5 ms·

> The method we developed images the eye multiple times to see whether it’s actually responding to changes in brightness This is new? In 2019? Really? I find t

by ebg13 7y ago

> The method we developed images the eye multiple times to see whether it’s actually responding to changes in brightness This is new? In 2019? Really? I find that so hard to believe. > the process takes about 3 seconds WHAAAAT? WHY? > For comparison, even iris-recognition systems that require just one snapshot usually take about that much time to make an identification. I feel like Robin Williams fresh out of Jumanji yelling "WHAT YEAR IS IT?"

693471 7y ago
Make something faster, get rich :-)
modeless 7y ago
Yeah that sounds terrible. It would be much better to detect saccades and/or blinks.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  You could replicate that with an eyeball mounted on gimbals.
  - modeless 7y ago
    Sure, you could replicate anything given enough budget. It wouldn't be trivial, as saccades and blinks are among the fastest motions made by the human body.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >Sure, you could replicate anything given enough budget You just killed a person and extracted their eyes to use to open some door. I think you have the budget for something that you can make for $200 with Lego Technic...
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        If you're bad enough to kill a person with the desired eyeball, you might as well unlock the door with them before you kill, with a few threats and promises. (pretty ugly thought)
        brohee 7y ago
        Doesn't work in e.g a lock chamber, which would ensure only one person is in it (which has it's own issues, e.g. weighting is more complicated than it looks).
        coldtea 7y ago
        >with a few threats and promises There have been people tortured to death who never gave up important secrets, so that might not be an option...
  - dosshell 7y ago
    The saccades has properties that also differ per person.
nitrogen 7y ago
I was told once by some startup founders that there are iris scanning cameras that can acquire 50 irises per minute from a distance. I don't know if that is true, or what the resolution and accuracy would be, but nothing about that seems physically impossible to me.
finnthehuman 7y ago
>This is new? In 2019? Really? I find that so hard to believe. Yeah, sure, why? Who needs that level of security? Governments that can already afford to pay someone to stand by that door if it's so important?
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  But it is pretty expensive, if you have many doors to protect and also those humans sometimes turn out as unreliable .. so you need to pay people to check on them, etc. (I worked briefly in security ... well, humans are really unreliable)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
probablybroken 7y ago
A possibility would be that you might want to make multiple changes in light level at random intervals to make it harder for e.g, a video being presented to the camera that matches the input it would expect.
- Zenst 7y ago
  That would make sense, certainly what I would call a further stage of development and currently they are doing viability and a basic level of operation. So that would seem like a logical progression. Coz they could add a brainwave scanner that measures the reaction to the input of the eye, or have a higher resolution camera that measures blood flow being active in the eye. Many avenues of addressing this. But as a previous comment mentioned - generally easier to have a physical person next to the iris. After all, not like there is a shortage of humans to do jobs in the World today.
- moftz 7y ago
  The LG iris scanner that I've used in the past had a small flickering red LED between your eyes. I'm not sure if it was just something to focus on or if the light was meant to make your pupils dilate slightly. The one I used was probably nearly 10 years old. The newer scanner out there look to be a lot faster and more automatic.
tyingq 7y ago
Apparently pupils don't adjust terribly quickly: "Briefly, it was found that when light is flashed on a normal eye that is accommodated for the dark, there occurs a latent period of 0.1875 second before the pupil begins to contract. Then there follows a rapid primary contraction for 0.4365 second at the rate of 5.48 mm. per second. This is succeeded by a secondary contraction of 0.3125 second at the slower rate of 1.34 mm. per second" https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/286369 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/286369 Doesn't explain 3 seconds, but perhaps 1 second or so.
- Qwertystop 7y ago
  Well, the three times there make about a second for one light-change. So let's say it makes two light-changes, to be sure, for three images (it does say "multiple images", not "two"). That's two seconds, and then say there's another second for processing. Not too unreasonable, especially if (as it says) single-image systems also take about three seconds overall.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    That makes perfect sense to me.

by ebg13 7y ago

693471 7y ago

Make something faster, get rich :-)

modeless 7y ago

Yeah that sounds terrible. It would be much better to detect saccades and/or blinks.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
You could replicate that with an eyeball mounted on gimbals.
- modeless 7y ago
  Sure, you could replicate anything given enough budget. It wouldn't be trivial, as saccades and blinks are among the fastest motions made by the human body.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Sure, you could replicate anything given enough budget You just killed a person and extracted their eyes to use to open some door. I think you have the budget for something that you can make for $200 with Lego Technic...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      If you're bad enough to kill a person with the desired eyeball, you might as well unlock the door with them before you kill, with a few threats and promises. (pretty ugly thought)
      - brohee 7y ago
        Doesn't work in e.g a lock chamber, which would ensure only one person is in it (which has it's own issues, e.g. weighting is more complicated than it looks).
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >with a few threats and promises There have been people tortured to death who never gave up important secrets, so that might not be an option...
- dosshell 7y ago
  The saccades has properties that also differ per person.

nitrogen 7y ago

I was told once by some startup founders that there are iris scanning cameras that can acquire 50 irises per minute from a distance. I don't know if that is true, or what the resolution and accuracy would be, but nothing about that seems physically impossible to me.

finnthehuman 7y ago

>This is new? In 2019? Really? I find that so hard to believe. Yeah, sure, why? Who needs that level of security? Governments that can already afford to pay someone to stand by that door if it's so important?

hutzlibu 7y ago
But it is pretty expensive, if you have many doors to protect and also those humans sometimes turn out as unreliable .. so you need to pay people to check on them, etc. (I worked briefly in security ... well, humans are really unreliable)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

probablybroken 7y ago

A possibility would be that you might want to make multiple changes in light level at random intervals to make it harder for e.g, a video being presented to the camera that matches the input it would expect.

Zenst 7y ago
That would make sense, certainly what I would call a further stage of development and currently they are doing viability and a basic level of operation. So that would seem like a logical progression. Coz they could add a brainwave scanner that measures the reaction to the input of the eye, or have a higher resolution camera that measures blood flow being active in the eye. Many avenues of addressing this. But as a previous comment mentioned - generally easier to have a physical person next to the iris. After all, not like there is a shortage of humans to do jobs in the World today.
moftz 7y ago
The LG iris scanner that I've used in the past had a small flickering red LED between your eyes. I'm not sure if it was just something to focus on or if the light was meant to make your pupils dilate slightly. The one I used was probably nearly 10 years old. The newer scanner out there look to be a lot faster and more automatic.

tyingq 7y ago

Apparently pupils don't adjust terribly quickly: "Briefly, it was found that when light is flashed on a normal eye that is accommodated for the dark, there occurs a latent period of 0.1875 second before the pupil begins to contract. Then there follows a rapid primary contraction for 0.4365 second at the rate of 5.48 mm. per second. This is succeeded by a secondary contraction of 0.3125 second at the slower rate of 1.34 mm. per second" https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/286369 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/286369 Doesn't explain 3 seconds, but perhaps 1 second or so.

Qwertystop 7y ago
Well, the three times there make about a second for one light-change. So let's say it makes two light-changes, to be sure, for three images (it does say "multiple images", not "two"). That's two seconds, and then say there's another second for processing. Not too unreasonable, especially if (as it says) single-image systems also take about three seconds overall.
- tyingq 7y ago
  That makes perfect sense to me.