5 ms·
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 constantl
by 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 agoWell, 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 agoIt'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 agoScoble 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?