Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

German Scientists Create Augmented Reality Scope 58

Posted by Zonk from the augmented-reality-internet-please dept.
porkchop_d_clown writes "New Scientist is reporting that German engineers have developed a scope that combines imaging and planitarium software with a telescope to overlay what you see in the scope with stored images and information about the object being viewed." From the article: "Bernie Volz, president of the Amateur Telescope Makers of Boston, Massachusetts, US, says an augmented reality telescope could serve as a useful educational tool. At star parties, bright objects such as the Moon, Mars and Saturn elicit 'the wow factor' from novices, he says. 'But when they look at galaxies or planetary nebulae or something that is just a fuzzy white spot in the sky, they don't have that kind of reaction.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

German Scientists Create Augmented Reality Scope More

German Scientists Create Augmented Reality Scope

Comments Filter:

  • Virtual Light? (Score:3, Informative)

    by PIPBoy3000 ( 619296 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @06:28PM (#14611315)
    Sounds a lot like Virtual Light [amazon.com], a book from William Gibson. More and more you'll see this sort of thing done, especially as technology shrinks down the size of these things. Imagine a pair of sunglasses that overlay details of the car engine you're looking at or map notes as you travel around town.

    • Re:Virtual Light? (Score:5, Informative)

      by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @06:39PM (#14611431)
      Imagine a pair of sunglasses that overlay details of the car engine you're looking at or map notes as you travel around town.

      Imagine? The stuff already exists... Called the Nomad Expert System ( a type of Virtual Retina Display)Albeit kind of expensive and not exactly in sunglass form factor, but really close.

      http://www.microvision.com/nomadexpert/index.html [microvision.com]

      • Re:Virtual Light? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by PIPBoy3000 ( 619296 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @07:13PM (#14611733)
        That's exactly what I was thinking of, thanks for the direct link.

        At the moment the technology seems overly expensive and cumbersome. I can imagine a time when you buy the glasses at a cheap discount, and then some company sells you little chips for specialized tasks: traveling around a city, working on certain types of hardware, and so on. Ideally you'd have some sort of wireless connection as well, updating the software with the latest information.

        I suppose you could even have ad-supported glasses, with virtual signs plastered on buildings. Not that I'd want to drive with the things on, but you could give them away to tourists if they end up being cheap enough.
        • Or you could do it like Bono does, by wearing big glasses and doing alot of drugs.

          p.s. I'm not saying he's doing drugs, but he sure looks like he's experiencing an alternate reality.
    • My first thought was of the 'Plates' out of Simon of Space [blogspot.com].
    • Hmmm ... my first thought was these sunglasses [theofficia...penter.com]. See the truth, chew bubblegum.

      Seriously, the overlay of (for lack of a better reference at this time) "theory" and "practice" comes in handy in a lot of areas. Google maps with the hybrid setting for example.

  • So what about... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Merlyn_3k ( 943281 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @06:32PM (#14611347)
    When I point it at the girl next door?

  • And with a few code tweeks, you could have (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    a space kaleidoscope!

  • hmmmm..... (Score:3, Funny)

    by BlaKnail ( 545030 ) <blindspot@nimh.nEEEet minus threevowels> on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @06:54PM (#14611570)
    So what happens when you point it at Steve Jobs?

    Augmented Reality Scope + Distorted Reality Field = ?????

  • When I was a kid.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sir Pallas ( 696783 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @07:03PM (#14611638) Homepage
    When I was a kid, I got an astronomy kit for Christmas; it included a "finder" and several dozen sheets of clear plastic with stars, constellations, and names written in glow-in-the-dark ink on it. The idea was that once you knew which stars were supposed to be in the sky, you'd insert the correct overlay for that season and hour, and go out, find the guide stars, and then you'd have a ball. Don't get me wrong, it was entertaining as well as educational, but it was also a pain in the ass. We used it the next several times we went out to the country, but once we had seen most of the visible sky, it was done. I guess the point is, this kind of idea has been around awhile, but I'm really glad someone finally used technology to make it more informative for less of a hassle.
    • First, getting glass polished and coated to the degree needed for really sharp views is expensive. Then add on the true cost killer - a good mount.

      It's amazingly hard to create a tripod that is so stable you can view things at 300x magnification without them bouncing around because someone 10' away is walking on the same concrete your scope is sitting on. When you look at all the different models a company like Meade or Celestron sells, note that they really only have one or two different kinds of scopes al

  • Could go too far (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SiliconEntity ( 448450 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @07:06PM (#14611672)
    I'd worry that this could get to the point where the displayed synthetic image through the scope actually overshadowed the visible light you were trying to see. Using a backyard scope can be pretty disappointing to people who are used to stunning shots from space probes and Hubble. A few of the brighter nebulae and globular and open clusters are pretty, as well as the moon, Jupiter, Saturn and Mars, but aside from that you have to really get into it to enjoy it. You have to get to the point where you get satisfaction just from finding and seeing an object, rather than being able to appreciate its beauty.

    With AR technology they could superimpose a synthetic image of, say, the Andromeda galaxy (which is enormous but so faint as to be almost invisible in a backyard scope). It would look just like the pictures you see. You could also have a "digital zoom" which would let you see fine detail in some object, such as the Horsehead nebula which is very pretty but extremely small in a backyard scope.

    The problem is that once you do this you are no longer doing astronomy but just looking at pictures, which you could do in more comfort inside at your computer than outside, bent over in a cramped position as you peer into a telescope eyepiece. It seems like it defeats the purpose of astronomy and will prevent beginners from sticking with it long enough to get into other aspects of the hobby.
    • But a lot of amateurs are already just "looking at pictures". While my wife and I do things the "old fashioned way" with a Dobsonian scope, I know several astronomy club members who do more work with Photoshop than with a Nagler.

      Personally, I'd be more annoyed at a star party where someone's flashing these bright images on a monitor - or worse, projecting images up on a wall or screen, burning out everyone's night vision.

    • Re:Could go too far (Score:3, Informative)

      by barakn ( 641218 )
      What? The Andromeda Galaxy is visible to the naked eye. Through a backyard telescope it and its smaller companion M32 are quite visible.
      • See, I know exactly what problem these guys were trying to solve. I regularly help out at public star parties and thousands of times I've heard people go "oh, is that all?"

        To the naked eye, even Andromeda is just a white blob. People expect to see detailed images with dust lanes, color, and depth perception. What they *don't* expect is what they get - washed out light polluted skies where you have to let your eye relax and spend a good 3-4 minutes trying to pick out the details of the object you're observin
        • Don't think I ever got the "is that all" reaction to M31 -- you tell them a story about what they are looking at and why it is important and how it is one of our near galaxy neighbors, and when they see the white fuzzy oval, they quietly reflect on that. I think most people expect that a small telescope won't show the same dazzling images as a "professional" telescope, although I am not sure what you would see naked eye on M31 through the Palomar telescope that is much different from the back yard -- photo
    • You have to get to the point where you get satisfaction just from finding and seeing an object, rather than being able to appreciate its beauty.

      I'm waiting for a telescope that points itself and lables the object. Images from better telescopes on another screen would be nice, so I'd know what I'm looking at. Kstarts controlling tilt and swivel and projected into the eyepiece would be great.

  • Augmented Reality (Score:4, Funny)

    by 1Oman ( 308666 ) <jasonrstevens AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @07:15PM (#14611759) Homepage
    Leave it to the Germans to perfect beer goggles.

  • Skyscout by celestron (Score:4, Informative)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @08:44PM (#14612386)
    http://www.celestron.com/skyscout/new/index.php [celestron.com]

    Celestron has been there and done it allready. This a great device if you have the means and a desire to learn about the heavens its highly recomended. And yes this is real its here and you can buy one instead of reading about it in slashdot and saying wouldnt that be cool.
  • I'm still trying to figure out what a planItarium is...
    • I'm still trying to figure out what a planItarium is...

      Whatever it is, it has to be better than a Plan Itantium.

      Dean G.

  • Celestron seems to be doing a simpler version of this with their SkyScout unit: http://www.celestron.com/skyscout/new/index.php [celestron.com] which uses GPS and inertial sensors (coupled I assume with a digital compass) to identify the object that you are pointing at, or direct you to a specific object. Actually this sounds like a better learning tool and is available off the shelf for $400.

    On the other hand, an augmented scope which is slaved to a remotely operated scope is of some interest for those of us stuck in ligh
    • On the other hand, an augmented scope which is slaved to a remotely operated scope is of some interest for those of us stuck in light polluted areas.

      Do you know about SLOOH [slooh.com]? I've been strongly tempted to join, but haven't made the leap yet...
  • The article says more distant objects fail to elicit a "wow" but the Ring Nebula as seen from my daughters 10 inch Dobsonian is kind of cool. You do have to stare at it really hard to see it though (well... stare hard just off to the side of it actually).

    However, note that the Andromeda galaxy is actually a very distended object, fairly large you might say, even as viewed from here. But most of it is so faint you can only really see a fairly small centre portion of it even with the ten inch aperture. Hence
  • From the font/format of the text in the top right of the augmented image i think he may be using celestia
  • At first I thought it is a bit strange that Kimm Groshong, author of the "New Scientist" article, refers to an interview with a guy in the US instead of someone of the team in Germany. But when I read the article I noticed that Kimm Groshong cannot even spell Saarbrücken [saarbruecken.de] (or Saarbruecken, but not Saarbrucken). It gets better: Kimm Groshong does not know how to spell Max Planck! Perhaps journals like the "New Scientist" should not be understood as first source of information.

Slashdot Top Deals

To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.

Close