Google Glass hasn’t become as popular as expected, but let’s be honest, do you really want to walk around with this equipment? The BBC recently reported on Mojo, a company developing smart contact lenses that not only correct vision but also display a display. You can watch CNET videos on the technology below.
The lenses are equipped with tiny LED displays, smart sensors and solid-state batteries similar to those used in pacemakers. According to a BBC article, the company says it has a “fully functional prototype” and will begin testing. We believe you can’t cram too many batteries into contact lenses, but that seems to be one of the things that makes this technology so difficult to develop.
The article also mentions other smart contactors under development, including a lens from the University of Surrey that can monitor eye health using various sensors built into the lens. You have to wonder what it will look like in real life. Presumably the display will turn off and you won’t be able to see anything, but it’s annoying enough when your phone constantly beeps and messages are constantly out of your line of sight.
Of course, this is a promising technology. If not this time, then sometime in the future. While we generally think that the hacker community should take the lead, we’re not sure we want to hack something that catches people’s eyes. However, not everyone can say that. For us, we’ll stick with headphones.
I think it will be something like “blink and you miss” due to the limited battery capacity.
Perhaps just place the coil in your eyeglass frame and use it to measure beam power and high speed near field data. I don’t think I need a battery, especially a lithium ion one, I think a supercapacitor as a power buffer might be a better choice.
Until then, why not put everything, the monitor and everything in glasses? It will be less invasive than contact lenses.
Displays on eyeglasses require a higher resolution to achieve the resolutions required for displays with contact lenses, because the pixels on contact lenses are always directly in the user’s field of view. With eyeglass displays, you get either high resolution in a small field of view, or a large field of view with reduced resolution. Simulate the fovea, track the eye, and render these parts in the field of view with higher detail than in the periphery, allowing reasonable adjustment in stretched screens with a large field of view and reduced resolution, but not matching eye and contact tracking capabilities. things on par with monitors with a lens. This combination not only ensures the durability of the display, but can practically expand to cover the user’s entire potential viewing angle. Of course, all this is assuming that the resolution of the contact lens display can be as high as conventional display technology… which may be a little off… but the future is so bright, even if you have to wear contact lenses and sunglasses !
I read about it in the 90s that some companies made contact lenses with AR screens for divers. The control panel is mounted on the lower arm. They have been silent for decades, and now it seems like a new invention. When such companies remain silent, it usually means that the Department of Defense has snapped them up.
If you are using a triboelectric generator to charge your battery, flashing is exactly how you won’t miss it.
Jose! Damn good, getting more advanced & more quickly too, QM re micro LEDs has come a long way… I’ll have to take a closer look and hoping I also hear improvements too 
Thanks for posting, Damn good, getting more advanced & more quickly too, QM re micro LEDs has come a long way… I’ll have to take a closer look and hoping I also hear improvements too Thanks for posting, Damn good, getting more advanced and faster, QM micro LEDs have come a long way… I’ll have to take a closer look and hope I hear improvements too Thanks for posting, Damn good, getting more advanced and faster, QM re microleds have come a long way… I need to take a closer look and hopefully hear improvements too Thanks for posting,
Forget the camera, you don’t need it. But connecting this technology to my phone just gives me a head-up display showing directions, the aforementioned landing information, etc.
And just keep the display simple so it doesn’t block your view… yes, I think you need a driving mode that’s either off or really out of the way so it doesn’t block your view.
I see video games as inspiration for always-on augmented reality. Just like the constant connection to the Internet has changed modern society.
In addition, we can take full advantage of augmented reality and fully integrate with your vehicle’s existing sensor network. After all, what could go wrong?
For displays with built-in contact lenses, you need to cover the foveal area (approximately 2° circumference), but no matter where you look, the display is fixed in this area. The vision system will “fill in” the peripheral image based on the area you saw previously (but only if the eye is tracking accurately!) to ensure that the image completely covers the field of view. The difficulty lies in getting the display to focus (image at infinity, display panel on the surface of the eye), accurately and quickly track the gaze, and not block normal vision.
For glasses, your entire display needs to cover your entire desired field of view, which is a huge problem with today’s optics. Holographic waveguides push the boundaries of materials with almost 40° diagonal coverage. Birdbath optics (like those collimated displays that flight sims use but are strapped to your head) are huge by comparison, but at least they work. You also need to render the whole scene from above, not just a small part of it, which increases the computational load.
None of the solutions are prime-time ready at this time. AR is in the same position today as VR was in the boom of the 90s: we know what we need to achieve, we know what the solution should look like, but we don’t have the ability to actually do it yet.
Full multispectral “X-ray” specification? Is there a crazy comic book pattern on the front?
A version without a camera might be more acceptable. I already don’t like that every phone has a camera these days, so we’re already surrounded by phone holes?
At least they won’t record for as long as body cameras, but I think we should take it easy when it comes to cameras in our daily lives.
Yes, we are. However, I don’t think we should give up more cameras, not only because we can, but because it’s the next step in the information age. DVRs are useful, why can’t we record what we’ve already seen? Of course, this can be abused, but we have ways to abuse the camera, even without a glass hole around it.
2.5 Modification: The right to keep and carry the camera. The lowest number of *random* rollovers will be reduced.
@Ostracus, I know how we can compare, but I think that if a smart watch is a phone on the arm and smart glasses are a phone on the head: not so much for recording a crime, but for easily recording what would you take out your phone record
I love cameras in public places. People tend to behave better if they know that the behavior they have caught is likely to be shared. Not many people want to be national news or the next viral video. However, there are people who want that kind of attention. However, for crimes it is a good option to be caught, prosecuted and convicted based on video. The possibility of avoiding punishment for breaking the law inspired many. Cameras are a big deterrent. Some places do not belong to the camera. The use of images and videos should be slightly standardized. Public, which means no privacy, but should not allow people to profit without consent.
They use solid-state batteries, which are also used in pacemakers. Also, solid-state batteries will not leak or explode. A battery that you can use inside someone’s body is already subject to very strict safety regulations.
From the video or from their website it is not clear how the optics work. The eyes focus on distant objects. To have an image source on the surface of the eyeball requires the optics at that location to perform two functions: 1. It must have its own optics to produce a virtual image at a distance where the eyeball can focus. This requires a significant distance between the lens and the light source (image), source and lens element. It’s hard to see how they do it in the submillimeter range of contact lens thicknesses. 2. An optical element that creates an image, virtual or not, must be directed into the field of view: a physically large element must cross the field of view, even if the element is translucent. How did they do it here?
Do the light emitting elements really transmit from the sides and reflect from the curved face of the device?
You still need some sort of beamforming optics. And scans if you do (although they almost certainly don’t scan anything physical)
As far as I know, it looks more like a laser matrix than an LED screen matrix. The image is collimated light projected directly onto the retina.
You still need optics: with or without a laser, you firstly need to collimate the light, and secondly, point it in the right direction: each point of light must map to another point on the retina. This *requires* some kind of optics. Tiny, holographic, he still needs *something*.
The question is, what magic did they do to make it so thin. If the unrevealed magic isn’t real, then it’s a scam.
(And no, lasers don’t naturally collimate, especially small chip-sized lasers. Remove the lens from the laser pointer and see how wide the beam usually is.)
I want to know the same. Squeezing this optic into a contact lens feels more impressive than its power.
“The glass didn’t take off as expected, but – let’s be honest – do you really want to walk around with this equipment?” To be honest, glass doesn’t look as silly as a baseball cap worn inside out.
Progress -> Google Glass -> Smart contact lenses -> Direct HDMI connection to optic nerve and ear canal
Neuralink is terrible for me. I think I just need RS-232 bandwidth. My drop down eye option will be in the HUD with “TEA” or “COOKIES” for the right eye. The drop-down list for the left eye will say “Take over the world”.
Can’t wait to live in a cyberpunk dystopia of a sleepy man who can only live through smart contact lenses!
Of course, the best power source is solar or thermoelectric, plus some kind of capacitor. Hopefully this isn’t just another platform for advertisers and Big Brother to take advantage of people.
“Hopefully this isn’t just another platform for advertisers and Big Brother to take advantage of people.”
This is a loophole for one of the scam projects on kickstarter. It just requires too many technologies that don’t exist yet. A battery the size of a sesame seed, a display that somehow even focuses on the lens of the eye. Not to mention the fact that this requires super complex electronics.
They showed the product to several reporters, and the last thing I checked showed that they have at least one very real working prototype that people have written about.
No, the product was not shown to anyone. They demonstrated convincing display simulations. A rigged demo, if you want to be straight forward. It’s not even a good proof of concept, because they don’t show — they don’t show how the optics work, and they never show that the device is actually very close to the surface of the eye. Maybe it’s a subtle “take my money” distinction, but it’s important – that’s the difference between an idea and a product. Or wishful thinking and deceit.
By using our website and services, you expressly consent to the placement of our performance, functionality and advertising cookies.learn more
Post time: Sep-01-2022
