Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by RC_ITR | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

RC_ITR

Ok, let's diligence this, so our skepticism isn't unfounded:

>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...

View on HN

many many years ago i saw a nat geo "fighting documentary" where the guest (special forces something, ) had a eye tracker and a random person walk through a test course. what they showed was the "special guest" was actively looking and investigating threats, checking surroundings and assessing everything. the random person was just "walking" without actually "looking" or "concentrating" on anything, .

"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.

That sounds interesting, do you happen to know how one could find this documentary?

i'm not really sure. years ago natgeo used to do shows like that one time where two guys go and train various martial arts around the world, this must've been something similar in that line. i don't remember

edit: looks like "fight science" or "human weapon"

Thank you, will check it out!

> IT will be nearly impossible to see the display outdoors.

There’s probably something to be said for having 100 nits right on your eyeball.

THE GOGGLES, THEY DO NOTHING ?!

Why does the location matter? If its 10k on your eyeball or 10k from across the room there is the same amount of light entering your eye.

Unless the one across the room is a laser, it does matter.

Are you saying that shining a laser from across the room is safer than from right in front of your eye?

I mean, yes. Depending on the lens, the laser will disperse its energy over a larger surface area.

Perhaps not materially so given the small relative difference.

Nits aren't a measure of total light though.

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.

Fair point, I imagined nits was something like Lumen.

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 don't think the brightness changes with the distance. Take any screen (or any object). When you very the distance the color of it doesn't increase or decrease in intensity.

> since nits indicate the amount of light (candles per square meter) hitting a board 1m from the source,

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.

OLEDs are hitting 1000 nits, and from your own link:

> MicroLEDs use 10% of the power of current LCD displays, and they have five to 10 times higher brightness than OLEDs

I don't disagree that those are the words, but the fact that the sample images are in a dim room is a huge red flag for me in terms of believing them.

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?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com