the people involved in the discussion (who have read the article) only to those who have a subscription to that given site. What would be more useful is, where possible, post a non-paywall link, to maximize the number of potential participants in the discussion. An alternative in cases where the paywall link is the primary source, is to post a summary in a comment. But then you risk having the editorial slant of the summary be tilted towards whoever wrote up the summary.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        I think it's maybe a little optimistic to assume that only people that read an article will brave a comment. And even so, is it that big a problem if subscribers to some publication are the ones that can make an interesting comment about an article? Where's the downside to hosting that discussion?

Groxx 10y ago

Beyond a built-in motor, rangefinder, and extremely minor circuitry, are these actually different from a 2008 version? http://cvdw.org/ http://cvdw.org/ Seems like you could use off-the-shelf stuff and still fit it into that enormous frame. edit: ah, maybe this? (from: http://www.ece.utah.edu/2017/01/26/i-can-see-clearly-now/ http://www.ece.utah.edu/2017/01/26/i-can-see-clearly-now/ , thanks! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13572830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13572830) >Hasan says the lenses can change focus from one object to another in 14 milliseconds Pretty speedy, especially if that's the total time to focus and settle. Might miniaturize enough to be a normal-ish set of glasses, given time.

dorfsmay 10y ago
So these are autofocus for you eyes (there's not much meat in the article)?
- Groxx 10y ago
  Basically. There's a rangefinder in the frame, whatever you point your head at shifts the lens focus for your prescription, which means it can handle bi/tri/infinite-focal with no problem. A more 'real' example would probably use eye tracking, but the demo is much more about the lens adjustment than auto-tracking (seems tacked on to make it more interesting / a more complete demo).

DonHopkins 10y ago

I think they look quite stylish, in a nerdy sort of way! Some day young hipsters with good eyesight will be wearing huge klunky glasses like that but without any lenses, just to look cool. They could even include big batteries and a USB phone charger!

ScottBurson 10y ago

Presbyopia is certainly a major drag, and it would be great to have a fix for it. The ultimate fix would be to replace the lens in the eye with one that can focus. There are people working on that (e.g. [0]). [0] http://ocumetics.com/ http://ocumetics.com/

bitwize 10y ago
Thhis is already possible, but it's a fairly expensive and delicate procedure, so doctors only do it when you have a severely debilitating condition of the lens, e.g., cataracts. Still, old folks who undergo lens-replacement cataract surgery often end up with fantastically restored vision -- beyond even what the lack of cataracts would give them.

pavement 10y ago

...which they can do thanks to a smartphone app. I'd like my glasses to not require a bloody app, please.

janwillemb 10y ago

I increasingly find these articles not worth the time, because the promise is never fulfilled. Therefore I prefer the original title: Could This Pair of Eyeglasses Mean the End of Bifocals?, which contains one of the words could, might, may. My automatic internal parser will read this as This Pair of Eyeglasses Will Most Likely Not Mean the End of Bifocals.

dorfsmay 10y ago

I had to watch the video twice, here's the important piece of text: "the curvature of each lens changes," "responding to input from an infrared distance meter build into the bridge of the frames" So the glasses have to know your personal prescription. I know very little about optic, but one thing I've been wondering for a long time is why can't there be a camera pointed to your eyes that adjust the lens until the image on your eye is in focus?

Hello71 10y ago
that already exists, it's the machine at the optometrist with the picture in it, usually of a farm or road for some reason. I imagine that technology is too bulky and too expensive as is to put in reasonable glasses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor
psi-squared 10y ago
I had an eye test recently (in the UK, if it's relevant), and they had a device which seemed to do that. You sit down, look into the device and see a blurry image, which sort of "snaps" into focus as it works out the shape of your eyes. That device was a fairly big thing linked to a desktop, though - no idea if it could be miniaturised or not. In addition, they followed it up with more "traditional" tests, which in my case disagreed with the results from that device. So maybe it's not quite there yet?