Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
It might be better to just get another gerbil.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Inside-Out Apposition/Compound-Eye Overreality Visor

Compound-eye Phased-array Lightfield Apposition AR Visor
  [vote for,

It occurs to me that virtual reality goggles are a bit, you know, big and stupid and ugly. They look like you're supposed to be underwater with a snorkel in your mouth. I think I've come up with a slight aesthetic improvement.

First of all, consider the insect compound eye. Pretend for one moment that a future discovery will show that their apposition eyes in fact act as lightfield arrays, such that they a] don't have a specific focal point but record lightfield information, and not a discontinuous flat interpreted scene with imaginary or synthetic memory-drawn dimensional structure like we do. Imagine B) also that the insect eye derives an image of the world around it that is quite dependent upon the motion of the insect - and differing species have quite markedly differing patterns of action and motion. The world as the insect sees it (or builds it) is dimensional and structured because the insect moves about accordingly, and this movement defines the synthesis of the world's physical characteristic.

We have simple eyes - the name might be a bit of a clue that our eyes are despite assumptions possibly not as sophisticated as insect eyes. We vertebrates model our dimensional structure perceiving our vision as torn and tattered pieces of a flat and focused plane, refreshed with microsaccades and by looking around. The point is - neither vision system is 'real', both give us data from visual- spectrum light (give or take a few nanometres) to build a structured model that has useful characteristics in discernible attributes.

If we see something in a 3D snorkelling set, for example, a 3D full spherical video scene, we more or less have to stand perfectly on one spot as we look around, or we'll lose the integration of parallax relationships as we move from the optical nodal centre. If we move away, forward or to one side, for example, the parallax relationship is destroyed unless the imagery was also shot from that shifted position. One possible solution to this is to use interpolated lightfield mapped video to synthesise what the parallax would be if we moved 'over there' a bit instead of where the video was actually shot from. With redundancy reduction, this overhead of video may not prove to be impossible.

However, it would be quite useful to not revert from interpolated lightfield to focal plane in order to 'view' it. It'd be quite useful if we had compound eyes to consume the lightfield information directly. What I'm suggesting is to pepper the visual field of a visor mounted just ahead of ones reading glasses or sunglasses with millions of 'specks' of lightfield emission, perhaps (I'm hoping) enough to feed detectable information into the retina. The specks will be encoded as coherent laser emissions forming a phased array modulated with the lightfield information. In other words, the output device is the compound eye (not the other way round)

My suspicion is that direct injection of lightfield information on the retina, whilst superimposed with normal actual visual-field focused plane light that we normally actually see from out there, might (I'm hoping) give us the opportunity to learn to 'see' a superimposed alternative structural model, while also 'seeing' our normal world out there. The lightfield information acts as an augmented reality overlay, which need not be dimensionally related to our 3D real visual world, and indeed, I suspect it might help if it were not similarly 3D, but for example 4D hyperbolic space. It'd be easier to tell the two 'realities' apart.

I didn't get round to wedging 'fresnel' into this idea, probably didn't need it, unless I was trying to build a laser star field phased array from each side.

Ian Tindale, Apr 01 2017

https://en.m.wikipe...rg/wiki/Light_field [Ian Tindale, Apr 02 2017]

https://en.m.wikipe...g/wiki/Phased_array [Ian Tindale, Apr 02 2017]

https://en.m.wikipe.../wiki/Arthropod_eye [Ian Tindale, Apr 02 2017]

https://en.m.wikipe...org/wiki/Ommatidium [Ian Tindale, Apr 02 2017]

https://en.m.wikipe...Eye#Apposition_eyes [Ian Tindale, Apr 02 2017]

https://en.m.wikipe...ki/Dachshund_(gene) [Ian Tindale, Apr 02 2017]

https://en.m.wikipe...g/wiki/Fresnel_lens [Ian Tindale, Apr 02 2017]


       Snow globe aviator glasses! )) ^ ))   

       those vast aviator glasses, doubled )) to make a dish shaped snow globe, then with minute floating particles illuminated with lasers to provide a glowing dot-field   

       "What I'm suggesting is to pepper the visual field of a visor mounted just ahead of ones reading glasses or sunglasses with millions of 'specks' of lightfield emission"
beanangel, Apr 01 2017

       [Ian], this is a brilliant idea. It might be _very_ brilliant, but until I understand it I can't be sure.
MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 01 2017

       The problem is the cornea, which is going to flatten everything back out. Could you learn to make sense of it? Doubtful but maybe.
RayfordSteele, Apr 01 2017

       How does the cornea flatten the image?   

       How is the image produced by this device not effectively flat, in a way that a focal-plane image could not be, even though only one eye is viewing it?
notexactly, Apr 01 2017

       Isn't this lightfield virtual augmentation on a standard set going to make the 3D snorkel bigger and uglier?
wjt, Apr 02 2017

       MaxwellBuchanan ; - apparently the Dachshund gene plays a part in development of the compound eye (not being a gene-spotter myself).
Ian Tindale, Apr 02 2017

       Apparently so. But then again, a huge number of genes are involved in the development of almost everything.
MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 02 2017

       The speed at which an insect needs to process the visual environment would be too slow if it had our focal based eyed, wouldn't it? Insects, therefore have to parallel process. Their eyes are quite big in proportion to their bodies.
wjt, Apr 07 2017

       // The speed at which an insect needs to process the visual environment would be too slow if it had our focal based eyed, wouldn't it? //   

notexactly, Apr 07 2017

       [notexactly] Ever tried to swat a fly?
wjt, Apr 08 2017

       I meant: Why are human-style eyes not fast enough?
notexactly, Apr 08 2017

       because our mind is patching our view from the current viewed focal direction, insects are seeing all directions currently so can react almost immediately ( if there are enough photons).
wjt, Apr 08 2017

       Aside: swatting a fly is hard not because of the surround visual capability of a fly, but more because the housefly is one of the more advanced insects, having the rear wing pair evolved into what are basically balanced gyroscopes (the halteres) and these give direct muscular feedback to the wings. The fly has swung out of the way to counteract the massive amount of air cushioning you're propelling toward the fly as you swat it, probably around the same time as the fly itself becomes cognisant that it is moving away.
Ian Tindale, Apr 08 2017


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle