For VR, why don't we shoot lasers into people's eyes?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
IronWing

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,058
32,314
136
Seems to me that the desire for more pixels wearable on your face could be solved by ditching pixels and going back to analog with scanning RGB lasers projecting the images directly onto the retinas.
 
Last edited:
Ichinisan

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Nintendo’s Virtual Boy used a vertical strip of red LEDs for each eye. The oscillation of vibrating mirrors allowed it to scan horizontally as the LEDs switched on/off and the natural image persistence of our eyes (or brains) did the rest. It didn’t appear to flicker or anything.
 
Ichinisan

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
DrMrLordX said:
But apparently the virtual boy did cause headaches.
Click to expand...
Persistent mass hysteria. It was always and still is bullshit.

It was just incredibly uncomfortable to play because it was practically impossible to find an ideal position. To avoid bending your head back and pinching your neck, the table and chair had to be precisely the correct height. People actually recall how uncomfortable it was and everyone “remembers” excruciating headaches due to the power of suggestion.

[edit]
Yes, bending your head back and pinching your neck/spine awkwardly affects blood flow to the brain and would likely cause discomfort and headaches, but that wouldn’t have anything to do with the display technology.
 
Last edited:
F

Ferzerp

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,438
107
106
It worked well lying on your back on the floor with the thing sitting on your face.
 
Ichinisan

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
DrMrLordX said:
Eh? The actual games had "time out" warnings to prevent eyestrain.
Click to expand...
Misunderstanding that is part of the reason the bullshit persists.

The in-game timers were due to an over-abundance of caution on the part of Nintendo. They weren’t sure if the developing depth perception of children would be affected by hours of non-stop game play. They also warned that no one under 9 years old should ever play the system; but realistically knew kids would try to play it.
 
destrekor

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Ichinisan said:
Misunderstanding that is part of the reason the bullshit persists.

The in-game timers were due to an over-abundance of caution on the part of Nintendo. They weren’t sure if the developing depth perception of children would be affected by hours of non-stop game play. They also warned that no one under 9 years old should ever play the system; but realistically knew kids would try to play it.
Click to expand...

And this was during the time when they also frequently reminded you to take breaks from even playing NES or SNES on a TV or with a Game Boy. And of course they still do that now. It IS common wisdom that staring at virtual depth held at one physical depth for too long can cause eyestrain, and is why it's recommended to take a break from staring at computer screens and looking out at least 20ft away for 20 seconds every 20 minutes, IIRC.

But I am very much curious if they could present scanning lasers in a way that wasn't damaging. It would have to be diffused in some fashion I'd think, due to the damage of a laser of sufficient power to the retina. But that issue is generally the laser maintaining itself through to the retina, with strong constant-power light hitting all of it. Lower power and a consistently changing image may work. But I'm not sure of the physics of light/power delivered to the cones & rods of the retina, and how to mitigate damage other than not looking directly into a laser. How that could transfer to a laser-delivered image, no clue. lol
 
RichUK

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,341
678
126
67139225-46070194.jpg
 
D

darkswordsman17

Lifer
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,848
146
IronWing said:
Seems to me that the desire for more pixels wearable on your face could be solved by ditching pixels and going back to analog with scanning RGB lasers projecting the images directly onto the retinas.
Click to expand...

Would they be able to actually show the type of images we expect and not basically vastly simplified images? That's what I'm seeing with scanning laser setups and while that would be cool for some games, it wouldn't offer anything close to what people would want for VR to take off.

Laser projectors are basically just replacing the bulbs. Which that might be interesting, not sure if it'd be better than LED as far as power and what it could do in a small form factor. The Avegant Glyph kinda does that using basically mini-DLP projector. At least I'm guessing it is using LED for the light source. With tweaks that might be a very interesting thing. From what I've read though the image experience is about like looking at a 15" laptop in your lap (so its not the all consuming image immersion people would want, but I'm assuming that could be fixed).

https://www.amazon.com/Avegant-AG101R-Video-Headset/dp/B06XKFJ5B4/ref=sr_1_3

Looks like they're moving to a HoloLens like headset though:
https://www.avegant.com/blog/company-news/introducing-avegant-light-field

I'm not sure if people have for certain figured out what Microsoft is doing for the display tech on HoloLens, this guy seems to think its doing a downward projecting onto the lens.

http://www.imaginativeuniversal.com/blog/2015/10/18/how-hololens-displays-work/

Which that might be possible with laser projection setup. I wonder if there might not be a way to use it to do both, have it more direct project for VR, but then project onto a lens setup for AR (where the lenses could maybe tint/blackout to blockout external light and enable lower light output which would be better on the eyes).
 
renz20003

renz20003

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2011
2,714
634
136
IronWing said:
Seems to me that the desire for more pixels wearable on your face could be solved by ditching pixels and going back to analog with scanning RGB lasers projecting the images directly onto the retinas.
Click to expand...

Have we learned nothing?!

cb137d82fac58196409d023d41ed47f9--sharks-with-lasers-the-shark.jpg


Never forget
 
Q

quikah

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
4,160
719
126
Magicleap claimed to be doing something like this, but it turned out to be vaporware. Last i heard they are still trying, but it is apparently harder than they thought.
 
destrekor

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
darkswordsman17 said:
Would they be able to actually show the type of images we expect and not basically vastly simplified images? That's what I'm seeing with scanning laser setups and while that would be cool for some games, it wouldn't offer anything close to what people would want for VR to take off.

Laser projectors are basically just replacing the bulbs. Which that might be interesting, not sure if it'd be better than LED as far as power and what it could do in a small form factor. The Avegant Glyph kinda does that using basically mini-DLP projector. At least I'm guessing it is using LED for the light source. With tweaks that might be a very interesting thing. From what I've read though the image experience is about like looking at a 15" laptop in your lap (so its not the all consuming image immersion people would want, but I'm assuming that could be fixed).

https://www.amazon.com/Avegant-AG101R-Video-Headset/dp/B06XKFJ5B4/ref=sr_1_3

Looks like they're moving to a HoloLens like headset though:
https://www.avegant.com/blog/company-news/introducing-avegant-light-field

I'm not sure if people have for certain figured out what Microsoft is doing for the display tech on HoloLens, this guy seems to think its doing a downward projecting onto the lens.

http://www.imaginativeuniversal.com/blog/2015/10/18/how-hololens-displays-work/

Which that might be possible with laser projection setup. I wonder if there might not be a way to use it to do both, have it more direct project for VR, but then project onto a lens setup for AR (where the lenses could maybe tint/blackout to blockout external light and enable lower light output which would be better on the eyes).
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't think we are "there" yet when it comes to laser display systems. As you noted, so far the only way the industry has incorporated lasers is into the backlighting, replacing the typical bulb in a projector. That alone is a huge step up when paired up mirrors to deliver an RGB-derived white light (though often it is only two lasers, with one having some kind of tech to let one color pass through and reflect a different color off to other mirrors to come back around.

I can't remember if they've incorporated that into LCD displays, but yeah it's definitely taking DLP to a new level for now.

Display technology has numerous prospects for advanced image delivery, but we've got a bit to go I think before we have any kind of "direct delivery" to our retinas. It may be that we develop a "direct to ocular nerve" display system before we develop any kind of "direct to retina" display for those with normal vision. I say that because they've been making new miracles with ocular cameras meant to deliver sight to the blind, but that requires completely taking over the biological analog visual system. I don't think that tech can "softly" take over and then return it back to our regular sight when disconnected. Let it be known that when they do pioneer such a delivery system, not only will VR take off something fierce, there will be an entirely new paradigm that takes over just about everything based upon our vision. That will be a technology breakthrough on scales larger than anything to date, I'd definitely argue that.
 
D

darkswordsman17

Lifer
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,848
146
Ichinisan said:
Persistent mass hysteria. It was always and still is bullshit.

It was just incredibly uncomfortable to play because it was practically impossible to find an ideal position. To avoid bending your head back and pinching your neck, the table and chair had to be precisely the correct height. People actually recall how uncomfortable it was and everyone “remembers” excruciating headaches due to the power of suggestion.

[edit]
Yes, bending your head back and pinching your neck/spine awkwardly affects blood flow to the brain and would likely cause discomfort and headaches, but that wouldn’t have anything to do with the display technology.
Click to expand...

While undoubtedly the outright moronic form factor that Nintendo released is the bigger issue with regards to that, I'm pretty sure that even if the Virtual Boy weighed nothing you'd get eye strain from staring into small little black and red colored displays. Yes it would've been even worse if they'd gone for other colors or color in general (since at the time it apparently caused noticeable image wobble or something that made it not really feasible for non-static images), but I get eyestrain fairly quickly if I just look at a lot of images similar to the graphics of the Virtual Boy games on a typical display, let alone taking into account the steroscopic issue, or going from looking at those types of images in that level of isolation.

I really hate Nintendo for what they did with the Virtual Boy, as they absolutely could have made something better, but they decided to rush out a half-baked product, which damaged VR in general. And instead of them looking at the real reason it failed (bad form factor, poor game support, high price for the experience you were getting) they basically saw it as VR being the failure and not what they did with it. If they'd have waited and tried to offer some more color (even if somewhat simplified, hell just basically getting gradient between red and yellow would've helped quite a bit) in a lighter form factor and at a lower price. I actually wonder if a headset tied with the N64 would've worked well. It could push a lot of polygons, and with simplified color palette and simpler textures it would've paired well with game carts. The controller would've even worked somewhat well due to the shape, so if they'd have come up with some sort of tracking I think people would've enjoyed it.

destrekor said:
Yeah I don't think we are "there" yet when it comes to laser display systems. As you noted, so far the only way the industry has incorporated lasers is into the backlighting, replacing the typical bulb in a projector. That alone is a huge step up when paired up mirrors to deliver an RGB-derived white light (though often it is only two lasers, with one having some kind of tech to let one color pass through and reflect a different color off to other mirrors to come back around.

I can't remember if they've incorporated that into LCD displays, but yeah it's definitely taking DLP to a new level for now.

Display technology has numerous prospects for advanced image delivery, but we've got a bit to go I think before we have any kind of "direct delivery" to our retinas. It may be that we develop a "direct to ocular nerve" display system before we develop any kind of "direct to retina" display for those with normal vision. I say that because they've been making new miracles with ocular cameras meant to deliver sight to the blind, but that requires completely taking over the biological analog visual system. I don't think that tech can "softly" take over and then return it back to our regular sight when disconnected. Let it be known that when they do pioneer such a delivery system, not only will VR take off something fierce, there will be an entirely new paradigm that takes over just about everything based upon our vision. That will be a technology breakthrough on scales larger than anything to date, I'd definitely argue that.
Click to expand...

Definitely, but the scanning lasers right now that I'm seeing, it would be like playing Atari or old Arcade games. Which for some would be fun (I think Tempest would make for a great immersive experience for instance, and games like Space Invaders and Asteroid would be interesting from a new perspective), but definitely not good enough for what potential VR and AR have.

I don't recall what the laser TVs were doing, I want to say they were DLP but I could be wrong. I know they were lauded for their image quality, but LCDs were so much cheaper and I think only the one company was making the TVs (which I think they switched to making the projectors). LCD prices dropping, and plasma I think was still around at the time, and there was talk of OLED crashing the whole thing (by basically taking all the things LCDs were doing well and doing them better, and talk of it being cheaper to produce as well as they'd be able to just print the display substrates, and it'd be flexible and most of the things that OLED hasn't realized fully in actual products quite yet).

Yeah, although those displays on contacts and some of those things would maybe be interesting, I think some sort of hybrid glasses setup will be about the best for physical display setup. Definitely bypassing our optic setup and directly interacting with our brain's visual cortex offers a lot more potential, but that would entail quite a setup.
 
destrekor

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
darkswordsman17 said:
Yeah, although those displays on contacts and some of those things would maybe be interesting, I think some sort of hybrid glasses setup will be about the best for physical display setup. Definitely bypassing our optic setup and directly interacting with our brain's visual cortex offers a lot more potential, but that would entail quite a setup.
Click to expand...

So we all have to get brain/optic nerve implants, what of it? Imagine the possibilities! :tearsofjoy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom