5 ms·

Ok, let's diligence this, so our skepticism isn't unfounded: >Invisible to people around you. Except for the not-built body-wearable computer that will eventu

by RC_ITR 4y ago

Ok, let's diligence this, so our skepticism isn't unfounded: >Invisible to people around you. Except for the not-built body-wearable computer that will eventually run the things [0] > literally captures the entirety of your retina This prototype covers <20% of your field of vision [1] >no motion sickness, higher fidelity I think you're comparing this to headsets, but I can tell you from [1] that this is not 'high-fidelity' by any means (for one, it's monochrome and each pixel is binary on or off) Another problem to think about: A sunny day is c. 30k nits. From the looks of the photo, this display is maybe 100 nits. IT will be nearly impossible to see the display outdoors. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzVAMRe3kmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzVAMRe3kmA - [1] https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/30/mojo-vision-reveals-the-worlds-smallest-and-densest-micro-display/ https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/30/mojo-vision-reveals-the-w...

Aeolun 4y ago
> IT will be nearly impossible to see the display outdoors. There’s probably something to be said for having 100 nits right on your eyeball.
- ungamedplayer 4y ago
  THE GOGGLES, THEY DO NOTHING ?!
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Why does the location matter? If its 10k on your eyeball or 10k from across the room there is the same amount of light entering your eye.
  - 0n34n7 4y ago
    Unless the one across the room is a laser, it does matter.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      Are you saying that shining a laser from across the room is safer than from right in front of your eye?
      - mh- 4y ago
        I mean, yes. Depending on the lens, the laser will disperse its energy over a larger surface area. Perhaps not materially so given the small relative difference.
    - IanCal 4y ago
      Nits aren't a measure of total light though. A 100 nits huge screen at a distance that covers 20% of my field of vision would be the same as a 100 nits tiny screen close to my eye that covers 20% of my field of vision. Or to put it another way, things don't look dimmer just because they're further away. It's less total light because it covers less of my field of vision.
      - Aeolun 4y ago
        Fair point, I imagined nits was something like Lumen. But I think it certainly matters, since nits indicate the amount of light (candles per square meter) hitting a board 1m from the source, if the board/eye is only 10mm away, the intensity in that spot is much higher. That said, the area changes much more than the distance I think, so overal brightness is probably still not equivalent to 100 nits (at 1m).
        charcircuit 4y ago
        I don't think the brightness changes with the distance. Take any screen (or any object). When you very the distance the color of it doesn't increase or decrease in intensity.
        IanCal 4y ago
        > since nits indicate the amount of light (candles per square meter) hitting a board 1m from the source, I think I can see how you've got here but that's not correct. It's about the light emitted per square meter of the source, not a measure of the light hitting a board some distance away. Moving a screen closer doesn't make it more intense, because as you move closer it covers more of your vision. Total light increased, but not more intense.
2Gkashmiri 4y ago
many many years ago i saw a nat geo "fighting documentary" where the guest (special forces something, ) had a eye tracker and a random person walk through a test course. what they showed was the "special guest" was actively looking and investigating threats, checking surroundings and assessing everything. the random person was just "walking" without actually "looking" or "concentrating" on anything, . "guest" was doing "this is a car, ok, next, this looks like a guy, wait what is in his hand,... is that an alleyway? no light, could someone be hiding in the shadow" the random person's vision was like "lalalalaala.... end of test, what did i miss?" That was a quite a big thing for me. i always "look" at things now, when i am walking, driving, something. it definitely gets tiring after a while because of the sensory overload. Now, i cannot imagine what AR would do to that vision, would it be helpful, less helpful? i am not sure but it will be something to consider.
- bornfreddy 4y ago
  That sounds interesting, do you happen to know how one could find this documentary?
  - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
    i'm not really sure. years ago natgeo used to do shows like that one time where two guys go and train various martial arts around the world, this must've been something similar in that line. i don't remember edit: looks like "fight science" or "human weapon"
    - bornfreddy 4y ago
      Thank you, will check it out!
ricardobeat 4y ago
OLEDs are hitting 1000 nits, and from your own link: > MicroLEDs use 10% of the power of current LCD displays, and they have five to 10 times higher brightness than OLEDs
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  I don't disagree that those are the words, but the fact that the sample images are in a dim room is a huge red flag for me in terms of believing them. Also don't forget that a lot of the crazy increases in brightness recently is just us learning you can run a ton of wattage through LEDs if you figure out heat dissipation. The 1 hour (non-rechargeable) battery life on these things likely means they are running very little power through the display (plus who wants anything even slightly warm on their eye?)

by RC_ITR 4y ago

Aeolun 4y ago

> IT will be nearly impossible to see the display outdoors. There’s probably something to be said for having 100 nits right on your eyeball.

ungamedplayer 4y ago
THE GOGGLES, THEY DO NOTHING ?!
charcircuit 4y ago
Why does the location matter? If its 10k on your eyeball or 10k from across the room there is the same amount of light entering your eye.
- 0n34n7 4y ago
  Unless the one across the room is a laser, it does matter.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Are you saying that shining a laser from across the room is safer than from right in front of your eye?
    - mh- 4y ago
      I mean, yes. Depending on the lens, the laser will disperse its energy over a larger surface area. Perhaps not materially so given the small relative difference.
  - IanCal 4y ago
    Nits aren't a measure of total light though. A 100 nits huge screen at a distance that covers 20% of my field of vision would be the same as a 100 nits tiny screen close to my eye that covers 20% of my field of vision. Or to put it another way, things don't look dimmer just because they're further away. It's less total light because it covers less of my field of vision.
    - Aeolun 4y ago
      Fair point, I imagined nits was something like Lumen. But I think it certainly matters, since nits indicate the amount of light (candles per square meter) hitting a board 1m from the source, if the board/eye is only 10mm away, the intensity in that spot is much higher. That said, the area changes much more than the distance I think, so overal brightness is probably still not equivalent to 100 nits (at 1m).
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        I don't think the brightness changes with the distance. Take any screen (or any object). When you very the distance the color of it doesn't increase or decrease in intensity.
      - IanCal 4y ago
        > since nits indicate the amount of light (candles per square meter) hitting a board 1m from the source, I think I can see how you've got here but that's not correct. It's about the light emitted per square meter of the source, not a measure of the light hitting a board some distance away. Moving a screen closer doesn't make it more intense, because as you move closer it covers more of your vision. Total light increased, but not more intense.

2Gkashmiri 4y ago

many many years ago i saw a nat geo "fighting documentary" where the guest (special forces something, ) had a eye tracker and a random person walk through a test course. what they showed was the "special guest" was actively looking and investigating threats, checking surroundings and assessing everything. the random person was just "walking" without actually "looking" or "concentrating" on anything, . "guest" was doing "this is a car, ok, next, this looks like a guy, wait what is in his hand,... is that an alleyway? no light, could someone be hiding in the shadow" the random person's vision was like "lalalalaala.... end of test, what did i miss?" That was a quite a big thing for me. i always "look" at things now, when i am walking, driving, something. it definitely gets tiring after a while because of the sensory overload. Now, i cannot imagine what AR would do to that vision, would it be helpful, less helpful? i am not sure but it will be something to consider.

bornfreddy 4y ago
That sounds interesting, do you happen to know how one could find this documentary?
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  i'm not really sure. years ago natgeo used to do shows like that one time where two guys go and train various martial arts around the world, this must've been something similar in that line. i don't remember edit: looks like "fight science" or "human weapon"
  - bornfreddy 4y ago
    Thank you, will check it out!

ricardobeat 4y ago

OLEDs are hitting 1000 nits, and from your own link: > MicroLEDs use 10% of the power of current LCD displays, and they have five to 10 times higher brightness than OLEDs

RC_ITR 4y ago
I don't disagree that those are the words, but the fact that the sample images are in a dim room is a huge red flag for me in terms of believing them. Also don't forget that a lot of the crazy increases in brightness recently is just us learning you can run a ton of wattage through LEDs if you figure out heat dissipation. The 1 hour (non-rechargeable) battery life on these things likely means they are running very little power through the display (plus who wants anything even slightly warm on their eye?)