h a l f b a k e r yWe got your practicality ... right here.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
20:3 vision with laser edging
a computer edge traces everything you view with lasers, then beams a reference beam at your eye cause microfine linear perfect focus versions of the edge tracings at the retina | |
holograms use a reference beam as well as a reflected beam. I think that the shape variations of the ocular lens could be mostly gotten around if a computer guided laser were to
rather outrageously edge trace everything at your general vicinity (raster might also work)
then use a phase additive
beam on the retina causing the edgetrace photon with reference beam to make bright microshapes at the retina
thus changing the resolution of human vision from the lens to the retina. Ive read the human retina responds to one or two photons so thats some very high resolution vision. Possibly better than seeing things 20 ft away as if they were 3 ft away.
Theres another idea on here where I note that laser speckle works regardless of focus, thus suggest a baby toy that makes perfect shapes even prefocus ability. Kind of similar.
Saccade Mirror 3
https://www.google....="saccade+mirror+3"
Re: [Alterother]'s complaint [notexactly, Dec 06 2018]
[link]
|
| |
Could your brain process more information from the retina? Regardless, I have read that the retina actually has a fairly low res and your brain is already doing most of the work, so to get more info to the brain you would need to bypass the eye entirely. |
|
| |
//the retina actually has a fairly low res ... brain is
already doing most of the work// True of
peripheral vision, but at the
fovea, resolution's 1.3
arcminutes[1]. |
|
| |
However, the
lens reduces this to about 3 arcminutes
[1]. Visual physiologists bypass that
limitation by using lasers to make interference
fringes directly on the retina [2]. Hence this idea. |
|
| |
[1] Wikipedia
[2] told to me, by one
such, years ago |
|
| |
//Ive read the human retina responds to one or two photons so thats some very high resolution vision. Possibly better than seeing things 20 ft away as if they were 3 ft away.// |
|
| |
That's hardly a pair of hand-held pruning shears. |
|
| |
There would be a conflict between whatever imaging
device the computer uses and the mechanism of human
vision: cameras track smoothly and continuously, where as
our eyes 'saccade,' or flit minutely from one focal point to
another as we look around. It happens so rapidly that you
can't catch yourself doing it. Unless the computer were
somehow able to predict exactly where the eye would fall
while panning from one spot to another and keep up with
it in realtime, there would be a nausea-and-migraine -
inducing split-second lag while the reference laser caught
up to whatever you were trying to focus on. |
|
| |
<sigh> could somebody dumb this down a notch or five ? |
|
| |
Photonic response (quantum efficiency) and resolution are two completely different things. Resolution is dependent on optics, mangification, and sensor density. |
|
| |
Quantum efficiency (QE) is dependent solely on how much signal the sensor response puts out with respect to the number of photons impinging on it. Note that this is usually very depndent on the frequency of the incoming light. In the human eye, the black and white receptors (rods) have a QE approaching one and the color receptors run closer to .01. |
|
| |
In other words the human eye might put out a signal from a single photon, but resolution depends on those photons hitting the correct optic nerve in the first place. Since multiple rods connect to a single nerve, the resolution is even lower than normal. |
|
| |
[MechE] That's what I obfuscated. |
|
| |
Also, of course, the ability to respond to small numbers of photons is only present at extremely low light levels. The response is logarithmic, so at ordinary light levels it takes billions of photons to make a difference. |
|
| |
Ah yes.. the highly technical step by step that just assumes you know the end game |
|
| |
Wow, you guys have been blowing me right out of the
water lately. Must be the pain pills. |
|
| |
Or maybe I'm just an idiot. It might be that. |
|
| |
Sorry, I kind of want to bun it. Still trying to figure out what it's supposed to do though. |
|
| |
[AutoMcDonough] Among uses it gives people hypervision
with doing anything to the eye, just smart glasses or contact
lenses. |
|
| |
//Resolution is dependent on optics, mangification, and sensor
density.// |
|
| |
So ... if you look mangy, you'd better be resolute. |
|
| |