>Invisible to people around you.
Except for the not-built body-wearable computer that will eventually run the things [0]
> literally captures the entirety of your retina
This prototype covers <20% of your field of vision [1]
>no motion sickness, higher fidelity
I think you're comparing this to headsets, but I can tell you from [1] that this is not 'high-fidelity' by any means (for one, it's monochrome and each pixel is binary on or off)
Another problem to think about:
A sunny day is c. 30k nits. From the looks of the photo, this display is maybe 100 nits. IT will be nearly impossible to see the display outdoors.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzVAMRe3kmA - [1] https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/30/mojo-vision-reveals-the-w...
There’s probably something to be said for having 100 nits right on your eyeball.
Perhaps not materially so given the small relative difference.
A 100 nits huge screen at a distance that covers 20% of my field of vision would be the same as a 100 nits tiny screen close to my eye that covers 20% of my field of vision.
Or to put it another way, things don't look dimmer just because they're further away. It's less total light because it covers less of my field of vision.
But I think it certainly matters, since nits indicate the amount of light (candles per square meter) hitting a board 1m from the source, if the board/eye is only 10mm away, the intensity in that spot is much higher.
That said, the area changes much more than the distance I think, so overal brightness is probably still not equivalent to 100 nits (at 1m).
I think I can see how you've got here but that's not correct. It's about the light emitted per square meter of the source, not a measure of the light hitting a board some distance away.
Moving a screen closer doesn't make it more intense, because as you move closer it covers more of your vision. Total light increased, but not more intense.
"guest" was doing "this is a car, ok, next, this looks like a guy, wait what is in his hand,... is that an alleyway? no light, could someone be hiding in the shadow"
the random person's vision was like "lalalalaala.... end of test, what did i miss?"
That was a quite a big thing for me. i always "look" at things now, when i am walking, driving, something. it definitely gets tiring after a while because of the sensory overload. Now, i cannot imagine what AR would do to that vision, would it be helpful, less helpful? i am not sure but it will be something to consider.
edit: looks like "fight science" or "human weapon"
> MicroLEDs use 10% of the power of current LCD displays, and they have five to 10 times higher brightness than OLEDs
Also don't forget that a lot of the crazy increases in brightness recently is just us learning you can run a ton of wattage through LEDs if you figure out heat dissipation. The 1 hour (non-rechargeable) battery life on these things likely means they are running very little power through the display (plus who wants anything even slightly warm on their eye?)
I stuck with glasses precisely because I didn’t want to deal with keeping contacts clean, shoving things in my eyes everyday, and retaining the ability to just pop them off and ignore the world.
Liking contacts is a very reasonable prerequisite. I've had no trouble with my contacts for the last 20 years.
But there are billions of people who wear glasses. We wear them for pretty much everything. We don’t care that we have glasses. But contacts make the technology “invisible” for “seamless uptake”?
Miniaturising things to contacts just sounds like they made everything at least an order of magnitude harder to achieve. Meanwhile they could have generated revenue from the glasses wearing population.
Not based on the PR photo. It would be very obvious to anyone who makes eye contact with you.