3 ms·

Curiously, company site [1] seems to be already pretty old (all info points to 2006, domain was registered in 2004) and it describes pretty much the same techno

by bd 16y ago

Curiously, company site [1] seems to be already pretty old (all info points to 2006, domain was registered in 2004) and it describes pretty much the same technology. So New Scientist got it wrong when telling startup was founded just now to commercialize it. I wonder why it didn't catch on (if this approach is really so good). It does sound a bit "too good to be true". [1] http://www.xceedimaging.com/ http://www.xceedimaging.com/

ggchappell 16y ago
Yes, the website has obviously been abandoned for years. It's strange that Zalevsky would even give them a link to it. It's also odd that, some 4-6 years after the founding of the company, they still have only tried their product on 12 people. I imagine this is yet another theoretical result that turned out to have serious obstacles to a useful implementation. (See also all the "cures for cancer" that are constantly being announced.) Still, assuming it isn't some kind of fraud, the idea is amazing.
NathanKP 16y ago
One possible problem with the technology is that even if it gives the wearer perfect eyesight, it seems to me that the lenses would appear frosted to others. So while you might be able to see through them just fine, they would look scratched to other people, and they wouldn't be able to see your eyes. Additionally, it may not work with just anyone's eyes. For example, I remember a study in which scientists fitted a test subject with lenses that flipped the image upside down, and their brain started adjusting the image within a few weeks. Also I know a person who wears two different contacts, one in their left eye for far sight, and another in their right eye for near sight, and she says that this allows her to see both near and far just fine. But not everyone can do this without getting a headache, eye strain, etc, and from the article it appears that part of the operation is that one's brain has to adjust to process the image. It may be that this scratched groove system isn't quite compatible with everyone. And even if one does manage to retrain their brain to the new system, what happens when you take the glasses off? In the study I mentioned earlier, after the test subject retrained their brain to see correctly while wearing lenses that turned things upside down, when they took the glasses off everything appeared upside down to them. So the glasses might have a similar effect if they rely as heavily on brain adaptation as I suspect they do.
- eru 16y ago
  Strangely, the article also claims that it works with a cell-phone camera. How does this fit with the brain adaption?
  - NathanKP 16y ago
    The article says: the interference pattern tends to cancel out some of the light passing through the lens, which reduces the contrast of images viewed through it. The example image also shows this effect. The claim is that: the brain adapts to and minimises the reduced contrast within a few seconds. My point was that this adaptation may not work for everyone or may not be comfortable. Also when the glasses are taken off do your eyes have to readjust to normal contrast?
    - eru 16y ago
      Yes. Too bad they did not have a comparison to the example image in the article.

by bd 16y ago

ggchappell 16y ago

Yes, the website has obviously been abandoned for years. It's strange that Zalevsky would even give them a link to it. It's also odd that, some 4-6 years after the founding of the company, they still have only tried their product on 12 people. I imagine this is yet another theoretical result that turned out to have serious obstacles to a useful implementation. (See also all the "cures for cancer" that are constantly being announced.) Still, assuming it isn't some kind of fraud, the idea is amazing.

NathanKP 16y ago

One possible problem with the technology is that even if it gives the wearer perfect eyesight, it seems to me that the lenses would appear frosted to others. So while you might be able to see through them just fine, they would look scratched to other people, and they wouldn't be able to see your eyes. Additionally, it may not work with just anyone's eyes. For example, I remember a study in which scientists fitted a test subject with lenses that flipped the image upside down, and their brain started adjusting the image within a few weeks. Also I know a person who wears two different contacts, one in their left eye for far sight, and another in their right eye for near sight, and she says that this allows her to see both near and far just fine. But not everyone can do this without getting a headache, eye strain, etc, and from the article it appears that part of the operation is that one's brain has to adjust to process the image. It may be that this scratched groove system isn't quite compatible with everyone. And even if one does manage to retrain their brain to the new system, what happens when you take the glasses off? In the study I mentioned earlier, after the test subject retrained their brain to see correctly while wearing lenses that turned things upside down, when they took the glasses off everything appeared upside down to them. So the glasses might have a similar effect if they rely as heavily on brain adaptation as I suspect they do.

eru 16y ago
Strangely, the article also claims that it works with a cell-phone camera. How does this fit with the brain adaption?
- NathanKP 16y ago
  The article says: the interference pattern tends to cancel out some of the light passing through the lens, which reduces the contrast of images viewed through it. The example image also shows this effect. The claim is that: the brain adapts to and minimises the reduced contrast within a few seconds. My point was that this adaptation may not work for everyone or may not be comfortable. Also when the glasses are taken off do your eyes have to readjust to normal contrast?
  - eru 16y ago
    Yes. Too bad they did not have a comparison to the example image in the article.