video/screen eyeglasses

[chimera15]

Has anyone tried these?  Or know's the best pair available for a reasonable price?

http://alldaysale.net/EVG240-50-iCinema-Virtual-Video-Glasses-p-77.html

I was surprised at how low a price they are.  It says it's like a 50" screen at 6 feet, which makes me think I'd be able to see a computer screen fairly well on it if I use the analog output for my laptop..... or a usb converter on like my oqo.  I could walk around and surf the web. lol

[o2dazone]

unfortunately the technology just hasn't gotten there yet, here's an article on /. that covered it a few weeks ago, it's a real shame

[D-EJ915]

cheap imitation of the ones sony made a few years ago?

[pmyshkin]

320x240? That is way too low. Can you imagine trying to read text on that? Here are some better ones:

http://sensics.com/products/xSight/xsight-overview.php

Up to 1900x1280 per eye. But that's still not nearly high enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-mounted_display#Performance_parameters

[IBI]

Up to 1900x1280 per eye. But that's still not nearly high enough:

Indeed, 4160x2600 would be more appropriate for a 50" screen.

[chimera15]

320x240? That is way too low. Can you imagine trying to read text on that? Here are some better ones:

http://sensics.com/products/xSight/xsight-overview.php

Up to 1900x1280 per eye. But that's still not nearly high enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-mounted_display#Performance_parameters

I don't think with glasses typical resolutions apply, because the pixel resolution is magnified.  Also those glasses you showed no doubt cost thousands of dollars, which is completely unreasonable.    I think I read somewhere that a 640x480 set of glasses was very clear, and 320x240 was near acceptable.  When you magnify the small screens of glasses as you have to do to bring a screen that close to the eye, logically you can see that normal correlations aren't really relevant.  It becomes almost more about the optics, like in a digital camera.  I think it has more of a correlation to digital cameras, where a 2 megapixel camera with extremely good optics will rule over a 6 megapixel with crappy optics.

I've actually tried to build my own set of glasses like these with a digital camera screen and found that the optics involved were very important, and really effected how clear the screen was.

[chimera15]

unfortunately the technology just hasn't gotten there yet, here's an article on /. that covered it a few weeks ago, it's a real shame

That link didn't come up for me, do you have another one?

[chimera15]

From wikipedia:

"Resolution – HMDs usually mention either the total number of pixels or the number of pixels per degree. Listing the total number of pixels (e.g. 1600×1200 pixels per eye) is borrowed from how the specifications of computer monitors are presented. However, the pixel density, usually specified in pixels per degree or in arcminutes per pixel, is also used to determine visual acuity. 60 pixels/° (1 arcmin/pixel) is usually referred to as eye limiting resolution, above which increased resolution is not noticed by people with normal vision. HMDs typically offer 10 to 20 pixels/°, though advances in micro-displays help increase this number."

I think resolution is really an interesting thing when dealing with hmd's.....it's almost like it needs a new understandable scale like cameras came up with megapixels to deal with resolution.  I'm not sure the  degrees/arc is really accessible.  I wonder what a 320x240 screen would be?

This unit, the cheap one, isn't a direct computer output, you'd have to convert the screen to an analog out, which I've done before on this size of a screen, and it wasn't completely unreadable.   It's more about pixels per inch, or arc, not straight resolution.  It's not about raw pixels anymore.  I might give these glasses a shot in a month or two, maybe the price will fall even more or I can find a pair on ebay.

[chimera15]

http://www.4hiddenspycameras.com/eyeglmo.html

See this one is 320x240 also.   I guess it's only a mono screen however. They specifically mention using it with a computer.  It's like 3-4 times the price though...hmm

[o2dazone]

That link didn't come up for me, do you have another one?

Go to slashdot.org and in the search to the top right type

"high res head mounted"

It's the only story there, click comments, and you can read comments with a score 4 or higher. Usually have some rather insightful stuff to say

[chimera15]

Go to slashdot.org and in the search to the top right type

"high res head mounted"

It's the only story there, click comments, and you can read comments with a score 4 or higher. Usually have some rather insightful stuff to say

Well, from reading that, it sounds like that guy hasn't actually tried one either, and doesn't get that resolution may not be the same thing as on a normal computer screen as well....

Most of the people commenting don't understand the purpose of being able to walk around, or commute with the ability to access work on a umpc either it seems.

I'm a designer, or trying to be, even the ability to sketch/paint, or even do thumbnails in an immersive environment such as I would expect that these glasses would create might have it's uses to me, even if I can't see fine detail and read text.

The main hold up for me buying them is I've never actually talked to, or known anyone that has a pair, except some articles I read on another board a while ago. I've never seen them this affordable before.  I looked at them last year, and the reasonable ones all seemed to be upwards of $200.

[chimera15]

Chimera - I like trying new things too but just don't end up looking like these guys.

Omg, they're like geek super heros. roflol

[chimera15]

I think the problem everyone is having understanding is that 320x240 is a lot different on the size of half a postage stamp, which the screens are likely to be on these glasses, then magnified to a relative 50 inch screen, which is still only about an inch or two in size, where it's unlikely that you will be able to see individual pixels, as on a real 50", or even a 4"x5" screen.

But since I haven't ever tried them, that's really the question, and really want to ask someone who has, can you make out individual pixels? at 320x240, 640x480? or does the image appear to be like a normal lcd, ect,

[Rajagra]

I think the problem everyone is having understanding is that 320x240 is a lot different on the size of half a postage stamp, which the screens are likely to be on these glasses, then magnified to a relative 50 inch screen, which is still only about an inch or two in size, where it's unlikely that you will be able to see individual pixels, as on a real 50", or even a 4"x5" screen.

But since I haven't ever tried them, that's really the question, and really want to ask someone who has, can you make out individual pixels? at 320x240, 640x480? or does the image appear to be like a normal lcd, ect,

I think perhaps people are overcomplicating the matter.

A 1600x1200 display that occupies 30 degrees of view will always look the same, whether it's 1 inch or 1 mile away (subject to decent optics.)

I have a set of Olympus EyeTrek FMD-200 goggles, they were truly awful to use, even for movies. The low resolution was very apparent. I found these specs: "With an 180, 000-pixel image simulating a 52" screen from 6-1/2 feet away"

Oh, mine had a duff pixel on one of the screens. Just one pixel. It looked huge - and because you could only see it with one eye that made it stand out even more. I only managed to watch one full movie with it.

[chimera15]

Hmm, that's really interesting. It's strange they don't list the resolution readily.  180000 would put the image somewhere between 320x240(76800) and 640x480(307200)

So you can see individual pixels at that resolution, at least with that set huh?  But I don't know if that exactly fits logically, as a dead, or stuck pixel on any lcd is always an eyesore, looks larger than it is, and draws your eye, especially if it's stuck green or something.

Did you resell your pair? They're pretty expensive huh?

[Rajagra]

Hmm, that's really interesting. It's strange they don't list the resolution readily.  180000 would put the image somewhere between 320x240(76800) and 640x480(307200)

So you can see individual pixels at that resolution, at least with that set huh?  But I don't know if that exactly fits logically, as a dead, or stuck pixel on any lcd is always an eyesore, looks larger than it is, and draws your eye, especially if it's stuck green or something.

Did you resell your pair? They're pretty expensive huh?

It was (relatively) cheap in a sale, and I still have it. It's 4:3 ratio so 180,000 pixels is about 490*365. But I wonder if they pulled the trick loved by camera manufacturers of counting each RGB cluster as 3 pixels. That would make it more like 280*210.

The pixels are most definitely visible. The duff pixel just makes sure you never forget it, it's like being stabbed in the eye with a needle. If you think a bad pixel on a normal screen is annoying, it's 100 times worse when you only see it in one eye. Basically it stops your brain from interpreting the two images as a normal scene.

[chimera15]

Yeah, sounds horrible, do you think you could make it into a monocle somehow? lol

Is it a stuck pixel or dead?  Have you tried opening it and massaging the lcd, or using an lcd unsticking utility?