4 ms·

Neither, there are no lenses, really we should call this a "headset" rather than "glasses". There's a small rectangular glass screen which is projected on to. S

Neither, there are no lenses, really we should call this a "headset" rather than "glasses". There's a small rectangular glass screen which is projected on to. Seems like there would be no problem wearing contact lenses with them but not glasses.

jrmg 15y ago
How does that work? If I hold a screen that far from my eyes, it's just a blurry mess (and I'm near-sighted!)
- valisystem 15y ago
  The image won't be focused on the reflecting glass, and the glass won't be flat. If you are near sighted, I suppose you have glasses, to figure out what's happening just try to look at the reflexions on the convex (exterior) side of your glasses, and you'll see you will manage to see a clear image much nearer than usual.
hastur 15y ago
1) Scoble wrote Brin's glasses had lenses. 2) If it were just the tiny rectangle, wouldn't they be very inconvenient? I mean, I would have to look up constantly, instead of having image projected on my field of view. Pretty tiresome in the longer run. Plus, the "screen" would be too tiny, even this close to the eye. I know the demo video was just CG, but it did suggest that the image would be projected across the whole field of view. (Well, the "main" part at least - i.e. whatever your typical glasses cover.) So I'm really hoping this tiny rectangle is just a reflector / prism that projects the picture on glass lenses or the eye itself. Otherwise it's just not good enough. (And I disagree this would obstruct your normal vision. The projected image would be semi transparent and it would affect just one eye.)
- Symmetry 15y ago
  Well, I didn't see anything in the article where Scroble mentioned whether they had glass lenses or not, but did you look at the pictures in the article? There were very clearly no lenses.
  - koeselitz 15y ago
    It's not in the article, but in the comments on Robert Scroble's G+ post, he does indeed state that they had lenses. Which, yes, is very odd, since I can't see any lenses either.
- jahewson 15y ago
  Scoble was mistaken - there are no lenses in the photos, take a look at the hi-res version at http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/4/6/2929927/google-project-glass-modeled-by-sergey-brin-first-high-res-photos http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/4/6/2929927/google-project-g... It does seem like that lens/prism/screen is doing something clever though, as it appears to be too close to the eye to focus on - but who knows?

jrmg 15y ago

How does that work? If I hold a screen that far from my eyes, it's just a blurry mess (and I'm near-sighted!)

valisystem 15y ago
The image won't be focused on the reflecting glass, and the glass won't be flat. If you are near sighted, I suppose you have glasses, to figure out what's happening just try to look at the reflexions on the convex (exterior) side of your glasses, and you'll see you will manage to see a clear image much nearer than usual.

hastur 15y ago

1) Scoble wrote Brin's glasses had lenses. 2) If it were just the tiny rectangle, wouldn't they be very inconvenient? I mean, I would have to look up constantly, instead of having image projected on my field of view. Pretty tiresome in the longer run. Plus, the "screen" would be too tiny, even this close to the eye. I know the demo video was just CG, but it did suggest that the image would be projected across the whole field of view. (Well, the "main" part at least - i.e. whatever your typical glasses cover.) So I'm really hoping this tiny rectangle is just a reflector / prism that projects the picture on glass lenses or the eye itself. Otherwise it's just not good enough. (And I disagree this would obstruct your normal vision. The projected image would be semi transparent and it would affect just one eye.)

Symmetry 15y ago
Well, I didn't see anything in the article where Scroble mentioned whether they had glass lenses or not, but did you look at the pictures in the article? There were very clearly no lenses.
- koeselitz 15y ago
  It's not in the article, but in the comments on Robert Scroble's G+ post, he does indeed state that they had lenses. Which, yes, is very odd, since I can't see any lenses either.
jahewson 15y ago
Scoble was mistaken - there are no lenses in the photos, take a look at the hi-res version at http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/4/6/2929927/google-project-glass-modeled-by-sergey-brin-first-high-res-photos http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/4/6/2929927/google-project-g... It does seem like that lens/prism/screen is doing something clever though, as it appears to be too close to the eye to focus on - but who knows?