or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › eMagin to debut wearable iPod video headset
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

eMagin to debut wearable iPod video headset

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
A company that makes video display products for military and industrial uses has developed a wearable headset system that plugs into Apple Computer's video iPod, according to SeattlePI.

Bellevue-based eMagin Corp. plans to unveil the device sometime this year with a suggest retail price of $600 -- about $200 more than the cost of Apple's most expensive iPod.

Dubbed the EyeBud 800, the device will display video from fifth-generation iPods in the front of one eye using optical technology designed to give the picture a higher resolution and make it appear larger than on the iPod's screen.

"With the proximity of the screen to the eye, and the magnifying effect of the company's optical technology, the company says that using the headset is akin to watching a 105-inch display from 12 feet away," according to the report.

The EyeBud system reportedly uses a separate control module, about the size of the iPod, which includes a rechargeable battery pack.

"Suddenly you've got this big-screen, movie-screen, home-theater experience, wherever you are," said Gary Jones, eMagin's president and CEO.

Consumers will likely be able to get their first look at the EyeBud 800 a this week's Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, which eMagin will be attending.
post #2 of 36
As cool as the idea is, I would think the potential social stigma of wearing that headset would be too great. I would much rather tote a small laptop around.
post #3 of 36
Quote:
in the front of one eye

Can I kill the designer? Please?

It should be obvious that watching something for a long period of time with one eye and not the other is dangerous.
post #4 of 36


I say! Shouldn't you have a look at the implimentation before offing the fellow? Perhaps he has anticipated your concern and successfully accommodated it. Ease up a bit there, Chucker!

Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Can I kill the designer? Please?

It should be obvious that watching something for a long period of time with one eye and not the other is dangerous.
post #5 of 36
Can you label yourself "GEEK" any greater than wearing something like this?

I can perhaps see using this on an airplane. But walking around with this thing on is ridiculous IMHO.
As previously mentioned, just watch it on a laptop or a future enhance video iPod.
post #6 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by onetrickposter
Perhaps he has anticipated your concern and successfully accommodated it.

Funny that you would use that word, since accommodation of the eye is exactly what this product is likely to impair.
post #7 of 36


post #8 of 36


In fact, that proves my point, since humans had significant headaches when trying to use that Dominion technology.
post #9 of 36


I'll wait for 6th gen video ipod with horizontal 16:9 display.
post #10 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker


In fact, that proves my point, since humans had significant headaches when trying to use that Dominion technology.

Very true, unless you're a genetically enhanced Vorta, you may have problems.
post #11 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Can I kill the designer? Please?

It should be obvious that watching something for a long period of time with one eye and not the other is dangerous.

Is it? Anybody whose eyes don't match perfectly (anisometropic and especially antimetropic people) of course rely on one eye at any given time. There are more people like that than you think. I know a graphic designer with antimetropia. He can't read a book at arm's length or closer with one of his eyes, yet his other eye lets him work on the computer all day without eyestrain. The opposite is also true, his work eye is terrible for distance vision but he can sit in the nosebleed section at the stadium and still see the field quite well. What's "dangerous" is trying to use a head mounted display in any uncontrolled environment. You shouldn't be trying to walk down the street with either a monocular or binocular display. But watching it when you're sitting facing a blank wall shouldn't be a problem. Personally, I'd love to have this, especially if they can get the resolution up and let me hook it up to a Powerbook.

I know you're not an opthalmologist, but have you even played one on TV?
post #12 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
Is it? Anybody whose eyes don't match perfectly (especially people with antimetropia) of course rely on one eye. There are more people like that than you think. [..] I know you're not an opthalmologist, but have you even played one on TV?

So you're arguing that because people can get by with just one eye, it's okay for products to enforce only using that one eye?
post #13 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
So you're arguing that because people can get by with just one eye, it's okay for products to enforce only using that one eye?

You're arguing that it's "dangerous" (without a shred of evidence) and the designer should be killed. Who's making the more outlandish argument here?
post #14 of 36
My "should be killed" comment was obviously in joking; I'm sorry if you didn't realize that.

I'm not an expert, but I would be very surprised if this doesn't harm eyes.
post #15 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
I'm not an expert, but I would be very surprised if this doesn't harm eyes.

post #16 of 36
Isn't it common sense? It's like a one-sided headphone. Yes, I know, monaural headsets exist and are quite common, but that's for temporary use (and phones are monaural anyway). When you listen to music, you would want to use both ears. When one of the wires breaks and the music only comes through one ear, it gets disconcerting (to say the least) very quickly.

I fail to see how this would be any different for eyes. Eyes can accomodate to various viewing distances, but making one watch a closeby object (which this device would inevitably be) and the other either watch something further away (whatever else is in the room) or nothing (by closing it) sounds painful to me.
post #17 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Isn't it common sense? It's like a one-sided headphone. Yes, I know, monaural headsets exist and are quite common, but that's for temporary use (and phones are monaural anyway). When you listen to music, you would want to use both ears. When one of the wires breaks and the music only comes through one ear, it gets disconcerting (to say the least) very quickly.

I fail to see how this would be any different for eyes. Eyes can accomodate to various viewing distances, but making one watch a closeby object (which this device would inevitably be) and the other either watch something further away (whatever else is in the room) or nothing (by closing it) sounds painful to me.

Why would you assume that the technology hasn't addressed these issues?
post #18 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by wilco
Why would you assume that the technology hasn't addressed these issues?

Why would you assume that it has? What, by continuously using a laser beam to fix our eyes?

It simple makes a lot more sense to put two screens, one on each eye. That way, you also get a neat 3D effect "for free".
post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Why would you assume that it has?

Because if it didn't, they wouldn't have a product, nor be in business, would they? It's clear from the article that they've been using this sort of technology for years without having the potential problems that you described earlier.
post #20 of 36
This will remain a niche product for anti-social gherkins.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #21 of 36
I am continually amazed at designers... Is life copying art or is art copying life. Flip phones, tablet PC's, large storage on devices smaller than a lighter and now this. I know talking a little off topic but I thought an interesting point.
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away. - GC
Reply
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away. - GC
Reply
post #22 of 36
I have seen products like this before and the do cause I strain. Especially if you try to look at a very large screen with one eye and everything else with the other. I'm sure that this would work but I don't know how many people would pay 500 for headaches.
post #23 of 36
If you do decide to buy this, don't mind that i would start laughing my pants off at you if I see you.
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Isn't it common sense? It's like a one-sided headphone. Yes, I know, monaural headsets exist and are quite common, but that's for temporary use (and phones are monaural anyway). When you listen to music, you would want to use both ears. When one of the wires breaks and the music only comes through one ear, it gets disconcerting (to say the least) very quickly.

So, pray tell, does your discomfort when listening to music using one ear translate to it being "dangerous," as you claim the monocular HMD must be? It must drive you crazy when those phones you mention start playing music on hold. Funny, in many jurisdictions, it's actually illegal to wear headphones or earbuds on both ears when you're operating a vehicle, although they do allow the obstruction of just one ear. Are they advocating "dangerous" actions? And I'm sure the people who wear monaural headsets in call centers all day every day would be surprised to hear that they're only for temporary use.

Quote:
I fail to see how this would be any different for eyes. Eyes can accomodate to various viewing distances, but making one watch a closeby object (which this device would inevitably be) and the other either watch something further away (whatever else is in the room) or nothing (by closing it) sounds painful to me.

Here's an idea, Einstein, look at a blank wall or a ceiling. Besides, you don't seem to know the first thing about how eyes work, judging by this "sounds painful" guesswork and assumptions instead of hard evidence. Don't quit your day job.

Quote:
It simple makes a lot more sense to put two screens, one on each eye. That way, you also get a neat 3D effect "for free".

Once again, you betray your ignorance. Having two screens will not automatically give you stereoscopic 3D effects any more than having two earbuds automatically means you're listening to stereophonic sound. You have to start with the content, son. You'd need two video cards displaying two slightly different images using double the CPU power to generate them. Even then, you can't do anything to prerecorded non-stereoscopic video (i.e. everything on VHS, DVD, the Web, etc.), so you're stuck with the same, flat imagery again. Meanwhile, the cost of two displays and their circuitry would increase the cost of the device significantly, making the feature hardly "for free." Not to mention with two displays, you have to start worrying about adjusting the interpupillary distance properly or you'll definitely have eye problems.
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
Funny, in many jurisdictions, it's actually illegal to wear headphones or earbuds on both ears when you're operating a vehicle, although they do allow the obstruction of just one ear.

That's hardly the same. Obviously, the point in that case is that you can still keep track with traffic. Also, such headsets are designed for usage in short periods of time.

Quote:
And I'm sure the people who wear monaural headsets in call centers all day every day would be surprised to hear that they're only for temporary use.

Indeed, people vastly underestimate how badly they let their ears get screwed up when there's truly no reason to.

Quote:
Don't quit your day job.

I don't have one.

Anyways, sounds like you're just out to flame me. Hope you're having fun.

Consider yourself ignored.
post #26 of 36
I'd rather put that money towards a new workstation or laptop.
post #27 of 36
It's an ongoing source of debate whether reading and prolonged "nearwork" causes myopia. Certainly, very few would disagree that eyestrain occurs. There is no reason to believe that the manufacturers of this product have conducted long-term studies of the effects monocular near-focus, or even monitored changes in visual acuity in their testing pool.
post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Anyways, sounds like you're just out to flame me. Hope you're having fun.

Not at all. But you just make such silly, unsupported points ("It's dangerous!" 3D from 2 identical images. Not to mention the soon-to-be-classic "headsets screw up hearing") that it's like you're painting a bullseye on your back. And it's funny how somebody who starts off with "Can I kill the designer? Please?" can suddenly turn indignant and accuse others of flaming.
post #29 of 36
Actually, reading this thread again, I'm simply amazed at the misconceptions being thrown around here, not just from Chucker. Why would anyone think this was supposed to be used while you're walking down the street? It could be that people just don't want to have to haul around 5 pounds of laptop all the time when a pound of iPod+Eyebud can show a bigger virtual screen. What's worse is comments like "I'll wait for a future iPod video." Just how big do you think Apple can make the iPod screen in the future that'll still fit in your pocket without having to at least move the clickwheel to the back? Also, what's with all these comments about near-focus? Hasn't anybody here ever used an HMD? Their optics are designed to make the image appear as if it were several feet away, in this case 12 feet, according to the quote. So all this hand-wringing about "It'll be tough having one eye focusing close and another so far away" is nonsense. Does anyone really think you're supposed to focus on an image that's effectively a fraction of an inch away from your eye? Nobody can focus that closely.
post #30 of 36
HMDs, especially monocular ones, present near-focus issues, even though the image appears distant, with eyestrain, changes in accommodation, transient myopias etc... This has nothing to do with trying to focus on an object that is a fraction of an inch away from the eye, which of course does not happen.
post #31 of 36
Reminder:

This is not a discussion forum for the journal of the American Medical Association or some other entity of that caliber.

I think a lot of the comments made were made in jest and should not be taken so seriously.

If consumers want to buy headgear that allows them to view video from their iPods at a larger size or in a different way, then more power to the companies that are willing to provide that product for them.

Whether or not it's harmful falls under the category of Caveat Emptor.
post #32 of 36
I'd rather have my iPod display a holographic image like R2D2 on Star Wars.
post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
Why would anyone think this was supposed to be used while you're walking down the street?

That's a pretty true comment. Does anyone watch the video from an ipod with video while walking down the street? You can't, that'd be retarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by ecking
That's a pretty true comment. Does anyone watch the video from an ipod with video while walking down the street? You can't, that'd be retarded.

This made me think of the AH-64 Apache pilots with a little see through screen over 1 eye. I wonder if this might be from the same company. If they can fly an assault helicopter at low altitudes and watch the screen, I could imagine walking around and watching some video. Not that I would.

I thought "why would it be unsafe if they let pilots use it?"
hmmm. maybe not.

Page 4 from INVOLUNTARY EYE RESPONSES AS MEASURES OF FATIGUE IN U.S. ARMY APACHE AVIATORS

"Introduction: AH-64 Apache helicopter pilots use a monocular helmet-mounted display that provides pilotage and fire-control imagery from two separate forward-looking infrared sensors mounted on the nose of the aircraft. Studies have documented complaints of fatigue, headaches, and visual problems associated with the monocular display. The goal of this study was to quantify possible flight induced fatigue in Apache aviators. Methods: Data were collected at Hanchey Army Airfield, Ft. Rucker, AL. Aviators provided pre and post flight ocular measures and self-reports of fatigue. An instrument calculated initial diameter, constriction latency, and constriction amplitude from the response of the pupil to a light flash. A fourth parameter, saccadic velocity, was measured in degrees per second as the subject responded to a change in target position. Pre and post flight self-reports of alertness, and physical, mental, and visual fatigue consisted of a mark along 4 separate 100-mm lines. Results: 587 complete sets of pre and post flight measures were obtained from 53 aviators. Significant differences in all pre and post flight ocular responses were observed. Pupil size and constriction latency increased while constriction amplitude and saccadic velocity decreased. Significant pre and post flight differences were also seen on all 4 self-report scales. Pilots reported being less alert and more fatigued following flight. Discussion: Responses of the eye to light have been used to identify sleepiness and mental fatigue. We found that flight was a significant factor in producing changes in ocular and self- report measures similar to those produced by sleep loss. At the present time it is unclear how much of these differences were due to flight and how much were due to the monocular display. To address these issues, research with pilots flying different airframes and using I2 NVGs has begun."
post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by two
This made me think of the AH-64 Apache pilots with a little see through screen over 1 eye. I wonder if this might be from the same company. If they can fly an assault helicopter at low altitudes and watch the screen, I could imagine walking around and watching some video. Not that I would.

I thought "why would it be unsafe if they let pilots use it?"
hmmm. maybe not.

I'm not an Apache Bubba but I have flown with a one eye HMD. There are two versions, one that acts as a see through information display which doesn't cause any problems as long as you don't try to use an attitude gyro display looking out the side of the helo, and a video display version which sucks.

Imagine flying at night in the kind of dark you would only find inside a dogs asshole and having either this bright green thing exploding in one eye or turning down the brightness and contrast up far enough to not hurt, that now you can't see the trees trying to reach over and swat you into a tumbling ball of aluminum. At least with straight-up night vision goggles both eyes accommodate together so you don't have to fiddle with setting them to useable levels.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #36 of 36
I love this place. I love how we have people helicopter pilots, quasi optometrists, jokers, trekkies, chip fabbing experts, all the motley characters, the whole gamut, to weigh in on such inane and/or lifestyle-changing issues, like an EyeBud for example. What a great forum.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › eMagin to debut wearable iPod video headset