| Author | Message | ||
     dave austin Rating: N/A |
I've bounced around an idea in my mind for a while that I think could drastically bring down the cost of high res HMDs. Can anyone tell me if this ever been considered: Use optics to give you high resolution only where you'd perceive it: the middle of your FOV. To do this, you'd need to first digitally bias the image on the LCD, resulting in a fisheye-type image so the majority of the pixels are dedicated to where you need the most detail. (The digital bias should be doable with a GL driver. I remember there was a similar setting in Quake allowing you to make the your FOV appear concave or convex - this would be a convex image). All the optics do is stretch out the edge pixels to correct the bias, resulting in an image that has high resolution in the middle and low res on the edges. The optics should be adjustable too so you can view unbiased video signals without the "edge stretching" if you want. This solution seems obvious enough to me, but I have yet to hear of somebody doing it. | ||
| davea austin Rating: N/A |
The more I think about this, this technique would have to be combined with head tracking, because the high res area would always be in the very center of the image. I don't see that as a problem, just that this wouldn't be too useful with non-tracking HMDs. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
NO, you don't need head-tracking at all to make this work... When I play a first person shooter on my monitor with my mouse & keyboard my eyes are ALWAYS fixed to the middle of the screen because that's where my crosshairs are. If I see an enemy to the right or left I instantly move my mouse placing them in the center of the screen so I can shoot them. In fact, I'm quite certain I could react faster with my mouse/keyboard setup to move around my environment than with head tracking (though I'v never tried head tracking). I just can't imagine doing an instant 180 with my head like I can using a mouse. Admittedly head-tracking is more immersive, but immersion seems to be it's only advantage. | ||
| BOPrey Rating: N/A |
dave, It has been considered, and some one already has a patent on it. It is not only limited to the application of HMD. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
who has a patent on it? thank you. | ||
| dave austin Rating: N/A |
The patent system needs serious reform. Here's my take on the matter: The Assignee should have to file a form every 2 years showing they have done everything possible to market their idea in order to retain sole rights. There should also be a cap on what they can get for their idea (like 3% of retail). The patent system has become death for progress and ingenuity. Where it was intended for the betterment of society it's become a holding place for lazy inventors to lock up ideas - most of which should be considered obvious. | ||
| BOPrey Rating: N/A |
No way in hell. I just sold off a small collection in my portfolio for a very nice sum of money. Anyway, going back to the main topic here. The individual that holds that patent also owns a company (with an name unknown for its business) that is also working on a Head Mount "Display" targeting to the masses, and I know him. That's all I'm going to say. | ||
| Arcadianvr Rating: N/A |
I have to agree with BOPrey. We own a ton of intellectual property concerning Virtual Reality. If anyone were to approach us with the intent of taking a product to market that utilizes any of our technology, we would partner or sell in a heartbeat. It is unfortunate that these huge corporations can take away our patents as they see fit. I don't argue a reform, but I do argue the proposal you have made! | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
After reading your interesting post I was encouraged. Enough so that I'm far enough along now that it's safe for me to say that I've been actively pursuing this one with my own patent. My idea. Nobody put it in my mind - certainly not your mysterious friend whoever that is. Like I said in the original post - I've been bouncing this idea around for some time (years actually)- and I have secure time-stamped media to prove it. If you think your mysterious friend has got me beat then please direct me to his patent (if he really has one, which I doubt because patents protect ideas - he should be flaunting it): davea0511 (at) yahoo.com and perhaps I can help him market it. My first suggestion to him would be to not be so insecure with his patents - such are the guys companies love to steal from because they know he'll never put up a fight. I'm not insecure: I'm Dave Austin and this is my idea (and one of my more obvious ones), unless I see proof that someone else had it first. Either way, as you see from my earlier post I saw it as "obvious" to me (which, if I'm the only one who thought of it then I was wrong, as it was obvious only to me), and that's what I'll believe until I hear anything concrete about your mysterious friend's mysterious patent. Either way it does not bode well for your friend. Patents have a way of becoming void when someone other than the inventor came up with it on their own because they thought it was "obvious". Frankly, I'd just love to see this invention hit the light of day - the whole HMD community could benefit... Much better than it getting hidden in some proprietary crack because a smeagol-like inventor was too paranoid to boldly market his "precious" idea. That's what I'm talking about when I complain about the patent system. | ||
| dave austin Rating: N/A |
It came up Anonymous, but that post was mine. -Dave Austin | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Whats a same is that you guys patent something and then don't do anything with it. You're just holding up the line. |
