You can’t possibly do what they’re doing mechanically, so that’s off the table. The question is whether you can solve the electronics issues correctly. I don’t mind putting my glasses on a wireless charger overnight, but I am sure not going to stop what I’m doing in the middle of the day to recharge my eyeballs.
If we ignore the location focus you could have two lenses where you moving a lever rotates one compared to the others focal length. Basically how binocular focusing works, or camera Lens focusing. They are just going to be coke bottle bottom lenses Lol
Well, yeah, but we already know how to do bifocals and progressive lenses, which are basically… well, that but stacked on top of each other.
The point is to replace the need to look through a subsection of the lens to see up close for a solution that will give you the ability to switch depending on whether you’re focusing close or far. That’s a cool idea and fundamentally different to current solutions.
If they can do it automatically I’m not sure why you’d want that. When would you have a need to get your glasses to focus on something your eyes are not?
But the feature as described is not that it focuses on what’s in front of you, it’s that it looks at your eyes and focuses to match what they’re doing. Presumably if you’re looking at something past you they’d focus on the far field, same as your eyes.
I mean, it’s a lot to put on the quality of detection there, but if it works it should work like you expect without having to manually rack focus on your eyeballs.
Except my point was actually that ANY automated system WILL occasionally produce an error, or focus on the wrong thing in this case. And that was a specific response to your specific comment, not a critique of any attempt at automating parts of a system that will be an extension of my body. In my experience, it’s better for my parts to favor reliablity over perfection in design anyway.
I mean, any automated system can spit out an error, but it erroring out once in a million times can be trivial if it’s refreshing the tracking multiple times per second. There are plenty of automated systems that work reliably. Or reliably enough that having a button you push to manually adjust the thing is itself way slower than waiting for the device to sort itself out.
Either way we don’t know until they have a prototype people can test. It could go either way. But to be clear, it could go EITHER way. It could very well just be more reliable than a manual override. That’s definitely a possibility.
Even manual focus would be nice tho. Like when you tap the side of it, it activates the sensing and adjusts
or like just have it be mechanical, please
any sort of electronics in glasses sounds miserable to me
You can’t possibly do what they’re doing mechanically, so that’s off the table. The question is whether you can solve the electronics issues correctly. I don’t mind putting my glasses on a wireless charger overnight, but I am sure not going to stop what I’m doing in the middle of the day to recharge my eyeballs.
If we ignore the location focus you could have two lenses where you moving a lever rotates one compared to the others focal length. Basically how binocular focusing works, or camera Lens focusing. They are just going to be coke bottle bottom lenses Lol
Well, yeah, but we already know how to do bifocals and progressive lenses, which are basically… well, that but stacked on top of each other.
The point is to replace the need to look through a subsection of the lens to see up close for a solution that will give you the ability to switch depending on whether you’re focusing close or far. That’s a cool idea and fundamentally different to current solutions.
If they can do it automatically I’m not sure why you’d want that. When would you have a need to get your glasses to focus on something your eyes are not?
Because of the reasons described in the comment i responded to…
When I want to focus past something that is obscuring my view.
Because of the reasons described in the comment i responded to…
But the feature as described is not that it focuses on what’s in front of you, it’s that it looks at your eyes and focuses to match what they’re doing. Presumably if you’re looking at something past you they’d focus on the far field, same as your eyes.
I mean, it’s a lot to put on the quality of detection there, but if it works it should work like you expect without having to manually rack focus on your eyeballs.
Except my point was actually that ANY automated system WILL occasionally produce an error, or focus on the wrong thing in this case. And that was a specific response to your specific comment, not a critique of any attempt at automating parts of a system that will be an extension of my body. In my experience, it’s better for my parts to favor reliablity over perfection in design anyway.
That is… just not true.
I mean, any automated system can spit out an error, but it erroring out once in a million times can be trivial if it’s refreshing the tracking multiple times per second. There are plenty of automated systems that work reliably. Or reliably enough that having a button you push to manually adjust the thing is itself way slower than waiting for the device to sort itself out.
Either way we don’t know until they have a prototype people can test. It could go either way. But to be clear, it could go EITHER way. It could very well just be more reliable than a manual override. That’s definitely a possibility.