Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Olympus' Headmounted Display 49

An anonymous coward noted that Olympus has a head mounted cam up. The resolution looks like its still to low for computer stuffs, but might work for TV. It looks like its already available, but no price is listed.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Olympus' Headmounted Display

Comments Filter:
  • by quux26 ( 27287 ) on Saturday July 29, 2000 @07:35AM (#895510) Homepage
    "yeah, but there are those of us who don't buy Sony products because of the war crimes they committed in WWII. They forced chinese and korean slaves to work for them until they died. I will pay a few bucks more to protest their immoral past."

    I have to wonder how consistant you are with this line. Do you think the cigarette companies have been immoral in their disinformation, and if so do you refused to by from the numerous food products they output? You are aware of Goodyear's involvement in the Vietnam war and the lives that were lost as a result, right? Are these on your list? I can find quite a few more, this is just for brevity's sake...

    I'm not challening your thought process here, just your ability to pull it off.

    Actually, I take that back - I do question this logic. How do you discern between a company that isn't killing people because they've become enlightened and responsible and those that don't just because it's not nessesary or politically expedient? God, I hate to sound PC but this sounds awful Eurocentric.

    My .02

  • Mod me down as offtopic, but whatever.

    I seriously doubt that ZikZak's account has been disabled for whatever. If Rob wanted to do that, why would he put it under "User Bio"?

    Congrats, YHBT.
  • maybe you just have an odd shaped head?

    that's humor, that what that is..
  • They also misspelled "manuals" on the same page. I've noticed that companies seem to care less and less about having a well-edited web page. I know that the product should be what's examined more than the spelling of a web site's content, but it just makes it look like they don't care...

    And as for the age restriction, it probably has something to do with the fact that parents can't peek over their kids' shoulders and see what they're watching if it's on something like this. Although I agree that it is strange to see it as a safety restriction...

  • I see no mention of a camera in the device, nor the word "cam" in their product literature. So why is it labeled a "cam" in the Slashdot article?
  • Can Eye-Trek be used for viewing 3D images?

    You can only watch 2D images. The right and left pictures are the same.

    When are these things going to start being sold as peripherals for gaming? Just throw in a head tracker, and allow the images to be different, and you're in business. Are there any plans to support these types of devices on the x-box or ps2 on computer gaming systems? Now that would kick ass!
  • C'mon - It's 2 in the morning here -
    (I did go to karaoke last night but didn't sing...)

    Is this from Espo or Swain?

  • Last time I went to the Sharper Image (about 2 months ago) they already had one of these, wide screen. It's priced at about $1200, so you can probably expect a competitive price from Olympus.

    I want one so I can run a laptop at 640x480 (or the appropriate widescreen area) and with large fonts and have a good ole time.

    If I remember correctly, they also have one with a window shade feature, so you can even see through, but I may be mistaken.

    - Wedg

  • Wear these goggles and a rubber suit and run around the street calling yourself cyclops...
  • The future developments [] page says a SVGA binocular version is due in July 2000 for US$1200. Pretty expensive but I think that's a lot less than the high-res Sony Glasstron.
  • Do the math and you see that maximum resolution is about 600x400 on these.. ? (roughly, or am I wrong?). Small handheld LCD's might give them a run for thier money on computer usability.
  • With a few cosmetic modifications we can have the same cool shades that Cyclops from the X-Men had.

    Now that'd be worth paying ~$500 for! :)
  • Initially I'm thinking, "WOW! Cool, this would be sooo cool to have!", but then my reason kicks in and say's, "Seriously, for what practical prupose would this sort of thing serve?" THen I realize the TRUTH: "it doesn't HAVE to serve ANY practical purpose whatsoever, so long as it is just cool!
  • The old VirtualIO I-glasses have 640x480 resolution (though it's interlaced so it's really 640x240), which is about as much as these. The new ones do even better... I have a pair of the old ones.

    My boss gave me the I-glasses; they're a cute novelty. Two years I played FF7 with them, lying in my bed on my side (even with the covers over my head!). You don't even be upright to use your computer any more, heh.

    Stereoscopic effect was neat, but I couldn't get it to work with my Voodoo. I did write some programs to interlace rendered images, which was kind of fun. (see cans.gif [] )

    When the resolution on these becomes a lot higher (it's not really possible to do anything involving reasonably-sized text AFAIK), these will have a lot of cool uses.

  • those that pay the taxes to support them.

    Free at the library, you say??

    So all those real estate taxes I've been paying are what, a figment of my imagination? I don't think so.


  • The basic problem is that blowing up NTSC resolution to the whole human visual field results in a crappy image. As one of the VR pioneers once told me, it's equivalent to being legally blind in California. You need HDTV 1080i, at minimum.
  • These cool head mounted displays were available for the public to test at the recent Comdex Canada in Toronto. I think (meaning not sure) the list price was approx a thousand. Looking through the glasses looks like watching a movie from the very back row of a movie theatre. Nice... but probably not the best replacement for your desktop monitor.
  • Those things *have* to be bad for your eyes or they give you seizues. I saw those in an electronics store, actually, last week in Vegas. I can't remember the price though, so I'm absolutely no help.
  • hook a really fast, really small computer to it with an a/v in/out to it, then hook a digital camera into the av-in (dont forget to strap it to the side of your head too), and you have succesfully integrated your desktop into your every day life. Just think of the uses, you never have to leave your desk again! you can even put a fidely (or whatever it was called) keypad in your one hand and one of those cool mouse/pointers in the other hand. who needs the real world anyways?
  • Well, yeah - these have been out for a while - I have had info on my site for a while as well ( Display Devices).

    I tend to wonder about these overpriced systems - today we have 3D graphics of amazing quality, free rendering engines/software, yet no one is clammoring to do full immersion (and those that do, suffer the big bucks, or sell for big bucks). I mean, which would be better - to play Q3A on a monitor, or to immerse yourself in the world?

    Not much has been happenning on the homebrew front as of late (where the heck is everyone? I want to republish PCVR on my site - I have all of the issues - but I can't find the publisher (Joseph Gradecki) - I have contacted his last publisher - he published a recent game programming book of recent date - I got and address, sent mail - it got returned - where is he? Anybody got ideas on what I should do?). I have been thinking about redoing my site as a magazine style site...

    I would love to see a revival in homebrew VR - but I don't know if it will happen - people seem too lazy today - or is it me? Does anyone have thoughts on why nobody is wanting full immersion, home-based systems, homebrew or otherwise?
  • might want to check out the M1 or M2 at tekgear.

    it was rated the best display of 1999 [] i think the url is here. [] I got mine for $250 as an "imperfect" model, but i don't see any problems with it.
  • Everytime I look at them I always hear my mother telling me not to sit so close to the TV.
  • This simply grew out of old VR HMD's (Head Mounted Displays. The started out with trackers that were included, so that you could also use them as input devices. The classic use is VR, but many adapted to mimic a mouse so they could work with video games. The i-glasses and Forte VFX1 come to mind. The new i-glasses I believe have even better resolution at 3600,000 pixels/eye. The trackers have disappeared, but if you really want to buy something like this, check out the auction sites first. You can probably get away paying only about $300 for something equivalent to the low end model.
  • I tried a pair of these weeks ago in Akihabara (Tokyo), I think, unless they are using the same form factor as an earler model. (We do get stuff earlier here - I just got the new Casio Watch Camera yesterday - Nifty!)
    Not so much better than the newer Sony Glasstron, but much better weight than the original Sony.
    I bought the Sony's when I had a REALLY small apartment, but couldn't get used to them. Too much eye strain after about an hour.
    Cheers -
    Jim In Tokyo
  • Well, some people may not have room in their house for a 62" TV set, let alone feel like lugging it along on the plane with them, etc.

    Sure, you can't share it with a friend, but their taste in movies generally suck anyhow.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    This seems like nothing compared to the earlier article about researchers devising a way to project images directly onto the retina. Then, the perceived size of the image is increased. I had a chance to demo a standard head-mounted unit with 640x480 resolution and even though the image was fairly clear, it had a perceived size of about a 14" monitor. Using larger high-res LCDs would add weight and raise the cost.
  • Hahah, 52 inch porn attached almost directly to your eyes! *cringes*
  • At ComDex Canada (yes, we have ComDex in our igloos) I tried these at the Olympus booth. Suffice it to say, they suck.

    Firstly, they are far too heavy, and the supports for your skull feel quite flimsy and are made from poorly manufactured plastic; they could snap off at any time. They are also uncomfortable. The supports jam themselves into your skull just above the ears, and hurt like a bi*ch after a while. The resolution ain't that great, and even with about 5 minutes of playing with the focus controls and adjusting them on my face, the picture still looked like there was vaseline on the displays.

    These are definatly NOT suited for computer use, and barely suited for TV viewing.
  • They might be a relatively useful method of torture. Ever seen "Clockwork Orange"? Just staple those eyelids open, and it's impossible to look away. Bwa ha ha!
  • Do you know of any current glasses that also offer a built in tracker? Seems to me this would be a great combo for flight sims and other games.
  • Like sdavies in an earlier before, I want them 3d - I want to run around a Q3 level with stereoscopic view, shouldnt be too hard to render from two perspectives just slightly apart? But they dont make these things for nerds!!

    "Eye-Trek is already being used by Japan Airlines: JAL provides its first class passengers on long-haul flights with Eye-Trek to offer undisturbed video and movie entertainment."

    No no no they dont get it, this should read as following:

    "Eye-trick is already being used by dolta airlines: they provide their nerd class passengers with a few good local network CTF games to offer disturbing fragging entertainment and make these geeks totally forget about being stacked like matches in a box."

  • I mean really, with this gear you can stack a zillion of us in one 747 and we'd all come out smiling!
  • Get a life.. grow up. The guys at /. have a tough job to do, and their only goal as far as I can tell is to disseminate information to the world. It takes time to verify the accuracy of EVERY article, and very little would ever get posted if that were the case. That's why they open these postings up to commentary, so that readers can 'discuss' the validity, or accuracy of each article. Please don't attack the folks at slashdot. They are only the messengers!
  • Personally i'd prefer a total immersive environment using neural systems. That way I could feed visual data directly into my brain.

    At the same time I could have the computer record all my other sensory inputs.

    That way I could play games in lectures and search lectures when the exams come up.
  • You could probably stick a pair of Wicked 3d [] Eye-Scream glasses underneath there to get a stereoscopic effect :)
  • Prolonged contact to the refresh rate in these and other devices has been shown to have an adverse effect on a person's development. The same applies to any device that has a strobe effect, or certain video games that have alot of rapid action visual adjustments (regardless of the content of the game). The reason you see "less" of these warnings on other devices is that they are obviously not as immersive. Set a cheap monitor to a high resolution. The closer you get, the more the display seems to give you a headache. Same effect!
  • I thought with this "in your face" type display discussion this info would come in handy:

    If you want a computer screen - not TV - right in your face, there's this company called xybernaut [] that makes "wearable PC's", so you dont have to leave your (or a) computer behind when you go grocery shopping.

    It appears they're shipping a Pentium MMX type computer with a head mounted 640x480 resolution monocular display (errrr no 3d graphics but your shopping list is right there with you projected into the store) - has voice recognition.

    It however doesnt appear they've really come out with some grand new improvement over the last year - their processors are all pentium MMX from 200 to 233 mhz... Maybe they're cash strapped.

    Also the Yahoo index on wearable PC's [] doesnt really show a lot of promise - most of the companies manufacturing hardware need a lesson making websites, so you'd wonder where we're heading with this kind of technology.

    For too much info on this visit the temple of geeks at [] and search for wearable computer [].

  • Call me when they have something like this doing a far higher res, and onto a contact lens. I'd really rather not wear such bulky goggles.

    Surely it'd be possible, right? I can get mirrored lenses, and any number of colours and images. What tech advances are required to make contact lens displays a reality?
  • Bwahaha.. what about the 'atrocities' committed by your country?

    It doesn't matter which country you're from, they've all been resposible for 'atrocities' at some point.

    I imagine in a few decades they'll look back on the current state of the internet and call that an 'atrocity' too.

    'People could post *whatever they wanted* on *evil sites* like It lead to the moral corruption of millions of young people and sparked the most bloody civil war in the history of the world - The great Linux wars of 2004, when Richard Stallman led a bloody jihad against the Microsoft-owned Government of the USA.'

    You don't really think that millions of people round the world actually have to starve in the desert, do you? And what are you doing about it? It's obviously not enough. Its a fucking atrocity man! And you just waste your time tapping away on a keybord.. people like you make me sick!

    Oh the guilt!

  • listen, buddy. let me fight my battles as a i see fit.

    I'm all about letting you not only voice your opinion but follow through with it. I'm simply questioning where you draw the line and how you plan on being accurate in the first place.

    I'm completely serious, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.

    My .02

  • by mattdm ( 1931 ) on Saturday July 29, 2000 @07:12AM (#895550) Homepage
    Um, price is listed []. $549 for the low end model, $949 for the high end. So really, nothing amazing compared to Sony's.


  • we are evaluating for purchase this week
    one, [] two, [] three []

  • by laborit ( 90558 ) on Saturday July 29, 2000 @07:16AM (#895552) Homepage
    From the Safety Info [] page:
    Some people should not use this product:

    Anyone who has ever experienced convulsive or epileptic fits or loss of consciousness from light flashes or oscillations.
    Anyone with a heart disorder, high blood pressure, a visual field impairment or an eye movement or alignment disorder.
    Anyone under 16 years of age
    Guess they're worried about parental lawsuits... "studies show that pr0n is 67% more corrupting when viewed on an immersive virtual 52-inch screen"

    - Michael Cohn
  • I have seen them around for a while. They are cool tho, sorta like your own personal theater. They would be cool for watching DVDs on laptops for sure.
  • I don't mean to "troll" but, what is the point of these displays?

    Not only do they look ridiculous but I don't see what the advantage of using them is, other than privacy.

    I have tried one of these (a Sony model) on at The Wiz in NYC and I was unimpressed.

    What practical uses does this have? Maybe I am missing something obvious.

  • I heard about one guy who was using them on a plane, popped in a pr0n DVD and got a little carried away, forgetting where he was...

    Ok, I just made that up, but feel free to start it as an urban legend...

    Jim In Tokyo
  • Oh yippie, yet another gadget to scare off the very few potential girlfriends already...

    Porn on this puppy would be.... scary!

  • by crovax ( 98121 )
    Why would anyone want one?
    The only good reasons I can think of for having one of these is for playing Aliens Vs. Predator and looking at porn.
    Err. Never mind...
    How much were they again?
    If my facts are wrong then tell me. I don't mind.
  • complete with ten thousand fast response computer controlled inflatable segments to simulate the sense of touch ...

    add the headphones and the eye gear, and away you go ...

"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas