eMagin to debut wearable iPod video headset
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
In fact, that proves my point, since humans had significant headaches when trying to use that Dominion technology.
I'll wait for 6th gen video ipod with horizontal 16:9 display.
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.
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?
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?
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?
I'm not an expert, but I would be very surprised if this doesn't harm eyes.
Originally posted by Chucker
I'm not an expert, but I would be very surprised if this doesn't harm eyes.
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.
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?
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".
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.