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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
"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."
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.