4 ms·
To get past the creepiness aspect, let's say that you can only view what someone else is seeing. That's still pretty useful. Imagine that you make this high en
by randrews 18y ago
To get past the creepiness aspect, let's say that you can only view what someone else is seeing. That's still pretty useful.
Imagine that you make this high enough resolution that it's like watching TV, and then small enough that it'll fit in a helmet.
Then, you could record what someone is seeing and hearing, without having a cameraman around. It would be a cool way to, for example, watch a football play from the eyes of the quarterback. It might be a very interesting way to make movies.
- Network_Punk 18y agoIf you're using a helmet, might as well use a camera instead... Would be far cheaper, and could always use eye-tracking to move the camera (or even just zoom and pan to give the effect of looking)
- astine 18y agoYou wouldn't get any of the effects of blurred vision, crossed eyes, or some such. Also, eyes are far better cameras than anything you'd fit on a helmet.
- ecuzzillo 18y agoIn some ways. If you recorded just what the rods and cones detected, you'd actually get a really small, really high-resolution area in the center (the fovea) with the rest at extremely much lower resolution. So if you recorded what the quarterback saw, but without the post-processing done by the brain to cache some of the things recently glanced at, it might be pretty hard to watch.
- bd 18y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Days_%28film%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Days_%28film%29
- paulgb 18y agoI think a big problem with this would be the eye's saccades. From what I understand, the brain relies on the fact that it controls what the eye is focused on to interpret the signal.