Immersive Video Eyeware/Gaming VR goggles.
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4568/866817010810642hh0.jpg


Makers claiming that using the iWear is equivelant to looking at a 62" screen from 9ft.

http://www.gizmag.com.au/vuzix-vr920-video-eyewear/8668/

Looks like a bag of migraine++ imo.

Be nice if they can pull it off without them giving you a headache. I'm yet to see a pair of 3D glasses that work well over a long period of time.

People have been trying to get this technology right for ages, it always just results in a big headache. There's always a chance this one will be better though!

via twin high-res (640x480) LCD's

hahahaha *wipes tear from eye*

What's this f***ing iTrend naming s***. get the f*** over it.

via twin high-res (640x480) LCD's


hahahaha *wipes tear from eye*

When you consider how big they'd be, that's actually fairly high rez.

Would you like to be using a 62" display 9ft away, at 640x480? Some games don't even support textures that size anymore.

But it's not actually a 62" screen... I'm not saying it wouldn't be uncomfortable, I'm sure using this thing for an hour is like getting an ice-pick lobotomy. I just imagine that it would be quite detailed at that size.

last edited by Kamma at 00:29:14 18/Jan/08

I'd have thought that 640x480 would look even worse at that close range.

I figure that the closer you are to a screen, the easier it is to discern detail(or the lack of it), so if you were wearing goggles 640x480 would be pretty bad (like putting a mobile phone against each eyeball)... Could be wrong though.

the issue is just that of latency really, 60hz probably isn't enough to stop it, most people can detect that lag between physical and visual stimuli. after a while they chunder.

tricky thing to get around. if you have a really well designed system you can render the frame the bare minimum time before video refresh using the most up to date head position. or you can ignore the video refresh all together and have it tear like crazy.

something tells me this headset won't do either of those.

http://gizmag.com/pictures/8668_17010810615.jpg

Need we say more

i tried a pair of things on very similar in the dubai airport last week. not too bad, but could only stand watching something for 10mins on em, then u would get sick of wearing them, and the weird feeling u get.

If only I could be bothered chopping an image of Geordi from Star Trek Next Gen behind her, an the black dude image macro onto the monitor "you gonna get raped"

DuHHH! car, RED!

I had this for the Sega like 20 years ago

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/1387/86748451pn1.jpg

last edited by Le Infidel at 08:50:29 18/Jan/08

http://images.projectstripe.com/virtualreality.jpg

haha beat me to it damn it

haahahahahah

Makers claiming that using the iWear is equivelant to looking at a 62" screen from 9ft.

OK, someone that knows maths bust out how that compares to looking at a 20" monitor from 2 feet.

I held my windows mobile phone up to my eye which is 320x240. while I couldn't see individual pixels everything was blurry and crap, and I couldn't make out anything except the colours of this page.. therefore this product is proven to be s***.

The basic rule is you should be between 3 and 4 times the height of your screen, away from your screen.

OK, someone that knows maths bust out how that compares to looking at a 20" monitor from 2 feet.

You can approach that from a few ways. You either assume that your centre of vision is the origin of the visible sector around you, originating from a point in the middle of your eyes, or you treat it as a truncated sector that would extend behind your eyes such that at zero distance from your eyes, the width would be around the width of your eyes (4-5").

So, extending that out, and using the example of a 20" monitor at 2 feet away, if you work out the width of a 20" monitor with 4:3 aspect ratio, it is 16" wide, and 16:9 is 17.43" wide. If you use this constraint to form the base of an isosceles triangle (with its apex inside your skull), then extend that out as a similar triangle to a distance of 9 feet (108"), the equivalent width would be, for case one, where the origin of the sector is at your eyes, 72" width (90" monitor), and case 2, where the origin is behind your eyes, of 18.44" width (98" monitor).

Going the other way, working out what the equivalent monitor size at 2 feet would be, the 62" screen @ 9 feet translates back to 13.78" 4:3 aspect ratio, or 17.1" 16:9 aspect ratio.

I think that's right ... it's just my scribblings on some scrap paper while I wait for my code to run at work.

i thought about getting them for long haul flights.

Yay, great. Why is she using a mouse when she has the iWear on?

Yay, great. Why is she using a mouse when she has the iWear on?

And why does the screen have the game on it...

f***IN LOL Le Infidel and nF

At 2" it would be a 6.9" screen... I think.

9 Feet, 62 Inch. Convert " to feet = /12 = 5.166666
You want a right angled triangle, so 1/2 that to have 2 Triangles = 2.583333333

Now to find a (The angle needed to be 62" at 9feet) use Tan(a) = Opp/Adj

a = Tan^-1(2.58333333/9) = 16.0154396 (32.03879 deg total view angle)

Therefore at 2 feet, Tan(a) = X/2 where X = Screen size 2 = distance from screen.
Tan(16.154396) *2 = X
x = 0.57407 feet
*12 to bring it back to inches =
6.88888888888

But i'm drunk, and I did the maths on the back of a credit card bill, so who knows if it's right... I think it is though... maybe.

Edit: boffiend's maths looks better.

last edited by Scooter at 22:29:50 18/Jan/08

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i281/Bl0r/fa.jpg

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6289/icoreyoy5.jpg

it has begun..

lmnt has teh best photoshops ever hehe this is gonna be good!

http://images.projectstripe.com/virtualpave.jpg