h a l f b a k e r yI think this would be a great thing to not do.
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
I'm doing work now for the university Brain Research lab
that I'm managing, and suddenly realized that it could be
quite easy to make a good and efficient personal
projector, that would be (hopefully) easier on the eyes,
compared to the current "blaring" screens, and goggle
devices.
The
idea is to make something similar to Doug
Hofstadter's vanishing words experiment, as described
in
Metamagical Themas, where, as he gazed at text, an
eye
tracker was following his eye movements, and rapidly
replacing the text just where his eye was about to jump
to. It shouldn't cost much to do this, and the projector
could figure the distance to the screen / wall / ceiling
that
you are looking at, and project to there accordingly.
On the other hand, and on second thoughts the downside
of this would be that the head has to be steady so that
only
the eye movements are determining your gaze. Or
maybe
not. My two friends (one is very sick for the past few
years) had developed a tracking device for creating 3d
images according with a person's gaze. The company was
3dreality, and died along with the rest of the 2000&x
software economy bubble, and the falling towers of NY.
Dennet talk on TED
http://www.ted.com/..._consciousness.html
[pashute, Jan 08 2014]
[link]
|
| |
Sorry for resuming my idea bombardment habits, but
this one was a must. |
|
| |
What happens to peripheral vision? If a light turns
off - or on - at the periphery of my sight, I'm very
aware of it. For this reason, I don't think this would
work. |
|
| |
Meant Daniel Dennet (in Consciousness
Explained).
The phenomenon is called Change Blindness and
builds on the very small "Saccadic Memory" needed
for understanding vision. |
|
| |
Douglas had a similar encounter with students,
(standing around him, excited and laughing) in
the
fake Turing test. |
|
| |
Well Max, you can be skeptical about it, but, just
like you can watch a movie about a fire without
feeling the heat and smelling the smoke, so you
can ignore the non-existent natural movement on
your peripheral vision - it only catches movement,
double eye shapes, or rapidly changed brightness. |
|
| |
Or as Dennet says in the linked TED talk: "It
doesn't seem that way, but your getting in a lot
less information than you think" |
|
| |
No, I'm very well acquainted with the vagaries of the
visual system, and with the fact that what we "see"
is actually a model constructed on the fly from very
limited visual information. |
|
| |
However, in a curious inversion of that paradigm, we
also process information that we're not aware of,
including that from the periphery of our visual field. |
|
| |
Where will your next saccade go? Your periphery
data tells you, as does your internal model. |
|
| |
So, you would likely need to add in lo-res images all
around, to help the periphery, and save the hi-res
image for only your focal area. |
|
| |
In fact, I heard the CEO of Unity3D talking about this
very thing, although within the context of 3D glasses
that would display hi-res only on your focal area to
save on CPU & battery. |
|
| |
And, glasses would work better than a wall projector
in a multi-user environment as well as glasses solve
the head orientation problem. |
|
| |
Yep, saw this demonstrated at siggraph (computer
graphics convention) last year, its
called a "foveated display". It renders more hires
detail where you are looking, for an order of
magnitude faster rendering. Could be very cool for
VR games.
It could be geometry, textures, resolution, shader
complexity all become more simple towards the
edges of vision |
|
| |