Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Computer displays that correct vision possible?
Computer displays that correct vision possible?
Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
eyeglasses.
I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
So maybe this is possible as well?
Amir
Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
eyeglasses.
I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
So maybe this is possible as well?
Amir
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
On 3 May, 14:34, Amir Michail <amich...@gmail,com > wrote:
> Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> eyeglasses.
>
> I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
>
> So maybe this is possible as well?
>
> Amir
What sort of 3D displays do you mean?
Like, holographic technology? I was looking at holographic technology
on the net so it's already been made but it still needs to be
developed and refined and stuff until it can enter the mainstream
market. So probably there is a long way to go.
Right now the coolest thing out is OLED, organic light emitting diode.
Have you heard of that? It's so thin! I want to buy a TV built with
that but they are really expensive. Totally next gen though! Imagine
just sticking it to the wall like you would with any poster or
painting. Except... it moves! Kind of like the pictures in Harry
Potter.
On 3 May, 14:34, Amir Michail <amich...@gmail,com > wrote:
> Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> eyeglasses.
>
> I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
>
> So maybe this is possible as well?
>
> Amir
What sort of 3D displays do you mean?
Like, holographic technology? I was looking at holographic technology
on the net so it's already been made but it still needs to be
developed and refined and stuff until it can enter the mainstream
market. So probably there is a long way to go.
Right now the coolest thing out is OLED, organic light emitting diode.
Have you heard of that? It's so thin! I want to buy a TV built with
that but they are really expensive. Totally next gen though! Imagine
just sticking it to the wall like you would with any poster or
painting. Except... it moves! Kind of like the pictures in Harry
Potter.
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
On May 3, 9:34 am, Amir Michail <amich...@gmail,com > wrote:
> Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> eyeglasses.
Quite impossible. Since laptops were invented by
people who need both corrective eyeglasses and
corrective batteries.
>
> I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
>
> So maybe this is possible as well?
>
> Amir
On May 3, 9:34 am, Amir Michail <amich...@gmail,com > wrote:
> Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> eyeglasses.
Quite impossible. Since laptops were invented by
people who need both corrective eyeglasses and
corrective batteries.
>
> I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
>
> So maybe this is possible as well?
>
> Amir
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
On 3 May, 15:01, "zzbun...@netscape,net " <zzbun...@netscape,net >
wrote:
> On May 3, 9:34 am, Amir Michail <amich...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > eyeglasses.
>
> Quite impossible. Since laptops were invented by
> people who need both corrective eyeglasses and
> corrective batteries.
Well, owing to the amount of minute electronics and silicon chips and
what not that go into a laptop and are needed to be handled with
extreme and fine care, I quite doubt that the people who invented them
would wear corrective lenses. It's more likely that they have very
good eyesight indeed.
On 3 May, 15:01, "zzbun...@netscape,net " <zzbun...@netscape,net >
wrote:
> On May 3, 9:34 am, Amir Michail <amich...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > eyeglasses.
>
> Quite impossible. Since laptops were invented by
> people who need both corrective eyeglasses and
> corrective batteries.
Well, owing to the amount of minute electronics and silicon chips and
what not that go into a laptop and are needed to be handled with
extreme and fine care, I quite doubt that the people who invented them
would wear corrective lenses. It's more likely that they have very
good eyesight indeed.
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
On May 3, 10:05 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On 3 May, 15:01, "zzbun...@netscape,net " <zzbun...@netscape,net >
> wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 9:34 am, Amir Michail <amich...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > > eyeglasses.
>
> > Quite impossible. Since laptops were invented by
> > people who need both corrective eyeglasses and
> > corrective batteries.
>
> Well, owing to the amount of minute electronics and silicon chips and
> what not that go into a laptop and are needed to be handled with
> extreme and fine care, I quite doubt that the people who invented them
> would wear corrective lenses. It's more likely that they have very
> good eyesight indeed.
Well, just about everybody with good eyes starts that way
with computers.
Until you start running into 16-hour eye strain and jerks with
lasers and
tickets to the Met.
Which is why the people who understand computer networks
invented robots, mini-cams, ipods, USB, gps, PV cells, fiber
optics,
Optical Computers, 7-11, internet, backspin, realprint, and
Cruise Missiles for the tax-em-til-they-drop Fascist cranks.
On May 3, 10:05 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On 3 May, 15:01, "zzbun...@netscape,net " <zzbun...@netscape,net >
> wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 9:34 am, Amir Michail <amich...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > > eyeglasses.
>
> > Quite impossible. Since laptops were invented by
> > people who need both corrective eyeglasses and
> > corrective batteries.
>
> Well, owing to the amount of minute electronics and silicon chips and
> what not that go into a laptop and are needed to be handled with
> extreme and fine care, I quite doubt that the people who invented them
> would wear corrective lenses. It's more likely that they have very
> good eyesight indeed.
Well, just about everybody with good eyes starts that way
with computers.
Until you start running into 16-hour eye strain and jerks with
lasers and
tickets to the Met.
Which is why the people who understand computer networks
invented robots, mini-cams, ipods, USB, gps, PV cells, fiber
optics,
Optical Computers, 7-11, internet, backspin, realprint, and
Cruise Missiles for the tax-em-til-they-drop Fascist cranks.
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
"Amir Michail" <amichail@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:f5527a1b-d89b-4767-bcbf-2bc88cadfe33@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> eyeglasses.
>
> I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
>
> So maybe this is possible as well?
>
> Amir
I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
3D effect doesn't help.
"Amir Michail" <amichail@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:f5527a1b-d89b-4767-bcbf-2bc88cadfe33@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> eyeglasses.
>
> I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
>
> So maybe this is possible as well?
>
> Amir
I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
3D effect doesn't help.
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
On May 3, 9:59 am, "CWatters"
<colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus,com > wrote:
> "Amir Michail" <amich...@gmail,com > wrote in message
>
> news:f5527a1b-d89b-4767-bcbf-2bc88cadfe33@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > eyeglasses.
>
> > I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
>
> > So maybe this is possible as well?
>
> > Amir
>
> I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
> things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
> 3D effect doesn't help.
Beg pardon? I am "nearsighted". Guess what the term means.
Mark L. Fergerson
On May 3, 9:59 am, "CWatters"
<colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus,com > wrote:
> "Amir Michail" <amich...@gmail,com > wrote in message
>
> news:f5527a1b-d89b-4767-bcbf-2bc88cadfe33@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > eyeglasses.
>
> > I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
>
> > So maybe this is possible as well?
>
> > Amir
>
> I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
> things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
> 3D effect doesn't help.
Beg pardon? I am "nearsighted". Guess what the term means.
Mark L. Fergerson
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
On 5 May, 04:10, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 3, 9:59 am, "CWatters"
>
>
>
> <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus,com > wrote:
> > "Amir Michail" <amich...@gmail,com > wrote in message
>
> >news:f5527a1b-d89b-4767-bcbf-2bc88cadfe33@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > > eyeglasses.
>
> > > I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
>
> > > So maybe this is possible as well?
>
> > > Amir
>
> > I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
> > things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
> > 3D effect doesn't help.
>
> Beg pardon? I am "nearsighted". Guess what the term means.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
"Near-sighted" refers to the ocular defect where there is trouble in
distance viewing, however I think what the earlier poster was pointing
out is that having a 3D model would be no different than the normal
flat screen, "2D screen" that we have of today. For example, using a
3D model to mitigate the effect of distance bluriness would be no more
effective than simply bringing one's face closer to the conventional
type screen in order to see objects clearly. The thing I am curious
about here though is precisely what kind of 3D technology the original
poster was hypothesizing should be utilized for this idea?
On 5 May, 04:10, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 3, 9:59 am, "CWatters"
>
>
>
> <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus,com > wrote:
> > "Amir Michail" <amich...@gmail,com > wrote in message
>
> >news:f5527a1b-d89b-4767-bcbf-2bc88cadfe33@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > > eyeglasses.
>
> > > I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
>
> > > So maybe this is possible as well?
>
> > > Amir
>
> > I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
> > things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
> > 3D effect doesn't help.
>
> Beg pardon? I am "nearsighted". Guess what the term means.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
"Near-sighted" refers to the ocular defect where there is trouble in
distance viewing, however I think what the earlier poster was pointing
out is that having a 3D model would be no different than the normal
flat screen, "2D screen" that we have of today. For example, using a
3D model to mitigate the effect of distance bluriness would be no more
effective than simply bringing one's face closer to the conventional
type screen in order to see objects clearly. The thing I am curious
about here though is precisely what kind of 3D technology the original
poster was hypothesizing should be utilized for this idea?
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
In sci.physics Zetsu <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On 5 May, 04:10, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > On May 3, 9:59 am, "CWatters"
> >
> >
> >
> > <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus,com > wrote:
> > > "Amir Michail" <amich...@gmail,com > wrote in message
> >
> > >news:f5527a1b-d89b-4767-bcbf-2bc88cadfe33@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> >
> > > > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > > > eyeglasses.
> >
> > > > I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
> >
> > > > So maybe this is possible as well?
> >
> > > > Amir
> >
> > > I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
> > > things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
> > > 3D effect doesn't help.
> >
> > Beg pardon? I am "nearsighted". Guess what the term means.
> >
> > Mark L. Fergerson
> "Near-sighted" refers to the ocular defect where there is trouble in
> distance viewing, however I think what the earlier poster was pointing
> out is that having a 3D model would be no different than the normal
> flat screen, "2D screen" that we have of today. For example, using a
> 3D model to mitigate the effect of distance bluriness would be no more
> effective than simply bringing one's face closer to the conventional
> type screen in order to see objects clearly. The thing I am curious
> about here though is precisely what kind of 3D technology the original
> poster was hypothesizing should be utilized for this idea?
Vision problems are a result of the eye's lens being unable to focus
an image on the retina.
There is nothing that can be done about that other than to put a
corrective lens (called glasses) in the system.
Arm waving about "apparent distance" is babble unless there is a
separate lens involved.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
In sci.physics Zetsu <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On 5 May, 04:10, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > On May 3, 9:59 am, "CWatters"
> >
> >
> >
> > <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus,com > wrote:
> > > "Amir Michail" <amich...@gmail,com > wrote in message
> >
> > >news:f5527a1b-d89b-4767-bcbf-2bc88cadfe33@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> >
> > > > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > > > eyeglasses.
> >
> > > > I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
> >
> > > > So maybe this is possible as well?
> >
> > > > Amir
> >
> > > I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
> > > things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
> > > 3D effect doesn't help.
> >
> > Beg pardon? I am "nearsighted". Guess what the term means.
> >
> > Mark L. Fergerson
> "Near-sighted" refers to the ocular defect where there is trouble in
> distance viewing, however I think what the earlier poster was pointing
> out is that having a 3D model would be no different than the normal
> flat screen, "2D screen" that we have of today. For example, using a
> 3D model to mitigate the effect of distance bluriness would be no more
> effective than simply bringing one's face closer to the conventional
> type screen in order to see objects clearly. The thing I am curious
> about here though is precisely what kind of 3D technology the original
> poster was hypothesizing should be utilized for this idea?
Vision problems are a result of the eye's lens being unable to focus
an image on the retina.
There is nothing that can be done about that other than to put a
corrective lens (called glasses) in the system.
Arm waving about "apparent distance" is babble unless there is a
separate lens involved.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
On May 5, 9:05 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux,com wrote:
> In sci.physics Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5 May, 04:10, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > On May 3, 9:59 am, "CWatters"
>
> > > <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus,com > wrote:
> > > > "Amir Michail" <amich...@gmail,com > wrote in message
>
> > > >news:f5527a1b-d89b-4767-bcbf-2bc88cadfe33@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > > > > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > > > > eyeglasses.
>
> > > > > I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
>
> > > > > So maybe this is possible as well?
>
> > > > > Amir
>
> > > > I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
> > > > things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
> > > > 3D effect doesn't help.
>
> > > Beg pardon? I am "nearsighted". Guess what the term means.
>
> > > Mark L. Fergerson
> > "Near-sighted" refers to the ocular defect where there is trouble in
> > distance viewing, however I think what the earlier poster was pointing
> > out is that having a 3D model would be no different than the normal
> > flat screen, "2D screen" that we have of today. For example, using a
> > 3D model to mitigate the effect of distance bluriness would be no more
> > effective than simply bringing one's face closer to the conventional
> > type screen in order to see objects clearly. The thing I am curious
> > about here though is precisely what kind of 3D technology the original
> > poster was hypothesizing should be utilized for this idea?
>
> Vision problems are a result of the eye's lens being unable to focus
> an image on the retina.
Correct. I was sorely confused at C. Watters' phrasing: "People who
need glasses don't have a problem seeing
things at the wrong distance".
> There is nothing that can be done about that other than to put a
> corrective lens (called glasses) in the system.
>
> Arm waving about "apparent distance" is babble unless there is a
> separate lens involved.
I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography. As far as other so-
called 3D display technologies (polarization, blink, etc.) are
concerned I agree with you completely. However I know of no a priori
reason a hologram cannot produce an image that my unaided eyes could
see clearly (at a distance beyond my unaided maximum sharp focus
distance) but "normal" eyes would see as blurred at the same distance.
Not that I know that much about holograms (IOW I'm speaking from
ignorance above). So, any holography experts available? A quick Google
yields nothing relevant.
Mark L. Fergerson
On May 5, 9:05 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux,com wrote:
> In sci.physics Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5 May, 04:10, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > On May 3, 9:59 am, "CWatters"
>
> > > <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus,com > wrote:
> > > > "Amir Michail" <amich...@gmail,com > wrote in message
>
> > > >news:f5527a1b-d89b-4767-bcbf-2bc88cadfe33@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > > > > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > > > > eyeglasses.
>
> > > > > I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
>
> > > > > So maybe this is possible as well?
>
> > > > > Amir
>
> > > > I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
> > > > things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
> > > > 3D effect doesn't help.
>
> > > Beg pardon? I am "nearsighted". Guess what the term means.
>
> > > Mark L. Fergerson
> > "Near-sighted" refers to the ocular defect where there is trouble in
> > distance viewing, however I think what the earlier poster was pointing
> > out is that having a 3D model would be no different than the normal
> > flat screen, "2D screen" that we have of today. For example, using a
> > 3D model to mitigate the effect of distance bluriness would be no more
> > effective than simply bringing one's face closer to the conventional
> > type screen in order to see objects clearly. The thing I am curious
> > about here though is precisely what kind of 3D technology the original
> > poster was hypothesizing should be utilized for this idea?
>
> Vision problems are a result of the eye's lens being unable to focus
> an image on the retina.
Correct. I was sorely confused at C. Watters' phrasing: "People who
need glasses don't have a problem seeing
things at the wrong distance".
> There is nothing that can be done about that other than to put a
> corrective lens (called glasses) in the system.
>
> Arm waving about "apparent distance" is babble unless there is a
> separate lens involved.
I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography. As far as other so-
called 3D display technologies (polarization, blink, etc.) are
concerned I agree with you completely. However I know of no a priori
reason a hologram cannot produce an image that my unaided eyes could
see clearly (at a distance beyond my unaided maximum sharp focus
distance) but "normal" eyes would see as blurred at the same distance.
Not that I know that much about holograms (IOW I'm speaking from
ignorance above). So, any holography experts available? A quick Google
yields nothing relevant.
Mark L. Fergerson
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
In sci.physics nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 5, 9:05 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux,com wrote:
> > In sci.physics Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 5 May, 04:10, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > > On May 3, 9:59 am, "CWatters"
> >
> > > > <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus,com > wrote:
> > > > > "Amir Michail" <amich...@gmail,com > wrote in message
> >
> > > > >news:f5527a1b-d89b-4767-bcbf-2bc88cadfe33@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> >
> > > > > > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > > > > > eyeglasses.
> >
> > > > > > I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
> >
> > > > > > So maybe this is possible as well?
> >
> > > > > > Amir
> >
> > > > > I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
> > > > > things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
> > > > > 3D effect doesn't help.
> >
> > > > Beg pardon? I am "nearsighted". Guess what the term means.
> >
> > > > Mark L. Fergerson
> > > "Near-sighted" refers to the ocular defect where there is trouble in
> > > distance viewing, however I think what the earlier poster was pointing
> > > out is that having a 3D model would be no different than the normal
> > > flat screen, "2D screen" that we have of today. For example, using a
> > > 3D model to mitigate the effect of distance bluriness would be no more
> > > effective than simply bringing one's face closer to the conventional
> > > type screen in order to see objects clearly. The thing I am curious
> > > about here though is precisely what kind of 3D technology the original
> > > poster was hypothesizing should be utilized for this idea?
> >
> > Vision problems are a result of the eye's lens being unable to focus
> > an image on the retina.
> Correct. I was sorely confused at C. Watters' phrasing: "People who
> need glasses don't have a problem seeing
> things at the wrong distance".
> > There is nothing that can be done about that other than to put a
> > corrective lens (called glasses) in the system.
> >
> > Arm waving about "apparent distance" is babble unless there is a
> > separate lens involved.
> I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography. As far as other so-
> called 3D display technologies (polarization, blink, etc.) are
> concerned I agree with you completely. However I know of no a priori
> reason a hologram cannot produce an image that my unaided eyes could
> see clearly (at a distance beyond my unaided maximum sharp focus
> distance) but "normal" eyes would see as blurred at the same distance.
How about basic optics as a good reason?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
In sci.physics nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 5, 9:05 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux,com wrote:
> > In sci.physics Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 5 May, 04:10, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > > On May 3, 9:59 am, "CWatters"
> >
> > > > <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus,com > wrote:
> > > > > "Amir Michail" <amich...@gmail,com > wrote in message
> >
> > > > >news:f5527a1b-d89b-4767-bcbf-2bc88cadfe33@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups,com ...
> >
> > > > > > Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
> > > > > > eyeglasses.
> >
> > > > > > I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.
> >
> > > > > > So maybe this is possible as well?
> >
> > > > > > Amir
> >
> > > > > I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
> > > > > things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
> > > > > 3D effect doesn't help.
> >
> > > > Beg pardon? I am "nearsighted". Guess what the term means.
> >
> > > > Mark L. Fergerson
> > > "Near-sighted" refers to the ocular defect where there is trouble in
> > > distance viewing, however I think what the earlier poster was pointing
> > > out is that having a 3D model would be no different than the normal
> > > flat screen, "2D screen" that we have of today. For example, using a
> > > 3D model to mitigate the effect of distance bluriness would be no more
> > > effective than simply bringing one's face closer to the conventional
> > > type screen in order to see objects clearly. The thing I am curious
> > > about here though is precisely what kind of 3D technology the original
> > > poster was hypothesizing should be utilized for this idea?
> >
> > Vision problems are a result of the eye's lens being unable to focus
> > an image on the retina.
> Correct. I was sorely confused at C. Watters' phrasing: "People who
> need glasses don't have a problem seeing
> things at the wrong distance".
> > There is nothing that can be done about that other than to put a
> > corrective lens (called glasses) in the system.
> >
> > Arm waving about "apparent distance" is babble unless there is a
> > separate lens involved.
> I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography. As far as other so-
> called 3D display technologies (polarization, blink, etc.) are
> concerned I agree with you completely. However I know of no a priori
> reason a hologram cannot produce an image that my unaided eyes could
> see clearly (at a distance beyond my unaided maximum sharp focus
> distance) but "normal" eyes would see as blurred at the same distance.
How about basic optics as a good reason?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail,com > wrote in
news:1ebbff3c-5d59-441e-a4a7-fcf8a6f66d35@s33g2000pri.googlegroups,com :
<Snipola>
>> an image on the retina.
<Snipola>
> I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography.
I have no experience making holograms, and as such, I don't see
why making a hologram "out of focus" in such a way that requires
a lens to view that is equal to one's prescription wouldn't work.
Actually, I think if you shot the image through your glasses
would work.
But as I said, I've never made a holo.
Brian
--
http :// www .skywise711,com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http :// www .skywise711,com /SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http :// www .skywise711,com /quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail,com > wrote in
news:1ebbff3c-5d59-441e-a4a7-fcf8a6f66d35@s33g2000pri.googlegroups,com :
<Snipola>
>> an image on the retina.
<Snipola>
> I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography.
I have no experience making holograms, and as such, I don't see
why making a hologram "out of focus" in such a way that requires
a lens to view that is equal to one's prescription wouldn't work.
Actually, I think if you shot the image through your glasses
would work.
But as I said, I've never made a holo.
Brian
--
http :// www .skywise711,com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http :// www .skywise711,com /SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http :// www .skywise711,com /quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
In sci.physics Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing,com > wrote:
> "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail,com > wrote in
> news:1ebbff3c-5d59-441e-a4a7-fcf8a6f66d35@s33g2000pri.googlegroups,com :
> <Snipola>
> >> an image on the retina.
> <Snipola>
> > I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography.
> I have no experience making holograms, and as such, I don't see
> why making a hologram "out of focus" in such a way that requires
> a lens to view that is equal to one's prescription wouldn't work.
> Actually, I think if you shot the image through your glasses
> would work.
Neither will work.
Visualize a spot just big enough to see.
If the eye doesn't focus properly, the spot image spreads into a fuzzy
ball on the retina.
Spreading the original spot just makes the fuzzy ball image on the
retina bigger.
You can't make the spot smaller than just big enough to see.
The ONLY way to bring the spot into focus is with another lens.
This is basic optics.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
In sci.physics Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing,com > wrote:
> "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail,com > wrote in
> news:1ebbff3c-5d59-441e-a4a7-fcf8a6f66d35@s33g2000pri.googlegroups,com :
> <Snipola>
> >> an image on the retina.
> <Snipola>
> > I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography.
> I have no experience making holograms, and as such, I don't see
> why making a hologram "out of focus" in such a way that requires
> a lens to view that is equal to one's prescription wouldn't work.
> Actually, I think if you shot the image through your glasses
> would work.
Neither will work.
Visualize a spot just big enough to see.
If the eye doesn't focus properly, the spot image spreads into a fuzzy
ball on the retina.
Spreading the original spot just makes the fuzzy ball image on the
retina bigger.
You can't make the spot smaller than just big enough to see.
The ONLY way to bring the spot into focus is with another lens.
This is basic optics.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
In article <KHPTj.41565$2Y1.13463@newsfe30.ams2>,
into@oblivion.nothing,com says...
> "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail,com > wrote in
> news:1ebbff3c-5d59-441e-a4a7-fcf8a6f66d35@s33g2000pri.googlegroups,com :
>
> <Snipola>
> >> an image on the retina.
>
> <Snipola>
> > I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography.
>
> I have no experience making holograms, and as such, I don't see
> why making a hologram "out of focus" in such a way that requires
> a lens to view that is equal to one's prescription wouldn't work.
I do, and what you propose is simply impossible. There is no way to
produce a hologram that is "out of focus". If you see an real object at
arms length as fuzzy, you will see a hologram of that same object as
fuzzy also.
> Actually, I think if you shot the image through your glasses
> would work.
You normally don't shoot a hologram through a lens, and if you did, you
end up with a hologram of a lens. The hologram of the lens would work
just like the original, for other objects captured by the hologram.
So, you could make a hologram of your eyeglasses in front of a book, and
be able to read the book through the eyeglasses. However, someone with
better vision would simply see the image as distorted by the lens, but
not out of focus. And, it being a holgram, they could simply change
their viewing angle and read the book over the eyeglasses.
--Gene
In article <KHPTj.41565$2Y1.13463@newsfe30.ams2>,
into@oblivion.nothing,com says...
> "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail,com > wrote in
> news:1ebbff3c-5d59-441e-a4a7-fcf8a6f66d35@s33g2000pri.googlegroups,com :
>
> <Snipola>
> >> an image on the retina.
>
> <Snipola>
> > I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography.
>
> I have no experience making holograms, and as such, I don't see
> why making a hologram "out of focus" in such a way that requires
> a lens to view that is equal to one's prescription wouldn't work.
I do, and what you propose is simply impossible. There is no way to
produce a hologram that is "out of focus". If you see an real object at
arms length as fuzzy, you will see a hologram of that same object as
fuzzy also.
> Actually, I think if you shot the image through your glasses
> would work.
You normally don't shoot a hologram through a lens, and if you did, you
end up with a hologram of a lens. The hologram of the lens would work
just like the original, for other objects captured by the hologram.
So, you could make a hologram of your eyeglasses in front of a book, and
be able to read the book through the eyeglasses. However, someone with
better vision would simply see the image as distorted by the lens, but
not out of focus. And, it being a holgram, they could simply change
their viewing angle and read the book over the eyeglasses.
--Gene
Re: Computer displays that correct vision possible?
On May 6, 10:15 pm, Gene S. Berkowitz <first.l...@verizon,net > wrote:
> In article <KHPTj.41565$2Y1.13...@newsfe30.ams2>,
> i...@oblivion.nothing,com says...
>
> > "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail,com > wrote in
> >news:1ebbff3c-5d59-441e-a4a7-fcf8a6f66d35@s33g2000pri.googlegroups,com :
>
> > <Snipola>
> > >> an image on the retina.
>
> > <Snipola>
> > > I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography.
>
> > I have no experience making holograms, and as such, I don't see
> > why making a hologram "out of focus" in such a way that requires
> > a lens to view that is equal to one's prescription wouldn't work.
>
> I do,
Ah, good, someone who knows what they're talking about (as opposed
to say, me).
> and what you propose is simply impossible. There is no way
to
> produce a hologram that is "out of focus". If you see an real object at
> arms length as fuzzy, you will see a hologram of that same object as
> fuzzy also.
Well yes, but that's not quite what I meant.
> > Actually, I think if you shot the image through your glasses
> > would work.
>
> You normally don't shoot a hologram through a lens, and if you did, you
> end up with a hologram of a lens. The hologram of the lens would work
> just like the original, for other objects captured by the hologram.
I have read about holographic lenses (probably yet another subject)
but have not had the opportunity to play with any.
> So, you could make a hologram of your eyeglasses in front of a book, and
> be able to read the book through the eyeglasses. However, someone with
> better vision would simply see the image as distorted by the lens, but
> not out of focus. And, it being a holgram, they could simply change
> their viewing angle and read the book over the eyeglasses.
Now we're sneaking up on what I had in mind. Is it possible to frame
the hologram so that the eyeglass lens frame is out of the hologram
frame; IOW you cannot tell by inspection that it was shot through the
lens of my glasses- there is no available viewing angle that does not
"see through" the lens? With an ordinary camera one would simply put
the eyeglass lens up next to the camera lens but that probably won't
work with holography.
(Come to think of it one would use the converse of my prescription,
yes/no? Did I mention this is way outside my area of expertise?)
Also, what sort of distortion do you mean? When I hold my glasses
away from my face and look through them, objects appear smaller than
usual just like the infamous warning sticker on car mirrors (I am
nearsighted) but not blurred at all until the lenses are about six
inches away from my eyes which conveniently is about where I can
barely begin to focus on the lenses themselves.
Would there not be a range of viewing distances where I would,
without my glasses, be better able to view the hologram than a person
with normal vision viewing it at the same distance?
Mark L. Fergerson
On May 6, 10:15 pm, Gene S. Berkowitz <first.l...@verizon,net > wrote:
> In article <KHPTj.41565$2Y1.13...@newsfe30.ams2>,
> i...@oblivion.nothing,com says...
>
> > "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail,com > wrote in
> >news:1ebbff3c-5d59-441e-a4a7-fcf8a6f66d35@s33g2000pri.googlegroups,com :
>
> > <Snipola>
> > >> an image on the retina.
>
> > <Snipola>
> > > I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography.
>
> > I have no experience making holograms, and as such, I don't see
> > why making a hologram "out of focus" in such a way that requires
> > a lens to view that is equal to one's prescription wouldn't work.
>
> I do,
Ah, good, someone who knows what they're talking about (as opposed
to say, me).
> and what you propose is simply impossible. There is no way
to
> produce a hologram that is "out of focus". If you see an real object at
> arms length as fuzzy, you will see a hologram of that same object as
> fuzzy also.
Well yes, but that's not quite what I meant.
> > Actually, I think if you shot the image through your glasses
> > would work.
>
> You normally don't shoot a hologram through a lens, and if you did, you
> end up with a hologram of a lens. The hologram of the lens would work
> just like the original, for other objects captured by the hologram.
I have read about holographic lenses (probably yet another subject)
but have not had the opportunity to play with any.
> So, you could make a hologram of your eyeglasses in front of a book, and
> be able to read the book through the eyeglasses. However, someone with
> better vision would simply see the image as distorted by the lens, but
> not out of focus. And, it being a holgram, they could simply change
> their viewing angle and read the book over the eyeglasses.
Now we're sneaking up on what I had in mind. Is it possible to frame
the hologram so that the eyeglass lens frame is out of the hologram
frame; IOW you cannot tell by inspection that it was shot through the
lens of my glasses- there is no available viewing angle that does not
"see through" the lens? With an ordinary camera one would simply put
the eyeglass lens up next to the camera lens but that probably won't
work with holography.
(Come to think of it one would use the converse of my prescription,
yes/no? Did I mention this is way outside my area of expertise?)
Also, what sort of distortion do you mean? When I hold my glasses
away from my face and look through them, objects appear smaller than
usual just like the infamous warning sticker on car mirrors (I am
nearsighted) but not blurred at all until the lenses are about six
inches away from my eyes which conveniently is about where I can
barely begin to focus on the lenses themselves.
Would there not be a range of viewing distances where I would,
without my glasses, be better able to view the hologram than a person
with normal vision viewing it at the same distance?
Mark L. Fergerson
