This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would dispute the claim of "able to replicate a full-sized monitor on a small device". This breaks the laws of optics. The apparent angular size of the image cannot be bigger than the actual angle subtended by the device at the eye lens, unless the device is so close to the eyeball as to negate the focusing effect of the eye lens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.129.184.12 (talk • contribs)
So this appears in focus no matter where you're looking? — Omegatron 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As user "Themfromspace" put it, the recent changes are "seemingly promotional and uncited batch of information," which seems about right. If there's no reliable source, it shouldn't be included. Likewise the tone is wholly inappropriate. Stuff like "On the contrary that people could think, this technology is not at all dangerous for our eye" is completely non-encyclopedic - it sounds like a ham-fisted broken-English sales pitch. 65.161.114.224 (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think like you, unidentified editor that sign with a IP address. If you think that something is wrong, you can change it. But I don't understand why you delete all my contribution. If you know how write it better, just do it, and no delete my work.
I'm learning English, and I haven't a lot of language resource for writing. You can help me better if you just change my wrong sentences.--Albertcobo (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I put my sources in the end of the article: Catalan Wikipedia and an article called In the eye of the beholder. I can't also understand why a Catalan article is longer than a English article, when the Catalan has only ten millions of speakers and English has hundreds of millions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.16.11 (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"On the other hand, although the power required is low, light must be collected and focused down in a point. This is easy to do with a laser, but not so easy with an LED. Even so, advances in LED technology have been needed to further concentrate the light coming from these devices."
(Emphasis added) Huh?? This doesn't parse, what does it mean... Xamuel (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this entire article talks about LED which is an incoherent light source, also all research, prototypes and papers use Lasers. 93.97.63.22 (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I've amended the military usage section, the helmet mounted systems referred to (Stryker commander's helmet and aviation applications) are all based on conventional displays, not laser projection based VRDs. VRDs have been investigated for military use, but haven't made the step to operational systems. 77.96.255.55 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not the display tech used in the new iPhone, correct? VRD projects directly into your eyeball. matt kane's brain (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it is important to keep this here. I came to this page wondering what a retina display was because of the iphone and it was helpful to know virtual retina display and retina display are different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.216.215 (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Should there be a redirect at the top of the page saying Not to be confused with iPhone retina display? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.127.15 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I find it logical that virtual retinal displays should be included in 4G and especially 5G smartphones. Has anyone found any research article supporting that idea? In that case we can mention that in related Wikipedia articles. Mange01 (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but the section "Why VRDs", as of r431206703 reads as if it's been lifted from an advertising brochure. In particular:
What if you could bypass defects in the eye's optical system, such as damaged cornea and lens and reduced retinal sensitivity? What if you could remove the problems of the display environment, such as ambient brightness, angle-of-view and display brightness? What if you could naturally augment the image you see naturally with other information?
This is the promise of a new display device called the Virtual Retinal Display or VRDs.
and
Eye tracking is currently used in advanced still and video cameras for focusing on the object you wish to record. Coordinating augmented visuals from the VRD and real world scenes with eye tracking is an exciting I/O combination.
Probably not helped by the lack of citations. (One at the end of the section, as an afterthought, which looks like it was just thrown on to attempt to make it look like verifiable content?)
86.112.105.67 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
"(However, the portion of the visual area where imagery appears must still intersect with optical elements of the display system. It is not possible to display an image over a solid angle from a point source unless the projection system can bypass the lenses within the eye.)[1]"
and
"More recently, there has been some interest in VRDs as a display system for portable devices such as cell phones, PDAs and various media players. In this role the device would be placed in front of the user, perhaps on a desk, and aimed in the general direction of the eyes. The system would then detect the eye using facial scanning techniques and keep the image in place using motion compensation. In this role the VRD offers unique advantages, being able to replicate a full-sized monitor on a small device."
contradict each other.
Do or dont VRDs allow the solid angle of the display to be wider than the solid angle of the device itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.3.157 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that airscouter is a VRT; am I missing something? - rlpowell 12.199.7.82 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I am qualified to comment as an experienced optics and optical systems engineer and researcher.
A concern here is WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SELFPUBLISH. The first reference (Tidwell et al.) appears to be to the author's own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabeles (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
This article should be deleted unless the optics of projection to the retina can be explained within a suitable period of time (I would suggest two or three months, maximum, to give proponents of the article a chance to fully respond).
Right now virtual retinal displays, which are not the kind used in Google Glass, are purely science fiction.
To a non-expert, it may seem possible that an optical beam generated by a single small laser, or three such lasers, can be focused to a few-micron-diameter spot at a retina through the natural lens of a mammalian eye, and scanned. The statements suggesting that this is possible are at best glib. At worst they are deliberately misleading, or, even worse, fraudulent. (Companies may have already been been formed and/or received funding based on such statements with insufficient due diligence.) The popular conception of a "laser beam" (imagined as being emitted from a ray gun or a laser pointer) supports this error. There are references to the virtual retinal display concept in the news and quasi-news, quasi-entertainment media. Journalists may well consult Wikipedia for background. It's important that this article not mislead.
In reality, there does not appear to be any practical method to both steer the incoming beam from a pair of glasses, and simultaneously maintain its alignment to the pupil of the eye. There are similar problems in the case of contact lenses. Several serious obstacles to realizing virtual retinal displays using a fixed pair of glasses may be described as follows:
(1) what method will be used to efficiently collimate and steer each of three (RGB) laser beams?
(2) how will the diameter of each laser beam be adjusted to match (or be contained within) the mammalian pupil?
(3) how will stray light, i.e., laser light that does not enter the pupil, be prevented from reflecting off the iris (of varying size depending on ambient lighting) and creating glare for the user?
(4) how will the position of each laser beam, not merely the angle, be dynamically adjusted as the beam is scanned?
(5) how will the position of each laser beam be dynamically adjusted as the eyeball rotates in its socket?
These concerns, and/or other similar ones, absolutely must be addressed. If they can be suitably addressed, OK. But I seriously doubt whether that will prove to be the case.
Yes, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be accessible to high school students, but these concerns go to the heart of whether virtual retinal displays are possible or, if possible, whether they are at all practical. It is simply science fiction — as it now stands.
You're welcome.
Jabeles (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there anything that classifies this display as a VRD other than the makers of the display claiming that it is one? There is no coherent light source, no optical scanning, etc. The optical path seems to be identical to any other HMD, except that a LED needs to be shone onto the DMD. 100.9.139.246 (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Virtual retinal display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
"4. Conclusions The VRD is a safe new display technology. The power levels recorded from the system are several orders below the power levels prescribed by the American National Standard. The VRD readily creates images that can be easily seen in ambient roomlight and it can create images that can be seen in ambient daylight. The combination of high brightness and contrast and high resolution make the VRD an ideal candidate for use in a surgical display. Further, tests show strong potential for the VRD to be a display technology for patients with low vision." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutasthanos (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to include information from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-virtual-retinal-display-market-2016-2025---vrd-technology-is-expected-to-commercialize-in-2016-and-expected-to-be-worth-usd-230-million-564347111.html and http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/tpvcgn/virtual_retinal, or is it too recent? I would be bold and add it in, but I would probably too closely paraphrase the material. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The concept described and depicted here-- a scanning point-source emitter positioned outside the eyeball that projects a raster display onto the retina of the user-- is impossible. It violates the laws of optics. The lens in the eye prevents this concept from working. When the emitter is at the eye's plane of focus, all photons it emits (among those that go through the lens of the eye, at least) will land on the same point on the retina. Scanning across the lens won't accomplish anything. When the emitter is out of focus (when it's too close to the eye, for example), its output can be scanned over the area of its circle of confusion on the retina, but this is a very small area; for me, a point source at one inch from my eye when my eye is focused at infinity produces a circle of confusion with approximately the same solid angle as a one-inch circle at a distance of two feet, or roughly 0.001 steradian (I invite you to test this for yourself).
The only way to create a display that appears to cover, say, 0.2 steradians (roughly the apparent size of the average computer monitor at typical working distances) of the human visual field is to use some kind of lens system or projection screen that ACTUALLY covers 0.2 steradians of the human visual field. This is how the traditional head-up display works. This is how the hypothetical contact-lens display would work, though that still requires light field display technology at a level not yet practical.
In short, "retina scanning" offers us no shortcuts, no way to make a tiny display produce big images.
Well, except one. You could literally cut into the eyeball and install the scanning point-source emitter inside it. That method would work fine, but I don't think much of its commercial potential.
Anyway, one thing I hope we've all learned from editing this article (and I've edited it many times over the years, only to see every sensible thing I wrote deleted or distorted into absurdity) is that optical science is almost an ideal growth medium for the Dunning–Kruger effect. Keeping this article on a firm scientific footing will require firm editing. I recommend starting with Select All, Delete. 64.125.50.162 (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)