16 ms·

Lenovo’s Glasses T1 let you bring a private big screen display with you

208 points by taubek 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
andsoitis 4y ago
How do these “monitors-on-your-face” impact eye health?
- chrischen 4y ago
  Can't possibly make the eyes in China any worse. But in all seriousness, if they cause you to be cross eyed like regular VR glasses, then it has the same negative impact on development of eyesight as normal VR/3D has.
  - sp332 4y ago
    Crossing your eyes to look at something is normal. What's weird is that it's all at one focus depth, so your individual eyes don't need to refocus on things that should be at different distances, even though you're still getting the depth signal from crossing your eyes.
  - numpad0 4y ago
    "VR gets you cross eyes and impacts development" has never been substantiated, so far only the opposites were reported online. That means there are unknown side effects, but don't seem like there are serious harms.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  The same as VR, which is to say... none at all? Obviously the lenses make it seem like the virtual image is several feet away, so in terms of focusing it's no different from an actual object several feet away. If anything, it's probably healthier than a computer monitor that sits up closer. Plus, these glasses would actually be better than a VR headset in that the lenses can be designed so that the focal distance matches the virtual screen distance perfectly. (In VR, there's a mismatch for most distances.) The only thing you might have to worry about is interpupillary distance (IPD) -- the space between the OLED displays needs to be adjustable to the space between your eyes. E.g. the Oculus Quest 2 has 3 settings for this, while the Quest 1 had a smooth adjustment. Adjustable IPD is essential, so I'd assume this either has it or they'll sell different versions for different IPD's?
  - jrootabega 4y ago
    I'd bet they're going to be overall better for your health. You'll be able to have a focal distance farther than a screen, without having to look up or down (causing eye and neck strain), while also choosing the healthiest posture for yourself.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    > The same as VR, which is to say... none at all? VAC is not yet solved for VR, and while it can be mitigated it's still significant cause of eye strain.
- hbarka 4y ago
  Light brightness and spectrum are associated with retinal damage. Blue light from LED overexposure can certainly do harm and can also affect your sleep cycle and hormone balance. I would not bake my eyes with these things anytime soon.
  - unsupp0rted 4y ago
    Citation needed. The first wave of reports I saw suggested this, the second wave suggested the reverse (no damage, no hit to sleep duration or quality). What's the current consensus, if any?
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    All of this is totally untrue for a device like this. The brightness is orders of magnitude less than daylight, there's zero retinal damage happening. They're not outputting UV so zero spectrum issues as well. There's also no "blue light overexposure", it's balanced. Yes, cool color temperatures late at night can keep you up. Which is why 'night mode' exists, even the Oculus Quest 2 has it -- it's trivial to solve using software alone. But that's no different from staying up playing exciting video games or watching too much TV because of the cliffhanger at the end of each episode. But nothing is "baking your eyes", sheesh. And using these for productivity during the daytime will affect your sleep and hormones precisely zero. Being outdoors on a sunny day, or even a cloudy day, is flooding your eyes with orders of magnitude more blue light than these dinky little screens.
    - hbarka 4y ago
      You can’t possibly say it’s untrue because long term effects have not been studied for this device but it is a documented fact that screens aren’t good for us. Having it literally an inch from your retina cannot make it more benign. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-led-lights-damaging-your-retina/amp/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-led-lights-damaging-y...
      - crazygringo 4y ago
        Yes I can say it's untrue because it's simple physics. You can literally measure the light spectrum from sunlight and from LED screens. Daytime sunlight is full of blue light, far more than from a screen. It's physically impossible for LED's to do some sort of damage that doesn't happen from regular walking around outdoors, because it's 100% known what they emit. And an inch from your retina makes zero difference when the brightness is much less than daytime and the focal length is far. Because with lenses, as far as your eyes are concerned, the light is coming from far away. You don't need to study long-term effects when the physics are 100% known here. Again, blue light close to bedtime is the only thing that's different, and that's trivial to fix.
- aspyct 4y ago
  On my camera, the viewfinder (the thing you use to look "through" the lens) is a screen. You can alter dioptry, which, AFAIK, is the equivalent of "moving the screen back". Essentially, you can have the screen visually as close or far as comfortable. Odds are, these glasses have that built-in. And it's going to be a lot better for your eyesight than staring at a screen 50cm away from your face.
willcipriano 4y ago
Like headphones for your eyes, could see this being nice on a plane or something.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
Neat! Now I can finally watch p0rn in public. /s But seriously, watching something private/sensitive in public is the only use case I see for those as they're not AV/VR capable and you already need a phone/laptop to use them, so you might as well watch your videos on that instead.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
- fsckboy 4y ago
  watching a PG-13 movie in bed while spouse reads or sleeps? watch a movie immersively on a plane, train, or long bus ride?
dtx1 4y ago
1080p60? No thx
andybak 4y ago
I presume these use 3DOF tracking - not literally just a fixed-in-place screen? EDIT 1: Oh no. It isn't. That's not very pleasant to use in my experience. EDIT 2: It's a good job so few people in the "early adopters" segment wear glasses /s
ravenstine 4y ago
Normally, I'm not one of those "shut up and take my money" types, but... I think I really want these. Unless I'm missing something, it's too bad there isn't a wireless option. Maybe it's technological limitations of standard wireless technology, but I would think that wifi would be at least somewhat adequate. I could at least picture hooking a Pi Zero to it and using that either alone or to VNC into my other devices.
crazygringo 4y ago
This is an intriguing idea, possibly much more convenient and ergonomic for productivity than a fully fledged VR headset. But the fact that these are 1080p internal displays suggests it's a "fixed" 1080p screen that moves with your head, not a "virtual" screen that appears to stay in place as you move your head. Does anyone here have any experience with how usable that is? When I start up my Oculus Quest 2 and it has the fixed startup screen logo before it switches to head-tracking mode, it's rather disorienting, since visual cues are totally mismatched with my sense of balance. I'm not sure whether I could get used to a big screen "tethered" to my head angle like that, or if you get used to it? Also I wonder about the brightness here -- the Quest 2 isn't very bright at all, but it's OK since virtually all surrounding light is blocked out and my eyes adjust. Whereas this device is basically large sunglasses that lets in tons of surrounding light -- does the screen brightness compete?
- gokuldas011011 4y ago
  > But the fact that these are 1080p internal displays suggests it's a "fixed" 1080p screen that moves with your head, not a "virtual" screen that appears to stay in place as you move your head. Check [nimo](https://www.nimoplanet.com/ https://www.nimoplanet.com/), a start-up working in the same segment, i've tried on their product and it does have a virtual screen fixed to position and it allows upto six 1080p. screens at a time pinned at any angle.
- rwxsh 4y ago
  I have the Avegant Glyph, which is fixed, and I it is uncomfortable. It's natural to move your head to change your view, but that doesn't work with these devices. In practice I use a Quest instead, but even Daydream was more comfortable for media consumption.
- gfodor 4y ago
  I would be surprised if it’s fixed - gyro based head tracking is very well established tech now. It’s probably 3dof tracking. (So no translation, just rotation.) the Oculus GearVR and Oculus Go took this approach which works fine for most people for sit and watch theater use cases. Edit: oh, yeah so I think you’re referring to 3dof. I could imagine these being fully tracked but thought you were suggesting entirely untracked.
gurumeditations 4y ago
Streaming video will be a killer app of AR. Such a basic thing though is a huge challenge so far. There isn’t even a good AR display yet let alone everything else.
- criddell 4y ago
  For me, watching television or movies in AR/VR has very little appeal. Usually, I'm watching with other people and turning to them to see their face or reaction to something on screen is important. The short-term killer app of AR for consumers is probably a lot more mundane. I think things like heads-up displays on a car windshields or motorcycle helmet visor is a likely contender. But that could change if they get rid of the need for goggles. AR contact lenses could be pretty wild and a less anti-social. There are a lot more opportunities for AR in commercial applications (like surgeons, technicians, etc...).
  - gurumeditations 4y ago
    I’m referring to TikTok and Netflix etc where you can stream video content on transparent normal everyday glasses as easily as popping in your AirPods for music now, or a virtual shared display in 3D space so you retain 100% of the social sharing factor.
Philip-J-Fry 4y ago
I get the idea, but why would you extend your laptop screen with this? Considering there's no VR or AR type tracking, as soon as you look at your laptop it would be obstructed by the second screen. Granting you no real benefits. Edit: Apparently there's an accelerometer which can activate a screen when you look up vs looking down. But seems like that'd be clunky.
- Theodores 4y ago
  This is a product that has been invented before. The original Virtual IO glasses of the late 90's were a consumer product that was riding the Virtuality hype that was in vogue at the time. They failed in the marketplace, however, I remember meeting the rep and what he had to say. I was absolutely smitten by the product and 'knew it was the future' even though that video was somewhat VGA, so not even SD resolution. It was in 'stereo' unlike Virtuality, which relied on novelty to give the impression of 3D. The use case apart from immersive gaming was just so you could watch TV whilst doing tasks such as washing dishes or making dinner. From what I remember there was a means of seeing the world around you, either out the bottom or with transparency in the image. I can't quite remember. There was composite video as an input, which was in a cheaper variant of the product which had no head tracking, it really was just for watching video. This was in the late 90's when the big new thing was DVD, however, there were two competing formats. Some products such as the Virtual IO glasses were waiting in the wings for this market to take off, at a point in time where zero DVDs had been sold. Games did need to be written for it and I think the trick was interlacing, half the VGA went to one eye and half to the other. It would be up to the developer to write the rest. At the time Windows 95 was new and DirectX plus OpenGL as we know it on Windows was in version 0.1.0 with games being DOS. As you can imagine, this 'watch a soap opera whilst doing the washing up' market with an imagined vast mass of Americans ready to by the product never happened. Price was perceived as the problem to adoption, hence the Virtual IO product tried to address that by being competitively priced, with the 'TV watching' cheapo version available too. The product was compelling but the imagined mass market was never there. If you want to do stuff in the kitchen and have the TV on then you just put a TV in the kitchen. You don't think 'oh, I must get that expensive headset to watch TV whilst I am preparing dinner'. Another factor that is overlooked is that people have traditionally been adverse to wanting to be seen wearing a VR headset. There is that matter of losing peripheral vision and security, you are not going to wear anything that blinds you on the subway journey home. Second to that, and not appreciated by some, is that a lot of people put a great deal of effort into their appearance - make up is a thing - and being out and about is about seeing as well as being seen. Times have changed, but even still, Google misjudged this aspect. Imagine if you had a VR/AR headset that had week long battery, infinite resolution, zero latency tracking and only cost $50. Would your sister, mum or dad be wearing them? Or would they just be checking their phone every ten minutes? They probably would not have the use case of boring household chores as microwave ready meals, dishwashing machines and food delivery services have solved that problem for those that need it.
Gravityloss 4y ago
Site has no way to reject tracking cookies.
- dexterdog 4y ago
  Too bad more sites can't be like that and leave it up to the browser
omar_alt 4y ago
I wonder what this will do for concentrating when using the terminal or writing code?
- LouisSayers 4y ago
  It could actually be useful to block out some surroundings (if it can do this) in say an office - I find people walking around can be incredibly distracting, especially if someone starts pacing.
ryukafalz 4y ago
This looks like it could be a fun companion device for the Steam Deck on e.g. a long train commute or flight. If the display is fixed in the center of your line of sight it may not be great for productivity work as that’s fairly unnatural, but for gaming you’re most often looking at the center of the screen anyway so it might be okay?
solarkraft 4y ago
The price of these hasn't been announced, but the competitors cost 600-800$. That's a bit much for me. That they're a lot lighter and smaller than full-fledged VR headsets is nice, but they're also more expensive and lower-featured, so that's a tough sell. One thing I like about them is that they're really just dumb displays rather than requiring a connection to the Facebook servers or some other dumb stuff that will ensure a limited life time and limited user control about what they do.
- officialjunk 4y ago
  $1499 https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/smart-devices/virtual-reality/thinkreality-a3/20v7z9akxx https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/smart-devices/virtual-reality...
  - kfarr 4y ago
    That's a different model with 6DOF head tracking for AR/VR. The op model has no tracking and is more of a "dumb display"
    - officialjunk 4y ago
      ah. thanks for pointing that out! i didn't realize it.
blagie 4y ago
I feel like we're about 3 generations from "shut up and take my money." A no-brainer version would: - Allow AR, or at least not block my full field-of-view, so I can use them in contexts. - Have competitive resolution with my normal monitor. 1080p, as these are, seems like an MVP, but 4k is where I'd start to really use these. - Sci-fi: Support some kind of wireless protocol. A cable running down my shirt feels awkward. It's fine if I need a cable for 30fps movies, but for emails/coding/etc., I'm happy with much less refresh. - Less plastic. More metal (or carbon fiber or whatever). - Price point of $200 makes these a no-brainer shut-up-and-take my money. $400, I'd probably buy. $600, I'd probably /almost/ buy, but wait for used on eBay. $1000 is a no-buy.
- Steltek 4y ago
  > - Have competitive resolution with my normal monitor. 1080p, as these are, seems like an MVP, but 4k is where I'd start to really use these. When talking goggles, I would take a wider FOV over super high resolution. 4k smooshed into an image 30mm across would be a waste. That said, I can't find any mention of what FOV these glasses are. > - Sci-fi: Support some kind of wireless protocol. A cable running down my shirt feels awkward. I think I would trade a high quality cable over a heavier battery, necessary to support wireless at video bandwidths.
- eunos 4y ago
  Sword Art Online is supposed to be released this year
- mcwhy 4y ago
  The general public is never going to voluntarily start wearing glasses, no matter the features people do not want to look like a nerd.
  - mertd 4y ago
    Careful with that statement. General public seems very happy adopting wearables. Much more than anyone would have guessed in the early 2000s.
  - 4y ago
jfoster 4y ago
If this worked well enough, some "laptops" could become just a slab with a keyboard & touchpad on it. Screens are thin & light already, but perhaps there would be some power savings in that?
- swader999 4y ago
  Or mini format with a power brick when you don't want to use the plug.
jaimehrubiks 4y ago
I feel like 1080p is not enough to fit enough information in such a tiny screen. Even smartphones are sometimes too small for certain tasks, just a tiny section of my smartphone would be even less suitable for working, watching or gaming.
- IYasha 4y ago
  I guess it's up to personal preference. Because for me, it's totally opposite. ) I prefer 1280*720 phone screens. Less power, more clarity.
LinuxBender 4y ago
Additionally, the glasses come with multiple nose pads that’ll be helpful for extended use and a prescription frame if you need it. Would it be feasible to build slim adjustable optics that could allow anyone to set their prescription dynamically and directly within the glasses or would that make the glasses too bulky or hideous looking?
- toast0 4y ago
  Adjustable optics aren't optically good. It's a challenging enough optical environment, being compatible with prescription lenses is a good step.
swader999 4y ago
The perfect gift for the back to the office crowd.
blacksmith_tb 4y ago
Not their target market, but I can imagine a world where plugging them into headless servers (like in a rack in a DC) might be simpler than having physical monitors hooked to KVMs (or more realistically the little fanless machine I have on top of my bookcase, which is just enough of a pain to pull down and hook up to a monitor and keyboard...)
- pintxo 4y ago
  Think a QR Code on the server, scanned by the glasses. Confirm and then have a connection to this machine. That’s part of the future I have been waiting for.
drewg123 4y ago
I want to trade my laptop for a set of glasses like these, plus a portable keyboard/mouse and drive everything from my phone. Imagine being able to code on a plane with a large screen, without having to worry about fitting it into the space in front of you..
- jamal-kumar 4y ago
  I have a friend who does this for productivity reasons. When all you need is a shell to write code in, a phone actually does extremely well because you can project it to your TV and there's just less opportunities for distraction compared to a full desktop PC where there's the temptation to aimlessly browse the web or play video games.
  - FeistySkink 4y ago
    Can you share his setup?
    - jamal-kumar 4y ago
      It's basically just a wireless keyboard, phone, ssh client, remote vim/shell, screen sharing device like a chromecast, and a tv
      - FeistySkink 4y ago
        Oh, I somehow understood it was VR.
- mellosouls 4y ago
  You can already do that with Quest VR headset though the embarrassment factor is rather more sizeable.
  - mbreese 4y ago
    Hard to set that boundary zone accurately on a plane though…
GordonS 4y ago
These sound great - if they were < £200 and lightweight, I'd buy them in a heartbeat! ...but I'm guessing they'll be >£1,000 and weigh enough to hurt my nose bridge in mere minutes.
aspyct 4y ago
I would love that. Provided the price is fair, I'll probably get a pair. Neat :)
arberx 4y ago
This would be super convenient in tight, small workplaces like airplanes (as advertised in the video).
- jamal-kumar 4y ago
  Very useful for shutting out those chatty people who don't realize some of us have stuff to do on deadlines even if we're on our way to some vacation destination
seydor 4y ago
Also a monocle would work
akelly 4y ago
With transparent lenses and no tracking, how are these better than the non-transparent video glasses that have been available for two decades and never caught on? The contrast ratio on any transparent display is terrible since the pixels can't block light, only add light. The darkest black levels you can get is however much tinting you apply to your glass. Looks to me like Lenovo developed some display tech for AR and then couldn't get the tracking working and decided to ship a tech demo.
numpad0 4y ago
Is it actually different from Nreal goggles or is this a rebadged/licensed for better market support?
tommyderami 4y ago
They are mentioned in the article, but I just picked up a pair of NREAL air glasses to use with my steam deck and I am blown away so far--the price point is about 1/3 of the T1s but most of the specs are very similar. The support for fixing the screen using the 3dof sensors is limited to their android nebula app for now but if they write a driver that allows it on a computer that would be helpful, but for now I find they are most comfortable to use in a fixed position (ie laying back on the couch). The technology to make compelling head mounted displays is finally here--I've owned various HMDs for drone viewing but nothing I'd want to relax and watch a movie/play a game on (the screens are usually too small and 480p resolution at best). More competition will only improve the space so kudos to Lenovo!
cerol 4y ago
Whatever they do, let's hope they don't decide to stick a camera in it (for AR purposes), or it could be another Google Glasses fiasco.
- timmg 4y ago
  I think that's a Google-specific problem. If Apple comes out with AR glasses with cameras, no one will bat an eye. (And if they do, Apple will already have a great story for why it isn't an issue.)
  - cerol 4y ago
    I might have been to young to actually have noticed it. But from what I remember, in 2014 Google didn't have the reputation it has now.
    - timmg 4y ago
      They had a reputation for great tech but not great products. Glass was not compelling (or, at best, not marketed well). No one wanted it -- except gadgets nerds. So it was easy to complain about one thing or another. If Apple does it, everyone will want one. Apple makes great products and has the best marketing of anything ever. Even if it has a camera going 24x7, people will be able to live with it.
  - fomine3 4y ago
    Even Facebook's Quest have camera, but it's accepted because it's needed for inside out room tracking
pigtailgirl 4y ago
-- "With a vibrant and stylish design..." - uhmmm - uh -well -errr -hmm---
- IYasha 4y ago
  Yeah, design of these is ugly. And that of Nreal too. As if Google had patented all stylish variants before releasing Google Glass. )
hombre_fatal 4y ago
My dream gadget is seethru glasses/goggles that can embed a fixed screen in the corner of the FoV so that I can half-attentively watch TV or Youtube videos while cooking, running, etc. I’d give up half my FoV for it. Audiobooks are great but sometimes I want even more stimulation while I’m doing something else.
- loriverkutya 4y ago
  How much I would love a world where most of the people were walking on the street, having conversation with you, etc while watching something on the glasses and how much it would mess up the last crumbles of attention span we have.
  - hombre_fatal 4y ago
    Eh, that world is already here in the form of smartphones. I must wonder if you realize that yet. I love the serendipity of meeting people and impromptu conversation, but that doesn't mean my entire day is spent around people. In fact, the examples I gave (cooking, exercising) are specifically things I do alone on my own. Sure, people would use such a gadget in public, but that's already how people use smartphones + headphones so that ship has sailed. I would even argue my glasses are slightly less antisocial than the status quo since you can look up and see the world.
GrumpyNl 4y ago
I like the promotional images, where all the people are sitting behind screens with those glasses on.
Apocryphon 4y ago
Finally, data goggles: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Data_goggles/Legends https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Data_goggles/Legends
dawnerd 4y ago
The NReal is better is a lot of ways and their support people seem active and open to suggestions. They just need to bring it to the states. Even importing it's still fairly cheap compared to the T1.
LouisSayers 4y ago
They should make a hat to go with these to read your brainwaves, and an ear piece. We'll all look like we're undercover agents.
ChildOfChaos 4y ago
I've got a Oculus Quest 1 which I use for fitness it's perfect for me, because it gets me moving and my heart rate up and I hate normal exercise / gyms. The other thing I have used it for is to watch movies and sync my screen from my PC. It's a bit awkward for this so i've stopped using it (due to poor battery, being too large bulky, annoying to setup with the VR features getting in the way like boundaries etc). However, when it did work watching a movie on it was great. To me it seemed like this was far better in terms of the view/screen than a top end TV, so it seems obvious to me that glasses can be the future of watching. Why have multiple screens? I can have a laptop for portability and then at home, pop on my glasses and have whatever type of screen setup I want, better than any monitor setup, want to watch TV or a movie? Pop the glasses on and it's the same as being at the cinema, in your own home. No need to take up space with a desktop computer + monitor or TV, no need to worry about finding the right place to set everything up, can literally do it from anywhere with a touch of a button. Heck can take laptop to hotel and watch movies from there and have the same experience I would at home. I'm surprised there is not more focus on something like this. Perhaps this is something Apple are going to do with all there rumoured moves into this space.
- Majestic121 4y ago
  The number one issue with this is that it only works if you're alone. If you want to watch a movie/tv show with friends or a significant other, a screen is mandatory
  - alas44 4y ago
    Or couple glasses synced together?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - inawarminister 4y ago
      There are some apps that offer synced watching with friends in the Quest, they've been working just fine. Having the ability to share a virtual screen in the same physical location would be a game-changer though. That could be a killer feature.
huijzer 4y ago
I think these devices make a lot of sense. No big monitors anymore. Does anyone know how these glasses are for the eyes? Will the cause more nearsightedness?
lmarcos 4y ago
Wonder how comfortable they are for people who already wear glasses.
4b11b4 4y ago
pass, will end up in electronics drawer in less than one year
adultSwim 4y ago
I was really bummed when Intel shut down its smart glasses project. That seemed like really promising technology that hasn't been picked up elsewhere.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
anotherevan 4y ago
Adjacent to this, I've been looking into what's possible with regards to glasses frames that incorporate bluetooth bone-conduction audio. If I can find some of sufficient quality I might use them the next time I need to get prescription glasses.
themagician 4y ago
As some others have pointed out, this is merely an old product coming back. In the late 90's and early 2000's there were several companies that made these, with the Sony Glasstron and Olympus Eye-Trek being the two model lines coming to mind, but I believe where were others. You could do things like plug them into a cassette-based portable TV (some of the high end Sony models had S-Video out). There was even a special PlayStation branded model (that was oddly actually made by Olympus) that sold for around $400-$500 equivalent back around 2002. I remember there were these little booths (like little voting booths where it was darker) outside some store in Japan where you could try the Sony headset hooked up to a PS2. I actually found a photo of it: https://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2000b/image/nr001012fmd20pe.jpg https://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2000b/image/nr001012f... They never sold very well, but there are at least a dozen (maybe more) models of "personal wearable displays" out there from 10-20 years ago. Some actually have head tracking. Most are composite or SVGA, but IIRC Olympus kept making these for quite a while. Sony actually had a product line that was before Glasstron AND one after, that never had much of a brand name, but I remember it was actually quite advanced—720p, HDMI and OLED… and that back back around 2010 or some such.
sytelus 4y ago
How does these avoid optical constraints? I thought it was not possible to design lenses in such small space that would project image 2-3 ft away at least.
brutus1213 4y ago
This is an old idea. I've seen chinese companies show off amazing displays at CES 4-5 years ago. Royale was the name of the company or the device? It was a mostly stellar experience. My eye sight is pretty bad. I wasn't able to get perfect clarity with the adjustments in one eye (think the adjustment went to 5 and I'm a 7).
tsuujin 4y ago
I have a pair of Nreal Air glasses which I purchased for my steam deck. I used them a couple of times then they went into a drawer. The issue I had with them is that the screen moves with your head. I know this sounds super obvious, and I knew this would be the case when I purchased them; however, I did not understand how disorienting and frustrating it would be for gaming. Most gaming HUDs are at the outside edge of the screen, and you look at them fairly frequently. If you’re like me, you do this by moving your head slightly with your eyes. I found it to be very distracting to move my head every time I wanted to check the edges of the screen because I would move my head and eyes and expect to be at my target… but not actually have arrived there. Additionally, because I was required to look only with my eyes I felt like there was a lot of fatigue, and occasionally a bit of soreness, caused by constantly moving my vision past what all of my habits had trained. I think that the idea of a glasses based screen is sound, but I will wait for a decent pair with AR built in before I buy again. If the screen were fixed into place using AR cameras it would be a really cool experience overall.
IYasha 4y ago
I'd only sign up for wired version. Imagine someone hacks this or shows you distracting ads while you're driving or even walking downstairs!

208 points by taubek 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

andsoitis 4y ago

How do these “monitors-on-your-face” impact eye health?

chrischen 4y ago
Can't possibly make the eyes in China any worse. But in all seriousness, if they cause you to be cross eyed like regular VR glasses, then it has the same negative impact on development of eyesight as normal VR/3D has.
- sp332 4y ago
  Crossing your eyes to look at something is normal. What's weird is that it's all at one focus depth, so your individual eyes don't need to refocus on things that should be at different distances, even though you're still getting the depth signal from crossing your eyes.
- numpad0 4y ago
  "VR gets you cross eyes and impacts development" has never been substantiated, so far only the opposites were reported online. That means there are unknown side effects, but don't seem like there are serious harms.
crazygringo 4y ago
The same as VR, which is to say... none at all? Obviously the lenses make it seem like the virtual image is several feet away, so in terms of focusing it's no different from an actual object several feet away. If anything, it's probably healthier than a computer monitor that sits up closer. Plus, these glasses would actually be better than a VR headset in that the lenses can be designed so that the focal distance matches the virtual screen distance perfectly. (In VR, there's a mismatch for most distances.) The only thing you might have to worry about is interpupillary distance (IPD) -- the space between the OLED displays needs to be adjustable to the space between your eyes. E.g. the Oculus Quest 2 has 3 settings for this, while the Quest 1 had a smooth adjustment. Adjustable IPD is essential, so I'd assume this either has it or they'll sell different versions for different IPD's?
- jrootabega 4y ago
  I'd bet they're going to be overall better for your health. You'll be able to have a focal distance farther than a screen, without having to look up or down (causing eye and neck strain), while also choosing the healthiest posture for yourself.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  > The same as VR, which is to say... none at all? VAC is not yet solved for VR, and while it can be mitigated it's still significant cause of eye strain.
hbarka 4y ago
Light brightness and spectrum are associated with retinal damage. Blue light from LED overexposure can certainly do harm and can also affect your sleep cycle and hormone balance. I would not bake my eyes with these things anytime soon.
- unsupp0rted 4y ago
  Citation needed. The first wave of reports I saw suggested this, the second wave suggested the reverse (no damage, no hit to sleep duration or quality). What's the current consensus, if any?
- crazygringo 4y ago
  All of this is totally untrue for a device like this. The brightness is orders of magnitude less than daylight, there's zero retinal damage happening. They're not outputting UV so zero spectrum issues as well. There's also no "blue light overexposure", it's balanced. Yes, cool color temperatures late at night can keep you up. Which is why 'night mode' exists, even the Oculus Quest 2 has it -- it's trivial to solve using software alone. But that's no different from staying up playing exciting video games or watching too much TV because of the cliffhanger at the end of each episode. But nothing is "baking your eyes", sheesh. And using these for productivity during the daytime will affect your sleep and hormones precisely zero. Being outdoors on a sunny day, or even a cloudy day, is flooding your eyes with orders of magnitude more blue light than these dinky little screens.
  - hbarka 4y ago
    You can’t possibly say it’s untrue because long term effects have not been studied for this device but it is a documented fact that screens aren’t good for us. Having it literally an inch from your retina cannot make it more benign. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-led-lights-damaging-your-retina/amp/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-led-lights-damaging-y...
    - crazygringo 4y ago
      Yes I can say it's untrue because it's simple physics. You can literally measure the light spectrum from sunlight and from LED screens. Daytime sunlight is full of blue light, far more than from a screen. It's physically impossible for LED's to do some sort of damage that doesn't happen from regular walking around outdoors, because it's 100% known what they emit. And an inch from your retina makes zero difference when the brightness is much less than daytime and the focal length is far. Because with lenses, as far as your eyes are concerned, the light is coming from far away. You don't need to study long-term effects when the physics are 100% known here. Again, blue light close to bedtime is the only thing that's different, and that's trivial to fix.
aspyct 4y ago
On my camera, the viewfinder (the thing you use to look "through" the lens) is a screen. You can alter dioptry, which, AFAIK, is the equivalent of "moving the screen back". Essentially, you can have the screen visually as close or far as comfortable. Odds are, these glasses have that built-in. And it's going to be a lot better for your eyesight than staring at a screen 50cm away from your face.

willcipriano 4y ago

Like headphones for your eyes, could see this being nice on a plane or something.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

Neat! Now I can finally watch p0rn in public. /s But seriously, watching something private/sensitive in public is the only use case I see for those as they're not AV/VR capable and you already need a phone/laptop to use them, so you might as well watch your videos on that instead.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
fsckboy 4y ago
watching a PG-13 movie in bed while spouse reads or sleeps? watch a movie immersively on a plane, train, or long bus ride?

dtx1 4y ago

1080p60? No thx

andybak 4y ago

I presume these use 3DOF tracking - not literally just a fixed-in-place screen? EDIT 1: Oh no. It isn't. That's not very pleasant to use in my experience. EDIT 2: It's a good job so few people in the "early adopters" segment wear glasses /s

ravenstine 4y ago

Normally, I'm not one of those "shut up and take my money" types, but... I think I really want these. Unless I'm missing something, it's too bad there isn't a wireless option. Maybe it's technological limitations of standard wireless technology, but I would think that wifi would be at least somewhat adequate. I could at least picture hooking a Pi Zero to it and using that either alone or to VNC into my other devices.

crazygringo 4y ago

This is an intriguing idea, possibly much more convenient and ergonomic for productivity than a fully fledged VR headset. But the fact that these are 1080p internal displays suggests it's a "fixed" 1080p screen that moves with your head, not a "virtual" screen that appears to stay in place as you move your head. Does anyone here have any experience with how usable that is? When I start up my Oculus Quest 2 and it has the fixed startup screen logo before it switches to head-tracking mode, it's rather disorienting, since visual cues are totally mismatched with my sense of balance. I'm not sure whether I could get used to a big screen "tethered" to my head angle like that, or if you get used to it? Also I wonder about the brightness here -- the Quest 2 isn't very bright at all, but it's OK since virtually all surrounding light is blocked out and my eyes adjust. Whereas this device is basically large sunglasses that lets in tons of surrounding light -- does the screen brightness compete?

gokuldas011011 4y ago
> But the fact that these are 1080p internal displays suggests it's a "fixed" 1080p screen that moves with your head, not a "virtual" screen that appears to stay in place as you move your head. Check [nimo](https://www.nimoplanet.com/ https://www.nimoplanet.com/), a start-up working in the same segment, i've tried on their product and it does have a virtual screen fixed to position and it allows upto six 1080p. screens at a time pinned at any angle.
rwxsh 4y ago
I have the Avegant Glyph, which is fixed, and I it is uncomfortable. It's natural to move your head to change your view, but that doesn't work with these devices. In practice I use a Quest instead, but even Daydream was more comfortable for media consumption.
gfodor 4y ago
I would be surprised if it’s fixed - gyro based head tracking is very well established tech now. It’s probably 3dof tracking. (So no translation, just rotation.) the Oculus GearVR and Oculus Go took this approach which works fine for most people for sit and watch theater use cases. Edit: oh, yeah so I think you’re referring to 3dof. I could imagine these being fully tracked but thought you were suggesting entirely untracked.

gurumeditations 4y ago

Streaming video will be a killer app of AR. Such a basic thing though is a huge challenge so far. There isn’t even a good AR display yet let alone everything else.

criddell 4y ago
For me, watching television or movies in AR/VR has very little appeal. Usually, I'm watching with other people and turning to them to see their face or reaction to something on screen is important. The short-term killer app of AR for consumers is probably a lot more mundane. I think things like heads-up displays on a car windshields or motorcycle helmet visor is a likely contender. But that could change if they get rid of the need for goggles. AR contact lenses could be pretty wild and a less anti-social. There are a lot more opportunities for AR in commercial applications (like surgeons, technicians, etc...).
- gurumeditations 4y ago
  I’m referring to TikTok and Netflix etc where you can stream video content on transparent normal everyday glasses as easily as popping in your AirPods for music now, or a virtual shared display in 3D space so you retain 100% of the social sharing factor.

Philip-J-Fry 4y ago

I get the idea, but why would you extend your laptop screen with this? Considering there's no VR or AR type tracking, as soon as you look at your laptop it would be obstructed by the second screen. Granting you no real benefits. Edit: Apparently there's an accelerometer which can activate a screen when you look up vs looking down. But seems like that'd be clunky.

Theodores 4y ago
This is a product that has been invented before. The original Virtual IO glasses of the late 90's were a consumer product that was riding the Virtuality hype that was in vogue at the time. They failed in the marketplace, however, I remember meeting the rep and what he had to say. I was absolutely smitten by the product and 'knew it was the future' even though that video was somewhat VGA, so not even SD resolution. It was in 'stereo' unlike Virtuality, which relied on novelty to give the impression of 3D. The use case apart from immersive gaming was just so you could watch TV whilst doing tasks such as washing dishes or making dinner. From what I remember there was a means of seeing the world around you, either out the bottom or with transparency in the image. I can't quite remember. There was composite video as an input, which was in a cheaper variant of the product which had no head tracking, it really was just for watching video. This was in the late 90's when the big new thing was DVD, however, there were two competing formats. Some products such as the Virtual IO glasses were waiting in the wings for this market to take off, at a point in time where zero DVDs had been sold. Games did need to be written for it and I think the trick was interlacing, half the VGA went to one eye and half to the other. It would be up to the developer to write the rest. At the time Windows 95 was new and DirectX plus OpenGL as we know it on Windows was in version 0.1.0 with games being DOS. As you can imagine, this 'watch a soap opera whilst doing the washing up' market with an imagined vast mass of Americans ready to by the product never happened. Price was perceived as the problem to adoption, hence the Virtual IO product tried to address that by being competitively priced, with the 'TV watching' cheapo version available too. The product was compelling but the imagined mass market was never there. If you want to do stuff in the kitchen and have the TV on then you just put a TV in the kitchen. You don't think 'oh, I must get that expensive headset to watch TV whilst I am preparing dinner'. Another factor that is overlooked is that people have traditionally been adverse to wanting to be seen wearing a VR headset. There is that matter of losing peripheral vision and security, you are not going to wear anything that blinds you on the subway journey home. Second to that, and not appreciated by some, is that a lot of people put a great deal of effort into their appearance - make up is a thing - and being out and about is about seeing as well as being seen. Times have changed, but even still, Google misjudged this aspect. Imagine if you had a VR/AR headset that had week long battery, infinite resolution, zero latency tracking and only cost $50. Would your sister, mum or dad be wearing them? Or would they just be checking their phone every ten minutes? They probably would not have the use case of boring household chores as microwave ready meals, dishwashing machines and food delivery services have solved that problem for those that need it.

Gravityloss 4y ago

Site has no way to reject tracking cookies.

dexterdog 4y ago
Too bad more sites can't be like that and leave it up to the browser

omar_alt 4y ago

I wonder what this will do for concentrating when using the terminal or writing code?

LouisSayers 4y ago
It could actually be useful to block out some surroundings (if it can do this) in say an office - I find people walking around can be incredibly distracting, especially if someone starts pacing.

ryukafalz 4y ago

This looks like it could be a fun companion device for the Steam Deck on e.g. a long train commute or flight. If the display is fixed in the center of your line of sight it may not be great for productivity work as that’s fairly unnatural, but for gaming you’re most often looking at the center of the screen anyway so it might be okay?

solarkraft 4y ago

The price of these hasn't been announced, but the competitors cost 600-800$. That's a bit much for me. That they're a lot lighter and smaller than full-fledged VR headsets is nice, but they're also more expensive and lower-featured, so that's a tough sell. One thing I like about them is that they're really just dumb displays rather than requiring a connection to the Facebook servers or some other dumb stuff that will ensure a limited life time and limited user control about what they do.

officialjunk 4y ago
$1499 https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/smart-devices/virtual-reality/thinkreality-a3/20v7z9akxx https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/smart-devices/virtual-reality...
- kfarr 4y ago
  That's a different model with 6DOF head tracking for AR/VR. The op model has no tracking and is more of a "dumb display"
  - officialjunk 4y ago
    ah. thanks for pointing that out! i didn't realize it.

blagie 4y ago

I feel like we're about 3 generations from "shut up and take my money." A no-brainer version would: - Allow AR, or at least not block my full field-of-view, so I can use them in contexts. - Have competitive resolution with my normal monitor. 1080p, as these are, seems like an MVP, but 4k is where I'd start to really use these. - Sci-fi: Support some kind of wireless protocol. A cable running down my shirt feels awkward. It's fine if I need a cable for 30fps movies, but for emails/coding/etc., I'm happy with much less refresh. - Less plastic. More metal (or carbon fiber or whatever). - Price point of $200 makes these a no-brainer shut-up-and-take my money. $400, I'd probably buy. $600, I'd probably /almost/ buy, but wait for used on eBay. $1000 is a no-buy.

Steltek 4y ago
> - Have competitive resolution with my normal monitor. 1080p, as these are, seems like an MVP, but 4k is where I'd start to really use these. When talking goggles, I would take a wider FOV over super high resolution. 4k smooshed into an image 30mm across would be a waste. That said, I can't find any mention of what FOV these glasses are. > - Sci-fi: Support some kind of wireless protocol. A cable running down my shirt feels awkward. I think I would trade a high quality cable over a heavier battery, necessary to support wireless at video bandwidths.
eunos 4y ago
Sword Art Online is supposed to be released this year
mcwhy 4y ago
The general public is never going to voluntarily start wearing glasses, no matter the features people do not want to look like a nerd.
- mertd 4y ago
  Careful with that statement. General public seems very happy adopting wearables. Much more than anyone would have guessed in the early 2000s.
- 4y ago

jfoster 4y ago

If this worked well enough, some "laptops" could become just a slab with a keyboard & touchpad on it. Screens are thin & light already, but perhaps there would be some power savings in that?

swader999 4y ago
Or mini format with a power brick when you don't want to use the plug.

jaimehrubiks 4y ago

I feel like 1080p is not enough to fit enough information in such a tiny screen. Even smartphones are sometimes too small for certain tasks, just a tiny section of my smartphone would be even less suitable for working, watching or gaming.

IYasha 4y ago
I guess it's up to personal preference. Because for me, it's totally opposite. ) I prefer 1280*720 phone screens. Less power, more clarity.

LinuxBender 4y ago

Additionally, the glasses come with multiple nose pads that’ll be helpful for extended use and a prescription frame if you need it. Would it be feasible to build slim adjustable optics that could allow anyone to set their prescription dynamically and directly within the glasses or would that make the glasses too bulky or hideous looking?

toast0 4y ago
Adjustable optics aren't optically good. It's a challenging enough optical environment, being compatible with prescription lenses is a good step.

swader999 4y ago

The perfect gift for the back to the office crowd.

blacksmith_tb 4y ago

Not their target market, but I can imagine a world where plugging them into headless servers (like in a rack in a DC) might be simpler than having physical monitors hooked to KVMs (or more realistically the little fanless machine I have on top of my bookcase, which is just enough of a pain to pull down and hook up to a monitor and keyboard...)

pintxo 4y ago
Think a QR Code on the server, scanned by the glasses. Confirm and then have a connection to this machine. That’s part of the future I have been waiting for.

drewg123 4y ago

I want to trade my laptop for a set of glasses like these, plus a portable keyboard/mouse and drive everything from my phone. Imagine being able to code on a plane with a large screen, without having to worry about fitting it into the space in front of you..

jamal-kumar 4y ago
I have a friend who does this for productivity reasons. When all you need is a shell to write code in, a phone actually does extremely well because you can project it to your TV and there's just less opportunities for distraction compared to a full desktop PC where there's the temptation to aimlessly browse the web or play video games.
- FeistySkink 4y ago
  Can you share his setup?
  - jamal-kumar 4y ago
    It's basically just a wireless keyboard, phone, ssh client, remote vim/shell, screen sharing device like a chromecast, and a tv
    - FeistySkink 4y ago
      Oh, I somehow understood it was VR.
mellosouls 4y ago
You can already do that with Quest VR headset though the embarrassment factor is rather more sizeable.
- mbreese 4y ago
  Hard to set that boundary zone accurately on a plane though…

GordonS 4y ago

These sound great - if they were < £200 and lightweight, I'd buy them in a heartbeat! ...but I'm guessing they'll be >£1,000 and weigh enough to hurt my nose bridge in mere minutes.

aspyct 4y ago

I would love that. Provided the price is fair, I'll probably get a pair. Neat :)

arberx 4y ago

This would be super convenient in tight, small workplaces like airplanes (as advertised in the video).

jamal-kumar 4y ago
Very useful for shutting out those chatty people who don't realize some of us have stuff to do on deadlines even if we're on our way to some vacation destination

seydor 4y ago

Also a monocle would work

akelly 4y ago

With transparent lenses and no tracking, how are these better than the non-transparent video glasses that have been available for two decades and never caught on? The contrast ratio on any transparent display is terrible since the pixels can't block light, only add light. The darkest black levels you can get is however much tinting you apply to your glass. Looks to me like Lenovo developed some display tech for AR and then couldn't get the tracking working and decided to ship a tech demo.

numpad0 4y ago

Is it actually different from Nreal goggles or is this a rebadged/licensed for better market support?

tommyderami 4y ago

They are mentioned in the article, but I just picked up a pair of NREAL air glasses to use with my steam deck and I am blown away so far--the price point is about 1/3 of the T1s but most of the specs are very similar. The support for fixing the screen using the 3dof sensors is limited to their android nebula app for now but if they write a driver that allows it on a computer that would be helpful, but for now I find they are most comfortable to use in a fixed position (ie laying back on the couch). The technology to make compelling head mounted displays is finally here--I've owned various HMDs for drone viewing but nothing I'd want to relax and watch a movie/play a game on (the screens are usually too small and 480p resolution at best). More competition will only improve the space so kudos to Lenovo!

cerol 4y ago

Whatever they do, let's hope they don't decide to stick a camera in it (for AR purposes), or it could be another Google Glasses fiasco.

timmg 4y ago
I think that's a Google-specific problem. If Apple comes out with AR glasses with cameras, no one will bat an eye. (And if they do, Apple will already have a great story for why it isn't an issue.)
- cerol 4y ago
  I might have been to young to actually have noticed it. But from what I remember, in 2014 Google didn't have the reputation it has now.
  - timmg 4y ago
    They had a reputation for great tech but not great products. Glass was not compelling (or, at best, not marketed well). No one wanted it -- except gadgets nerds. So it was easy to complain about one thing or another. If Apple does it, everyone will want one. Apple makes great products and has the best marketing of anything ever. Even if it has a camera going 24x7, people will be able to live with it.
- fomine3 4y ago
  Even Facebook's Quest have camera, but it's accepted because it's needed for inside out room tracking

pigtailgirl 4y ago

-- "With a vibrant and stylish design..." - uhmmm - uh -well -errr -hmm---

IYasha 4y ago
Yeah, design of these is ugly. And that of Nreal too. As if Google had patented all stylish variants before releasing Google Glass. )

hombre_fatal 4y ago

My dream gadget is seethru glasses/goggles that can embed a fixed screen in the corner of the FoV so that I can half-attentively watch TV or Youtube videos while cooking, running, etc. I’d give up half my FoV for it. Audiobooks are great but sometimes I want even more stimulation while I’m doing something else.

loriverkutya 4y ago
How much I would love a world where most of the people were walking on the street, having conversation with you, etc while watching something on the glasses and how much it would mess up the last crumbles of attention span we have.
- hombre_fatal 4y ago
  Eh, that world is already here in the form of smartphones. I must wonder if you realize that yet. I love the serendipity of meeting people and impromptu conversation, but that doesn't mean my entire day is spent around people. In fact, the examples I gave (cooking, exercising) are specifically things I do alone on my own. Sure, people would use such a gadget in public, but that's already how people use smartphones + headphones so that ship has sailed. I would even argue my glasses are slightly less antisocial than the status quo since you can look up and see the world.

GrumpyNl 4y ago

I like the promotional images, where all the people are sitting behind screens with those glasses on.

Apocryphon 4y ago

Finally, data goggles: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Data_goggles/Legends https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Data_goggles/Legends

dawnerd 4y ago

The NReal is better is a lot of ways and their support people seem active and open to suggestions. They just need to bring it to the states. Even importing it's still fairly cheap compared to the T1.

LouisSayers 4y ago

They should make a hat to go with these to read your brainwaves, and an ear piece. We'll all look like we're undercover agents.

ChildOfChaos 4y ago

I've got a Oculus Quest 1 which I use for fitness it's perfect for me, because it gets me moving and my heart rate up and I hate normal exercise / gyms. The other thing I have used it for is to watch movies and sync my screen from my PC. It's a bit awkward for this so i've stopped using it (due to poor battery, being too large bulky, annoying to setup with the VR features getting in the way like boundaries etc). However, when it did work watching a movie on it was great. To me it seemed like this was far better in terms of the view/screen than a top end TV, so it seems obvious to me that glasses can be the future of watching. Why have multiple screens? I can have a laptop for portability and then at home, pop on my glasses and have whatever type of screen setup I want, better than any monitor setup, want to watch TV or a movie? Pop the glasses on and it's the same as being at the cinema, in your own home. No need to take up space with a desktop computer + monitor or TV, no need to worry about finding the right place to set everything up, can literally do it from anywhere with a touch of a button. Heck can take laptop to hotel and watch movies from there and have the same experience I would at home. I'm surprised there is not more focus on something like this. Perhaps this is something Apple are going to do with all there rumoured moves into this space.

Majestic121 4y ago
The number one issue with this is that it only works if you're alone. If you want to watch a movie/tv show with friends or a significant other, a screen is mandatory
- alas44 4y ago
  Or couple glasses synced together?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - inawarminister 4y ago
    There are some apps that offer synced watching with friends in the Quest, they've been working just fine. Having the ability to share a virtual screen in the same physical location would be a game-changer though. That could be a killer feature.

huijzer 4y ago

I think these devices make a lot of sense. No big monitors anymore. Does anyone know how these glasses are for the eyes? Will the cause more nearsightedness?

lmarcos 4y ago

Wonder how comfortable they are for people who already wear glasses.

4b11b4 4y ago

pass, will end up in electronics drawer in less than one year

adultSwim 4y ago

I was really bummed when Intel shut down its smart glasses project. That seemed like really promising technology that hasn't been picked up elsewhere.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

anotherevan 4y ago

Adjacent to this, I've been looking into what's possible with regards to glasses frames that incorporate bluetooth bone-conduction audio. If I can find some of sufficient quality I might use them the next time I need to get prescription glasses.

themagician 4y ago

As some others have pointed out, this is merely an old product coming back. In the late 90's and early 2000's there were several companies that made these, with the Sony Glasstron and Olympus Eye-Trek being the two model lines coming to mind, but I believe where were others. You could do things like plug them into a cassette-based portable TV (some of the high end Sony models had S-Video out). There was even a special PlayStation branded model (that was oddly actually made by Olympus) that sold for around $400-$500 equivalent back around 2002. I remember there were these little booths (like little voting booths where it was darker) outside some store in Japan where you could try the Sony headset hooked up to a PS2. I actually found a photo of it: https://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2000b/image/nr001012fmd20pe.jpg https://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2000b/image/nr001012f... They never sold very well, but there are at least a dozen (maybe more) models of "personal wearable displays" out there from 10-20 years ago. Some actually have head tracking. Most are composite or SVGA, but IIRC Olympus kept making these for quite a while. Sony actually had a product line that was before Glasstron AND one after, that never had much of a brand name, but I remember it was actually quite advanced—720p, HDMI and OLED… and that back back around 2010 or some such.

sytelus 4y ago

How does these avoid optical constraints? I thought it was not possible to design lenses in such small space that would project image 2-3 ft away at least.

brutus1213 4y ago

This is an old idea. I've seen chinese companies show off amazing displays at CES 4-5 years ago. Royale was the name of the company or the device? It was a mostly stellar experience. My eye sight is pretty bad. I wasn't able to get perfect clarity with the adjustments in one eye (think the adjustment went to 5 and I'm a 7).

tsuujin 4y ago

I have a pair of Nreal Air glasses which I purchased for my steam deck. I used them a couple of times then they went into a drawer. The issue I had with them is that the screen moves with your head. I know this sounds super obvious, and I knew this would be the case when I purchased them; however, I did not understand how disorienting and frustrating it would be for gaming. Most gaming HUDs are at the outside edge of the screen, and you look at them fairly frequently. If you’re like me, you do this by moving your head slightly with your eyes. I found it to be very distracting to move my head every time I wanted to check the edges of the screen because I would move my head and eyes and expect to be at my target… but not actually have arrived there. Additionally, because I was required to look only with my eyes I felt like there was a lot of fatigue, and occasionally a bit of soreness, caused by constantly moving my vision past what all of my habits had trained. I think that the idea of a glasses based screen is sound, but I will wait for a decent pair with AR built in before I buy again. If the screen were fixed into place using AR cameras it would be a really cool experience overall.

IYasha 4y ago

I'd only sign up for wired version. Imagine someone hacks this or shows you distracting ads while you're driving or even walking downstairs!