4 ms·

>Right now, their lenses can block light emitted from LCD and LED screens, but not OLED screens. I think the only solution for selectively blocking nonpolarize

>Right now, their lenses can block light emitted from LCD and LED screens, but not OLED screens. I think the only solution for selectively blocking nonpolarized light sources would be AR glasses. I don't think they'd ever be able to achieve that with simple filters as they appear to be doing now - although with advances in materials who knows.

Jyaif 8y ago
>Right now, their lenses can block light emitted from LCD and LED screens, but not OLED screens. Wired is saying "right now" as if with further development OLED screens could also be blocked. That's the typical misleading crap that makes me hate Wired.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- probably_wrong 8y ago
  It says so in their Kickstarter page, Wired is just reporting on that. Whether Wired should have pressed them more on the topic, I'm not sure.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    They don't need to press, they just need to ask someone on staff who has a basic knowledge of display technologies. Not doing even a tiny amount of fact checking is a bad look.
    - wpietri 8y ago
      There are two fact there, neither of which needs further checking. One is that the current glasses don't block OLED screens. The other is that the company owners hope to find a way to block more screens. I agree that there's reason to think that hope is unlikely to be fulfilled. Talking to someone on staff won't help, though. What you want is for the reporter to interview a few different actual experts on display technologies and optical filtering and have at least one of them say something that dismisses the hope. From the writer's perspective, I'm not sure what that would add to the article. Wired's whole shtick has been excitement about the possibilities of technology, often at a level that borders on technoutopianism. And smart experts rarely make sweeping statements about what's totally impossible; they're much more likely to say that it can't be done with this technology or that they think it will be a hard problem to solve. So it's not going to be a compelling quote, and it'll be a fair bit of work to get.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        > hope to find a way There is a clear difference between wishing for the impossible, and having plans for the future. > actual experts To explain how polarized light works? No, I absolutely do not want quotes. I want statements of basic fact. > they're much more likely to say that it can't be done with this technology How about this: Any technology for blocking OLED would be a completely different thing from what they used to make these glasses. It's not an improvement, it's a replacement. It's misleading to use terms like "right now" to talk about such a situation.
        wpietri 8y ago
        > I want statements of basic fact. Journalists inserting their own non-expert views in articles doesn't generally sound like a great idea to me. And it's something they're trained to not do. > Any technology for blocking OLED would be a completely different thing from what they used to make these glasses. Yes, that's the kind of statement that they could get from an expert. But it's not clear to me that it improves the article more than marginally, not to a level that justifies the work time and publishing delay needed to get the statement. Does it help the person who might buy these glasses? Will it be exciting to the kind of person who reads gee-whiz articles about tech? Does it enhance the enjoyment of the reader who likes the cultural and artistic aspects? No, no, and no. It also doesn't help people who already understand polarized light; to them it is, as you say, a basic fact. That kind of thing might be appropriate if this were an article about somebody trying to build a serious business whose long-term survival depended on them blocking all screens. And if this were some place like the WSJ, that was actually trying to do serious business reporting. But since this is a 700-word light piece on a cute novelty, an object meant to provoke discussion, I'm not seeing the point.
- dreamcompiler 8y ago
  Glasses with optical notch filters already exist [0]. So it's not inconceivable that glasses that block R, G, and B from at least some common LEDs could be built. [0] https://enchroma.com https://enchroma.com
  - EForEndeavour 8y ago
    I'm no optics expert, but considering the large width of the emission spectra of LEDs (https://www.comsol.com/blogs/calculating-the-emission-spectra-from-common-light-sources/ https://www.comsol.com/blogs/calculating-the-emission-spectr...) and OLEDs (https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/exploiting-the-potential-of-oledbased-photoorganic-sensors-forbiotechnological-applications-2150-3494-1000134.php?aid=77020 https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/exploiting-the-poten...), I'd say it's physically impossible to block their light to any acceptable degree of specificity.
    - lmilcin 8y ago
      I am no expert, either, but it seems you could create material that will attenuate OLED-originating light much more than other light. Ie. these glasses would not be completely transparent, they would be somewhat grey but would be much more opaque for OLED light than normal continuous spectrum. Even with polarized glasses you don't block all light, you block some and due to proximity to much more luminous sources (as seen through glasses) it appears dark.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    Optical notch filters do exist, but LEDs are not notch emitters[0]. [0]https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/149683/do-standard-white-leds-produce-a-full-spectrum-of-light https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/149683/do-st...
  - irllabs 8y ago
    hey dreamcompiler! I'm with the team behind the glasses. It sounds like you might know a thing or too about optics. We're looking for engineers and researchers that can help us solve the hard problem of blocking OLEDs for our next product. A lot of people think it’s impossible but we’re willing to give it our best shot! Any chance you’re someone that can help?
Pica_soO 8y ago
This is great for sales to religious groups, who find western media is ruining there culture. Add to that a machine learned AR-Filter, that blocks out the shapes of woman, you could sell this for a fortune in the Islamic world - while nobody's freedom would be limited.
kaffeemitsahne 8y ago
A real-life adblocker -- yes please!
- mkstowegnv 8y ago
  Kind of like how anti-sense RNA works. They could call it anti-adsense!
irllabs 8y ago
hey newman8r! I'm with the team behind the glasses. It sounds like you might know a thing or too about optics. We're looking for engineers and researchers that can help us solve the hard problem of blocking OLEDs for our next product. A lot of people think it’s impossible but we’re willing to give it our best shot! Any chance you’re someone that can help?
- newman8r 8y ago
  I think AR glasses, or an app for existing/future AR glasses is an easy solution, but maybe not stylish enough yet. I'm not an optical engineer though, just a dev who happens to knows a little bit about physics (like, hobbyist level). Congrats on your kickstarter by the way - you guys know your market.

Jyaif 8y ago

>Right now, their lenses can block light emitted from LCD and LED screens, but not OLED screens. Wired is saying "right now" as if with further development OLED screens could also be blocked. That's the typical misleading crap that makes me hate Wired.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
probably_wrong 8y ago
It says so in their Kickstarter page, Wired is just reporting on that. Whether Wired should have pressed them more on the topic, I'm not sure.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  They don't need to press, they just need to ask someone on staff who has a basic knowledge of display technologies. Not doing even a tiny amount of fact checking is a bad look.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    There are two fact there, neither of which needs further checking. One is that the current glasses don't block OLED screens. The other is that the company owners hope to find a way to block more screens. I agree that there's reason to think that hope is unlikely to be fulfilled. Talking to someone on staff won't help, though. What you want is for the reporter to interview a few different actual experts on display technologies and optical filtering and have at least one of them say something that dismisses the hope. From the writer's perspective, I'm not sure what that would add to the article. Wired's whole shtick has been excitement about the possibilities of technology, often at a level that borders on technoutopianism. And smart experts rarely make sweeping statements about what's totally impossible; they're much more likely to say that it can't be done with this technology or that they think it will be a hard problem to solve. So it's not going to be a compelling quote, and it'll be a fair bit of work to get.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      > hope to find a way There is a clear difference between wishing for the impossible, and having plans for the future. > actual experts To explain how polarized light works? No, I absolutely do not want quotes. I want statements of basic fact. > they're much more likely to say that it can't be done with this technology How about this: Any technology for blocking OLED would be a completely different thing from what they used to make these glasses. It's not an improvement, it's a replacement. It's misleading to use terms like "right now" to talk about such a situation.
      - wpietri 8y ago
        > I want statements of basic fact. Journalists inserting their own non-expert views in articles doesn't generally sound like a great idea to me. And it's something they're trained to not do. > Any technology for blocking OLED would be a completely different thing from what they used to make these glasses. Yes, that's the kind of statement that they could get from an expert. But it's not clear to me that it improves the article more than marginally, not to a level that justifies the work time and publishing delay needed to get the statement. Does it help the person who might buy these glasses? Will it be exciting to the kind of person who reads gee-whiz articles about tech? Does it enhance the enjoyment of the reader who likes the cultural and artistic aspects? No, no, and no. It also doesn't help people who already understand polarized light; to them it is, as you say, a basic fact. That kind of thing might be appropriate if this were an article about somebody trying to build a serious business whose long-term survival depended on them blocking all screens. And if this were some place like the WSJ, that was actually trying to do serious business reporting. But since this is a 700-word light piece on a cute novelty, an object meant to provoke discussion, I'm not seeing the point.
dreamcompiler 8y ago
Glasses with optical notch filters already exist [0]. So it's not inconceivable that glasses that block R, G, and B from at least some common LEDs could be built. [0] https://enchroma.com https://enchroma.com
- EForEndeavour 8y ago
  I'm no optics expert, but considering the large width of the emission spectra of LEDs (https://www.comsol.com/blogs/calculating-the-emission-spectra-from-common-light-sources/ https://www.comsol.com/blogs/calculating-the-emission-spectr...) and OLEDs (https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/exploiting-the-potential-of-oledbased-photoorganic-sensors-forbiotechnological-applications-2150-3494-1000134.php?aid=77020 https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/exploiting-the-poten...), I'd say it's physically impossible to block their light to any acceptable degree of specificity.
  - lmilcin 8y ago
    I am no expert, either, but it seems you could create material that will attenuate OLED-originating light much more than other light. Ie. these glasses would not be completely transparent, they would be somewhat grey but would be much more opaque for OLED light than normal continuous spectrum. Even with polarized glasses you don't block all light, you block some and due to proximity to much more luminous sources (as seen through glasses) it appears dark.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Optical notch filters do exist, but LEDs are not notch emitters[0]. [0]https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/149683/do-standard-white-leds-produce-a-full-spectrum-of-light https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/149683/do-st...
- irllabs 8y ago
  hey dreamcompiler! I'm with the team behind the glasses. It sounds like you might know a thing or too about optics. We're looking for engineers and researchers that can help us solve the hard problem of blocking OLEDs for our next product. A lot of people think it’s impossible but we’re willing to give it our best shot! Any chance you’re someone that can help?

Pica_soO 8y ago

This is great for sales to religious groups, who find western media is ruining there culture. Add to that a machine learned AR-Filter, that blocks out the shapes of woman, you could sell this for a fortune in the Islamic world - while nobody's freedom would be limited.

kaffeemitsahne 8y ago

A real-life adblocker -- yes please!

mkstowegnv 8y ago
Kind of like how anti-sense RNA works. They could call it anti-adsense!

irllabs 8y ago

hey newman8r! I'm with the team behind the glasses. It sounds like you might know a thing or too about optics. We're looking for engineers and researchers that can help us solve the hard problem of blocking OLEDs for our next product. A lot of people think it’s impossible but we’re willing to give it our best shot! Any chance you’re someone that can help?

newman8r 8y ago
I think AR glasses, or an app for existing/future AR glasses is an easy solution, but maybe not stylish enough yet. I'm not an optical engineer though, just a dev who happens to knows a little bit about physics (like, hobbyist level). Congrats on your kickstarter by the way - you guys know your market.