Smart sunglasses with lenses displaying real-time data for cyclers
road.cc
road.cc
Would have thought that "how it works" would explain the optics part as obviously just having a screen 1cm from your eye would not work.
However without this explanation it looks like a kickstarter scam...
https://www.thisisant.com/news/new-extended-display-profile-...
How I could missed that. It not a glass but an clip to add.
A /set/ of technologies, and for each implementation you want the details. I use Si-OLED with automated transparency set on #000 black.
HUDs on glasses however are an active field of development. as noted before, you can't just shove a transparent display in the way and expect it to be readable.
You need optics so that the text/detail is focus-able.
You need a light source that is ultra efficient, so its bright enough for day light
you need some sort of control mechanism for that light source so it can be formed into pixels.
Just to be sure: you are aware that commercial products for Augmented Reality at consumer level are already available, right? I do not know many, but the Epson Moverio, obtained years ago, are as mature as I could ever want. With maybe a slightly taller display (not requried, just preferable and achievable) and a more discreet eyeset, perfection.
ENGO is just a marketing website. Doesn't show anything like a working product. It is all photoshop and renders. No idea about anything technical. Modal windows popping up. Shopify site where I am buying don't know what. Testimonials from half a year ago. Nothing of user reviews on youtube?
I bet you it is a scam. Cmon guys. It is a scam.
yes, but not on battery power. As someone who is actively working in the field, there are about 5 unsolved problems before practical AR is a thing. (they are: location, display, object detection, audio understanding and power management.)
but this really isn't AR in the sense that a lay person would recognise.
With «commercial products for Augmented Reality» I meant "systems that mix information to the environment in the visual field" - so, 'Augmented Reality Eyeset' (shortening as we were talking about optical displays).
--
Aside note: in actual AR, what is the issue you mentioned with «power management»?
if you take that headset linked in the level up, it has a power draw of 4.5 watts.
A practical AR headset, (ie one that you'd consider wearing in public, with normal people) has enough space for a battery with about 1.1 watt hours of power. In 5 years time that might be 2.4 watt hours(perhaps).
That headset will have about 30 minutes of light up time. Thats before we do graphics, sensors and all that jazz. So its basically not at all practical as anything other than a slight diversion.
So in order to get a practical headset style AR wearble system, you need a "puck" (I think thats magic leap's term for the CPU/GPU) to do all the heavy lifting, with a fair wedge of extra power. Now, that only solves one issue, CPU and or internet connectivity. You still need headset sensors.
This means multiple cameras for detecting position, and possibly another set for visual stuff (to allow projection mapping and object detection.) All of those cameras have either got to be low power enough and self contained (ie <=10mw and produce relative movement [or actual global pose] rather than picture data), or you've got to have a super low power way of connecting them to the "puck"
basically practical AR will require self contained cameras that can produce scene description(ie chair at position x,y,z) and cameras that produce absolute position (SLAM, but with a prebuilt map) all for a power budget of ~30mw or less.
(And I instead feel very uncomfortable with the idea of a central unit near the skull... Have you considered that many could "feel" the same, and that it should be preferable to delegate much to a separate cabled unit also for market reasons?)
https://www.varifocals.net/google-glass/
Only image I can find on the website that seems to demonstrate anything is maybe this one
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0555/1810/1695/files/Nose_...
So does it project image on the glass? Maybe projects image directly on retina? How does it work? What is the resolution etc? Why not answer these more technical questions in some article further on the website?
I'm not sure if it does work, however. But I'd be inclined to say it might.
Anyway, these look good but I doubt they're as good as the Google prototype scopes with built-in LCD, LED, 1080p, 3D, Sony technology built into every single lens that DrDisrespect has been using.
And since we only see mockups I'm sure it doesn't work at all and is a scam.
I've tried to make a DIY hud for bicycle riding and it failed on two steps:
- you need enough brightness for it to be visible in full daylight, so the image was be tinny or the blue oled I've tried to use weren't bright enough
- my prototype worked well with a straight piece of glass and a plastic sheet Fresnel lens, but it wasn't good for actual use. For actual use you need to project out-of-focus image on a curved surface of bike glasses. I have no idea how to make it small, precise enough and cheap enough.
There are also miniature DLP projectors from TI, that I think would work but they were pretty expensive for a hobbyist to use.
https://www.snow-online.com/skimag/exclusively-in-schladming...
Mind you, you will get laughed off the slope with that on, but...
I'm expecting something like this as AR-Sunglass for some time - from Garmin. I looking forward that AR will improve a lot of areas and make entire new things possible. Contrary to VR, which I'm about rather skeptically if it will leave a special niche use cases.
Returning back to the APIs. If we see here the industry applying again the idea of a locked-down system we will miss many use-cases and at the end one or two very big companies will eventually dominate. I'm expecting AR-Glass to behave like Bluetooh or Wireless-Display-Port - than we will see massive gains.
No issue with the API: it is just Android. You can develop products for them without any difficulty. Black is transparent - that's it. What you will add in the software is, to make sure that you make good use of the dpad embedded in the controller unit.
Aesthetically there is probably more work to be done; technically, they are very, very, very, very well done. As I commented in another post here, I only may wish for a slightly taller display (and maybe more battery - they last 5 hours). And as I commented in another post here, I found them to be lifechangers: reading while moving around is very pleasing and efficient.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes-personal-shopper/2021/09...
No good for AR video gaming, or reading instant messaging.
But for sport applications, it's enough to show the user the time, or their speed, or their wattage, or their heartrate.
They also are well adapted/conditioned to wear ridiculous sunglasses big enough to accept the optics to run a HUD.
I can't see a map, but the audio queues are (usually) all I need for directions.
Basically, I like the idea of these sunglasses, but the information shown doesn't actually seem all that useful.
With Form I see my heart rate in real time 100% of the time. I was worried I'd have a problem being near sighted but it really does look like the data is being projected 10 feet in front of me. It's a neat trick - my brain actually thinks that when I exhale the bubbles are in-between me and the projection, even though I know it obviously isn't.
My only complaint is that every single forking time I open the app it tries to upsell me on their structured training program for a monthly fee. Literally every time - I open the app and have to tap 'no thanks' before I can use it!
In downhills live data aren’t really that useful. If it showed a live map, that would be very useful.
it's funny you mention games because most games I've been playing have been moving away from having a HUD visible all of the time, and only show it contextually.
For leisure biking you obviously choose paths where it doesn't matter.
I guess I don't understand why you need to see your heart rate and speed constantly. presumably any device (bike computer or phone) could just record your position and speed and you could just look later if you cared.
With the Augmented Reality headset I have, darker shades (obscuring the environment) improve the visibility of the "augmentational" displayed elements, but it is not necessary, and very probably unrequired when the information is concise (e.g heart rate value, as opposed to an essay).
> why you need to see your heart rate and speed constantly [...] record ... and ... look later
You do not get "feedback" if you check later. Real time feedback is different from "next-day analysis".
I didn't downvote your comments but have you heard of HUD and why those augmented displays exist in some airplanes?
I only wish the navigational info from my Android Car would be piped in there as well, as (with my current model) only onboard navigation works with the HUD.
But my eyes never leave the road. Even when it might be safe, something might occur the exact moment, I am looking down to check the speed or something.
So for me it is a massive improvement in safety.
Road biking though, I really struggle to see the value. But it’s cool and like some other post said, bikers will spend exorbitant amounts of money on marginal gains.
The environment is distant, the virtual screen (the "augmentational" information) is still distant - no "reading glasses" involved. If one requires lenses for sharp vision of distant objects (for myopia), they will be equally required for reading data in the virtual screen.
Looking not only at computer games but aviation much of these is in use for many years. It a more efficient and saver to show this transparently into the field-of-view.
However, I’m not going to loose wearable glasses. And while I don’t find the preference information useful, this would be great for getting GPS directions.
Out of the MAMMA companies it is likely to come from either Meta, Apple or even Alphabet.
You seem to be making reference to an «overall execution» that appeals to the masses, not to the involved user. "Alpinism for everyone", "alpinism for dummies" and "alpinism for the mountaineer" are not the same thing.
Yes, because that is what counts in terms of market dominance and mass adoption of a product category. This has worked for several companies in reintroducing the smartphone and smartwatches without being 'first'. After targeting the average user, the same companies focus towards the professionals and build a version targeting them.
Thus, it is both the masses and the professionals along side the overall execution of that.
It turns out that Epson's ones appeal more towards B2B2C uses than directly towards the average user. The other way round is true for the smart glasses in this HN article but targets a niche of sports users. Neither have separate versions that targets both markets or is even remotely mass adopted.
Without targeting the masses first, they risk being disrupted by the ones that do and will lose entirely or get acquired once the disruptors begin to target the professionals. Whoever does the overall execution of all of the above for the smart glasses, simply wins.
In fact, I am not sure which «smartphone and smartwatches» are those for the professionals in «After targeting the average user, the same companies focus towards the professionals and build a version targeting them».
The Augmented Reality Eyeset technology is ready already for mass adoption - in terms of results. The problem is just with a couple of missing details.
In the U.S. bicycles are basically tools for practising sports and, as such, should be expensive, ultra-efficient and loaded with high-tech.
In the rest of the world (from Amsterdam to Manila) bicycles are mostly for transportation and should be durable, reliable and not expensive at all. So far, I never saw an "omafiets" (a.k.a. "grandma bike") in the US. And sports should also be very cheap and shouldn't need expensive equipment, as in "real" football (aka: "soccer").
Edit: also, isn't bicycle navigation the kind of problem that Eric Migicowski tried to solve in Amsterdam with smartwatches (Pebble)?
But the other thing is what kinds of bikes you see in the US. By far what you see the most of in NYC is shitty Huffys that cost maybe $150 new, and then Arrow e-bikes that food delivery drivers use.