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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science Technology

Scientists Create Electronic Glasses That Can Automatically Focus On Whatever You're Looking At (engadget.com) 120

Posted by BeauHD from the phase-detection-auto-focus dept.
mmell writes: University of Utah scientists have created a prototype electronic lens which uses several technologies to customize the lens optics focusing on whatever the wearer is looking at. [Just like] the "oil lenses" in Frank Herbert's Dune series of novels, the electronic lens (a transparent LCD) can have its index of refractivity modified by application of a small electric current. While I can conceive many uses for this technology (in spacecraft instruments, webcams/Handycams, handheld binoculars and telescopes for example), these were developed as a replacement for the progressive lenses -- a.k.a. bifocals -- which are worn by many with less than perfect eyesight. Many eyeglass wearers don't tolerate bifocals well and I wonder if the adaptive optics in this prototype could relieve them of the need to carry multiple pairs of glasses? Whether they prove cost effective for the role of eyeglasses or not (and I can see no reason why they shouldn't), the applications for this technology seem quite diverse and potentially even revolutionary. I wonder how long it will be before these are more than just a prototype?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Create Electronic Glasses That Can Automatically Focus On Whatever You're Looking At More

Scientists Create Electronic Glasses That Can Automatically Focus On Whatever You're Looking At

Comments Filter:

  • Glasses cannot focus without looking at the eye (Score:5, Interesting)

    by papa_san ( 829018 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @06:50AM (#53772821)
    Glasses can try to adjust the focus based on the perceived distance, but cannot know you are not looking at the wall, but at the fly hoovering between you and the wall. So without looking at the eye trying to focus this is pretty useless.

    • You realise that even if this needs a manual setting of a control on the glass itself, it will still be one order of magnitude better than swapping glasses?
      And, it is not like the "conventional" tech we have today, used in smartphones and other gadgets, cannot look at the eye.

      • You don't see what I mean. Imagine you look out the window but the glasses detect/focus on the window/curtains itself, you will not see who is standing outside. The glasses will have to look at your eyes and adjust to be useful. Unless you are using them as reading glasses and what no adjustment for further away.(limited application)

        • I guess you don't use glasses yourself do you?

          Looking at the window and being unable to see who is outside is the default for most of us. If I am reading a book, can just raise my view, and swipe across my eyebrows to have a clear view of outsidn, that is already a win situation.

          And I emphasize he point that the technolgy to look at "your eyes" is already there - whether it will be incorporated by default, or left as a trade off for pricing/battery life/glass weight remains to be seem.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You could have quick settings that adjusted based on glasses position. Today's glasses don't need to have exact focal lengths to be useful, they cover a range quite well and the eye does the 'fine tuning'.

          So if my head is down its in reading mode, head up distance mode. You could have activity based settings for when you are driving, etc.

          Still, unless they can seriously reduce these in weight, they might be relegated to other uses. Also, its not 'clear' how clear they are compared to traditional lenses..

        • Imagine you look out the window but the glasses detect/focus on the window/curtains itself, you will not see who is standing outside.

          So just like normal reading glasses then, and just like normal reading glasses you could just take them off.

          In the mean time there are a myriad of things that I look at for about 90% of my day that even a camera autofocus system has zero problem with. Like my computer monitor right in front of me, or a book, or food, TV, kitchen stove, etc. Even if this isn't perfect it's a damn sight better (pun intended) than the constant juggle of glasses people often have to deal with as they move from situation to situ

        • This is exactly the same problem faced by autofocus systems in cameras - and they work pretty well.

      • You realise that even if this needs a manual setting of a control on the glass itself, it will still be one order of magnitude better than swapping glasses? And, it is not like the "conventional" tech we have today, used in smartphones and other gadgets, cannot look at the eye.

        Can you imagine the use? I work with a lot of small parts, and if these lenses can give me a high diopter as well as my regular prescription, I'd be in heaven. Right now, it's a matter of endless swapping. I'll bet I waste a half hour a day swapping out glasses. I have the graded bifocals, which are really good for most things, but not for working with really small parts.

        Agreed, even if it is a manual switch, it would be worth it.

        Side question - are you and Pope Ratzo going to have an apocalyptic battl

    • The shocking thing about progressive lenses when you first get them is that in the mid range they have almost no lateral field of view. Look at a wide computer monitor and only the central 6 inches are in focus. You have to learn to scan your head not your eyes to see the whole screen. This is one reason why they make computer-specific glasses by the way.

      As someone who knows a little bit about optics I found this surprising. You would sort have expected that a progressive lens could be made sort of like

      • Re: why do progressive glasses suck? Will these fi (Score:4, Informative)

        by Miamicanes ( 730264 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @01:47PM (#53775281)

        It's because 99.9% of progressive lenses have a semi-custom lens ground into one side, but a standardized lens ground into the other, with no regard for getting the optics right anywhere besides the center vertical axis.

        It IS possible to make better glasses using raytracing (to design) and custom grinding (to implement) on both sides to "get it right" along the horizontal axis, too... but those lenses are expensive, and you'll only see a dramatic improvement if

        1) the optician gets all the measurements precisely right (they rarely do, because full custom lenses are expensive, few stores sell more than one or two pairs a year, and they require more measurements than "normal" lenses that most techs don't fully understand);

        2) The glasses are meticulously adjusted for proper alignment... and kept in proper alignment with frequent adjustments.

        Realistically, you're looking at glasses that cost about $600-1,000/pair PLUS the frame cost.

        The tech was developed for custom progressive lenses, but it can also be used to make better single-vision lenses for people with astigmatism. Normal glasses have a standardized sphere + base curve manufactured into one side, and a non-optimized cylindrical lens ground onto the other side (usually, without regard for lens angle or lens distance FROM pupil). I believe full-custom single-vision lenses run about $500-800 more than "regular" (non-optimized) ones.

        The magic word to say & demand when asking about such lenses is "freeform" (often, used in conjunction with "custom" and/or "high-definition"). Just be aware that the optician's skill & experience fitting freeform lenses is ENORMOUSLY important. Even freeform custom lenses can suck if the optician is careless with his/her measurements. And demand the specific word "freeform" -- unlike other marketing terms, "freeform" has a very specific meaning in the industry. Not all lenses advertised as "hi-def" or "custom" are literally "freeform". At least one brand that's "semi-custom" exists that grinds a customized & optimized cyl onto one side of a lens manufactured with a standard sph+base curve on the other. For SV astigmatism, semi-custom might be good enough... but for progressive, you really want full-blown two-surface freeform custom lenses.

        • wow. that's great information. answers my puzzle. thanks. I wonder why it's hard to customize both sides if you can do one side.

          • Mass-production vs one-off customization. Even with robots and CAM to handle the grinding, it still takes more time and effort to grind two lens surfaces instead of just one... and more effort to calculate custom lenses instead of blindly grinding another standardized design on the other side.

            That said, I think that competition from cheap online labs will force traditional retailers to reduce the cost of freeform lenses and market them more aggressively. If you can take your prescription and buy a mediocre

            • thanks again. To inquire further what added measurements are needed. I'm always a bit galled when I get my perscription and they leave off the pupilary distances-- they refer me to the optics shop for that. Yet my insurance favors their preferred online vendors who of course ask for my pupilary distance. Fortunately that number isn't too hard to come up with but it's frustrating it's not part of the prescription. Hence my wonder about what other measurements are needed. I'd guess maybe eyeglass to eye

              • I found this video.
                https://youtu.be/KFlBGd01jxk [youtu.be]

                what I infer from this is that even free form lenses are surfacing the back surface only. It also seems to show that the intermediate focal distance are still a keyhole even with the best possible lens they can make.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        It's not that you can't use these. Having all focal distances accessible at the same time is great. But you have to learn to point your nose at whatever you want to look at.

        That problem isn't limited to progressive lenses, though it might be worse in those designs. When your eye changes direction, the pupil moves in an arc, which means that its lens gets closer to or farther from the lens in your glasses, which has an entirely different curvature. I'm not certain, but I suspect that it would be physically

    • Awesome
      Thanks for noting the lack of brain-recognition feedback in this false claim

  • Sensitivity to Peril? (Score:5, Funny)

    by RivenAleem ( 1590553 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @06:52AM (#53772823)

    Can they become completely opaque when the wearer looks at something that might be deemed perilous to you?

    • Can they become completely opaque when the wearer looks at something that might be deemed perilous to you?

      If I had two heads like you Zaphod I could have great fun banging them against a wall

    • They were about to when they notice that blacking out the vision of a driver looking at an oncoming truck is counter productive.

    • Can they become completely opaque when the wearer looks at something that might be deemed perilous to you?

      Let me go back in there and face the peril.

  • My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

  • Much of the tech is already patented (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @07:01AM (#53772841)

    I was discussing this type of technology with my eye doctor about a month ago. She said that a lot of the technology for adaptive glasses and LCD glasses (but not the eye tracking part) are already tied up by patent holders who will not license them. Things like using the LCD to make sunglasses and other things at a similar tech level. She said there there was so much money in traditional glasses that they were sitting on "high tech" glasses so they wouldn't eat into their own profit margins. Not sure how much there is to this, but I've no reason to disbelieve her. If so, I wonder if that could put a stop to or slow glasses like these.

    • It is said to read this, but on a second though, it must be what happens.

      Let's just hope someone like Elon Musk gather all this tech and bring it to market.

    • A patent on a particular type of LCD panel, sure. But a patent on a particular application of one, how is that even possible? How is this not blatantly obvious to anyone "skilled or (even unskilled) in the arts"? This would be as ludicrous as, say, a patent on making online purchases using a single click, or messing with your cat using a laser pointer.

      Oh wait...

      Though I do wonder if this isn't one of those stories like "oil companies have an engine that runs on water and are keeping it a secret"

  • I can see these artisinally crafted frames flying off the shelf at bodegas in gentrified urban areas everywhere. Maybe they can get Shinola to brand them.

    • I can see these artisinally crafted frames flying off the shelf at bodegas in gentrified urban areas everywhere. Maybe they can get Shinola to brand them.

      I thought "artisinally crafted frames" were shit. I guess I don't know shit from shinola.

  • Oh yeah!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pope Raymond Lama ( 57277 ) <<gwidion> <at> <mpc.com.br>> on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @07:33AM (#53772901) Homepage

    Things about living in the future - this is the one technology I has been waiting for years, for before I need reading glasses! Now please go and take that to market! And if you want to include some mosquito-killer-lasers in the process I would not mind.

    • I fully agree. There have not been too many inventions during the past few years that looked like they would make life easier for many (I still do not own a smartphone), but this is one of them. If they somehow manage to create a descent looking version of them with at least 15 hours battery life there will be a huge market. And by huge I mean in the tens or hundreds of billion Dollars.

    • Things about living in the future - this is the one technology I has been waiting for years, for before I need reading glasses! Now please go and take that to market! And if you want to include some mosquito-killer-lasers in the process I would not mind.

      Oh boy, if you haven't been hit by presbyopia yet, you aren't going to like that experience all. Lineless graded bifocals help a lot, mine are good for things like using the computer keyboard, close vision, the screen, middle vision, and things like the instrument cluster in the car are in just the right place, and with them - under normal circumstances- is about perfect. But you have to get used to holding your head very low or else your feet are a blur - not so good for going down stairs. And laying on t

    • Unfortunately for me, I need reading glasses NOW. Farsightedness has galloped over the horizon and made things quite uncomfortable in the last 12 months.

  • I wonder how long it will be before these are more than just a prototype?

    They'll be ready for production in about 5 years. Cool tech always is about 5 years away from production. New batteries with double the capacity, new processor with half the power consumption, new hard drive tech that exponentially increases capacity..... all 5 years out.

    It is 10 years if it is a basic science breakthrough, like room temperature superconductors or desktop fusion reactors.

    • Variable-focus lenses have been tried before, but not autofocus. A friend had a manually controlled pair from Superfocus and loved them. But Superfocus is no longer selling them. http://www.allaboutvision.com/... [allaboutvision.com] The mechanisms used may differ, but the function is similar. What's new here is the autofocus feature - look at a scene, and a sensor will measure the distance and use that information to focus the lens as your visual system would do if your organic lens still had its depth adaptation capability

    • Cool tech always is about 5 years away from production.

      Well, except for fusion. That's consistently 20 years out. Oh, and flying cars. Those we're just not going to get, because, reasons.

  • Periphery? (Score:3)

    by Tomahawk ( 1343 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @07:42AM (#53772929) Homepage

    I kinda like the chunky look of the glasses, but the one thing that comes to mind if wearing them while driving is the last of peripheral vision they allow.
    The lens is quite small, effectively give you tunnel vision (albeit it with perfect clarity), but outside of that smallish window, your completely blinded.

    I know it's a prototype, and they do mention that work needs to be done to make them look better, but I hope they can also vastly reduce the thickness of the frames and arms, reduce the weight, and increase the size of the lens so that they are actually useful.

    I'm sure I'll soon be in a position again to be requiring glasses, so something like this will likely be really useful to me in the not-too-distant future - hopefully long enough for them to work out these little details.

    • Peripheral vision is extremely low resolution already, it's good for motion tracking but not much else. Ensuring peripheral vision has clearer view is like adding another mag level to a microscope with a smudged lense.

      • it's required though when an electric bus is hurtling down the street towards you from the side.
      • Sure peripheral vision may not allow you to tell a bird from a bat, but ...

        Experienced, competent drivers rely on peripheral vision to accurately (within about 5km/h) gauge their speed, avoiding the need to look at the speedometer.

        Remove peripheral vision and you can expect a lot of speeding tickets.

        • Sure peripheral vision may not allow you to tell a bird from a bat, but ...

          Experienced, competent drivers rely on peripheral vision to accurately (within about 5km/h) gauge their speed, avoiding the need to look at the speedometer.

          Remove peripheral vision and you can expect a lot of speeding tickets.

          Which got me to thinking - what if these things could manage to sharpen up peripheral vision as well? The light is coming in at a very shallow angle to the eye's lens, but imagine the effect if you could have overall vision sharpness?

      • Except, it's only "peripheral vision" when you're looking straight ahead. The moment you look to one side by moving your eyes, it ceases to be "peripheral", and being in sharp focus becomes VERY important.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The lens is quite small, effectively give you tunnel vision (albeit it with perfect clarity), but outside of that smallish window, your completely blinded.

      I don't think that's even possible... If your vision can be corrected by a lens, then outside the area covered by the lens it will at least get a blurred image. That's enough for driving - all you really need to know is if there is a car there or not, you don't need to be able to read the licence plate.

      Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see any way someone could be completely blind outside of the lens area.

      • Someone will correct me if I'm wrong,

        This is Slashdot, Animojo - someone will always correct you even if you aren't wrong! ;^)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I'm thinking of writing an FAQ, debunking some of the strangest ideas people have about me. I'm sure it won't stop people correcting me by telling me that I incorrectly stated my own position though. Maybe it's some kind of Heisenberg thing.

    • You don't need autofocusing glasses for driving anyway, because everything you see on the road is optically 'in the distance'. One-eyed drivers see exactly what the rest of us see, stereo vision not adding any useful information to objects you see while driving.

      In fact, such glasses would probably lock onto the crud on the inside of your windshield.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tsqr ( 808554 )

        You don't need autofocusing glasses for driving anyway, because everything you see on the road is optically 'in the distance'. One-eyed drivers see exactly what the rest of us see, stereo vision not adding any useful information to objects you see while driving.

        In fact, such glasses would probably lock onto the crud on the inside of your windshield.

        There's this thing called "depth perception" that lets you discern how far an object is from you. Very useful while driving, and requires binocular vision [thevisiont...center.com]. I got some first-hand experience at being a one-eyed driver when I had a cornea transplant, and it was unnerving. I'm sure one-eyed drivers get to the point where it doesn't particularly bother them, but they cannot judge distance nearly as accurately as two-eyed drivers.

        • That's exactly my point. Binocular vision only works out to about thirty feet. Most of what you see when you drive is beyond that distance.Your "unnerving experience" was probably not having the peripheral vision that the masked eye provides.

      • You don't need autofocusing glasses for driving anyway, because everything you see on the road is optically 'in the distance'.

        Don't forget the instrument cluster. Need to see that was one of the first things to drive me into bifocals.

  • "Liquid", not "LCD" (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It's a liquid filled lens, which can change shape. That's cool and all, but LCD is a totally different kettle of fish.

    • Thanks. So far, this is the only comment that mentions this. A "transparent LCD" having anything to do with the focus of a lens made zero sense to me. The term LCD is also nowhere to be found in either article linked. It's not even some cool liquid-crystal effect; they're just stretching a bag of goo (glycerin) with little actuators to change the shape; vaguely mimicking the mechanism of the lens on the human eye. If you ask me, they should go further and make it a composite elastomere; like clear polyuret

  • This sounds like just the ticket for me.

    If you're looking for any more test subjects, get in touch via the (unarmoured) email above ASAP and tell me what I need to do to get in on this. Please!

    Sincerely,

    Zontar the Very Willing Guinea Pig.

  • My extensive experience as a wearer of glasses is that it is varifocals that are the hardest to live with (I am short sighted, with some astigmatism). Particularly if one is is engaged in things that require some peripheral vision (e.g. ball sport, driving, flying etc). The problem with varifocals is that they only focus straight ahead and anything to the side of that central (up/down) band is not just out of focus, but (especially looking down and sideways) distorted. This means that to look at things to t

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by notpaul ( 181662 )
      YES. "Progressive" lenses are NOT bi-focals, as the OP suggests. They are completely different, and - yes - harder to adapt to.

    • It might be specific to my optical prescription, but I just looked out of the corner of my progressives and what I see outside the frame looks exactly the same as what I see inside, with no distortion, except that it's in focus. It does take a big effort to swivel my eyes that far sideways, mind.
      Quite honestly, it took me about 5 minutes to adapt to my first pair. Now I'm onto my third. I can't fault them.

  • About the same time something like this becomes a product, they'll probably have surgical procedures that make them unnecessary.

    • Surprise - -there is surgery already, that can fix the things for a lot of people - but the error rates are still there, and once something goes wrong on the surgery, it is gone bad - not like there is an "undo" for scarred cornea tissue. That is why a lot of people, maybe the majority, opt for not doing any surgeries at all - even with the current, imperfect glasses. And there always will be - even when the surgeries get better.

      • The current gold-standard of long-term correction is probably a custom-ground scleral lens. Dr. Gemoules in Dallas fits lenses using the hardware NORMALLY used for laser surgery... he scans both eyes in 3d and orders the first (few) set(s) with the eye's precise shape ground into the back. Once the back side is optimal, he does a wavefront scan while you're wearing those lenses and uses the data to raytrace the ideal front curve.

        He's expensive compared to Walmart or Lenscrafters, but often cheaper than what

        • So tl:dr
          He isn't Dr. gemoules
          But its a Doctors office which specialized in a type of new fancy procedure. Who might have some guy in his late 40s as a figurehead & main surgeon.

          So basically his office is a gamble: If the procedure is unsafe, the office will have issues with that. If it isn't, the office is a pioneer, and i don't know what is to be earned on it beyond keeping current revenue and upgrades.

          >The catch?
          That isn't a catch. That is how surgery work. Surgeon do not move. You go to surgeon. I

  • I'd like to see this adapted to take the place of magnifying head gear so I can scrutinize tiny components on PCBs.

  • University of Utah students who were volunteering to test the new glasses were reported as saying:

    "Wow...I can read so much more clearly no...wait, what? Holy shit...the Book of Mormon says WHAT?"

  • Lets hope they don't get bought out by Luxottica. Because frames/lenses that auto adjust to your changing prescription does not sound good for the existing business model...

  • This was done some years ago with liquid. And they were as clunky as these, but supposedly worked well. The plan was to sell them in poor nations b/c they could be manufactured for cheap. Never heard what happened.

    The next time was much more interesting. Using quantum effects a lens was designed using microscopic holes instead of a traditional refractive optics. This was not clunky and was actually kind of cool b/c it complete hid one's eyes. I never quite understood how they were adjustable though. And aga

  • I find that VR headsets don't quite have a feeling of "reality" to them, and I'm not sure exactly how much low FOV, low resolution, screen door, and accomodation/vergence issues contribute to this. After all, you're always focusing at a fixed distance no matter how distant the object you're looking at is "supposed" to appear, and maybe this difference is perceptible as "not real".

    But would instantly refocusable lenses help here? A sensor could detect how the user's eyes were focused and then use the refoc

  • instead of burning your eye with a laser you adjust the prescription with a firmware update.
  • Bifocals are not the same as progressives. Bifocals have lenses with two parts with different focal lengths. Progressives have a gradient of increasing lens power from top to bottom.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close