h a l f b a k e r yThe embarrassing drunkard uncle of invention.
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,
|
|
|
Good binoculars are expensive. If a group of watchers want to look at the same object, either the binoculars need to be passed round, or everyone needs their own pair.
With BorgCo binocular sharing cameras, the problem is solved. A pair of high gain, high quality cameras clip onto the existing eyepieces,
and a digital feed is passed to any number of participants using VR headsets, locally or remotely. There's an optical pass-through to allow the operator to aim and focus the binoculars locally.
The DeLuxe version transmits audio, and has night vision capabilities.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Hmm. Baked for microscopes and telescopes. I'd imagine
that the same hardware could be adapted for binoculars. But
put the sensor on only one eyepiece - there's no advantage to
having sensors on both. |
|
| |
How do you get stereo vision with only one sensor? |
|
| |
What [poc] said. Yes there is, otherwise why do binoculars exist instead of just telescopes ? |
|
| |
Your species has, on average, two eyes per individual*. Google Cardboard is a Thing: this could be easily" fed to an app and remote users could then have true 3D vision through the "binoculars". |
|
| |
*We're pretty sure your Aunt Suvatiwartha's third eye is just drawn on. |
|
| |
I would be surprised if binoculars give useful stereo
perception, at least over long distances. The parallax
available from two objectives situated not much further
apart than the human eyes, when looking at a distant
scene, will be very small. |
|
| |
At a rough estimate, if the objectives are six inches apart
and you're looking at something 200 yards away, the
parallax (relative to the infinitely far background) will be
about the same as if your own eyes were 0.06 inches apart
and you were looking at something 6 feet away - i.e.
negligible. |
|
| |
The reason for having two eyepieces is the same as for
having two eyepieces on a binocular microscope - despite
the fact that it has only a single objective (and hence both
eyes see the same image): it's more comfortable than
squinting with one eye shut. |
|
| |
I'm also surprised you know about Aunty Suvie's third eye -
it's normally covered by her chest hair. |
|
| |
Bigger binoculars have the objectives further apart. |
|
| |
Maybe there is a placebo thingy going on. |
|
| |
//two eyes per individual//... actually, the mean
is very slightly less than two. Same for legs etc. |
|
| |
That is probably correct; the number of specimens with fewer than two is likely to outnumber those with more than two. |
|
| |
Order of magnitude, [frank] |
|
| |