Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

For $20, Build a VR Headset For Your Smartphone

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the watch-movies-on-the-plane dept.

Displays 50

An anonymous reader writes "Not everyone can drop a few hundred dollars on a VR headset, but that doesn't mean they can't experience VR! For those with the time and a bit of handiwork skill, this DIY guide from guest writer Ohaple will show you how to make a smartphone-based VR headset for as little as $20. Along the way, you'll learn the hardware and software basics of a VR headset." This project screams for a ready-made commercial version; does anyone know of existing purpose-built headgear? As one of the comments on the linked tutorial says, Poppy seems close, but lacks an LED for tracking.

cancel ×

50 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

it's alive! (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 4 months ago | (#46794077)

well, virtually, anyway.

Durovis (1)

richy freeway (623503) | about 4 months ago | (#46794079)

Saw this on The Reg earlier : https://www.durovis.com/ [durovis.com]

Re:Durovis (1)

richy freeway (623503) | about 4 months ago | (#46794083)

Sorry to reply to myself, but I see it's actually mentioned in the article :D

uh uho. problems.. (0)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 4 months ago | (#46794139)

Rounded rectangles. Violates Apple patents. Regular rectangles.. Violates Microsoft Win8 design patents.

Re:uh uho. problems.. (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46794317)

Here's a phone, call someone who gives half a shit.

Fortunately there are still countries where it's not possible to patent every fart you pass.

Re:uh uho. problems.. (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 4 months ago | (#46794455)

Well... you're referencing the wrong patent there, and should Apple be granted a patent on their 2008 application for a strikingly similar idea, [uspto.gov] then yes, quite clearly this DIY smartphone based HMD would violate their patent (if it was produced and sold by a company that could be sued). And quit you're belly aching, I had this exact idea in July 2007 within days of owning my first smartphone. Should the concept be perfected, so that it was universal to any smartphone, and sent to market, I expect they would sell amazingly well. Whomever holds the patent could make a handsome sum of money just for strealing my idea.

Re:uh uho. problems.. (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 4 months ago | (#46794551)

Dang, I had to go digging for that patent url, when less than a week ago it was someone else's story. [appletvhacks.net] Its only slightly important to note that I'm not the only one that remembered this, and that the idea is somewhat currently in the collective consciousness. I figured when I saw it that it was going to be one of those patents intended to prevent any such thing from ever making it to market, for whatever reason Apple might not want it developed. But now I really hope Apple has a viable product for release whether they're granted a patent or not.

Re:uh uho. problems.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46794567)

Look closer... though similar, that isn't the same patent application.

Re:uh uho. problems.. (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46794671)

Hell, back in the VGA days, or maybe it was even CGA, I had a few games that recommended making a cardboard "view box" to strap over the double-screen displayed on your monitor for the full stereoscopic effect. Before that the View-Master had been around for almost a century, and before *that* there were prism-based toys that did much the same with pairs of stereoscopic photographs. Doing the same F'ing thing with a mobile screen with built-in motion sensors hardly seems innovative or patent-worthy. Except perhaps in terms of the specific fastening mechanisms.

Re:uh uho. problems.. (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 4 months ago | (#46795099)

I'm nearly certain the basic concept has been around a lot longer than a century, and probably at least 2 or 3 millenia and more, when rudimentary optics (a nice way to say "holes") were used to view, say, a performance of dancing women behind a partition, in one respect, or to view minature depictions (a nice way to say "carvings" or "sketches") of women in various submissive or compromising positions in another. And I don't think this and what you've generously shared is going to matter to the clerks that approve Apple's patents( that's plural–because there are at least two Apple patent applications that, if either or both are awarded, would likely prevent -hypothetically, or on paper, prior to litigation that makes it so- any from bringing the completed concept to market). But before we condemn the individuals that do ultimately and probably infamously sign off the approvals , we should recognize that they are not crusaders or villians but just people doing their job, like all non-elected government employees. We don't really know the rules a patent clerk must follow in the execution of their duties. I'd really like to see a reply to an innacurate post that begins: "IAAFPC (I am a federal patent clerk)..." or "IAAPA (I am a patent attorney)...."

Re:uh uho. problems.. (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46795341)

No, we don't know all the unspoken rules that govern a patent examiner - but we *do* know the official, written rules which do so - and those rules require them to deny patents on non-novel technologies, mathematical algorithms, abstract ideas, and many other things which nevertheless routinely receive patents. Perhaps the examiners are only following orders when they grant such patents - but their actions are still illegal (well, extralegal at least) and carry a massive cost to the economy and the pace of US innovation. And I for one feel fully justified in condemning them for those costs. "I was just following orders" has never been an excuse for unethical behavior, though obviously the hammer should come down even harder on the ones who gave the orders.

Re:uh uho. problems.. (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 4 months ago | (#46797803)

Yes, but... think about it, there are no more non-novel, original ideas. And there are other considerations, such as the purpose of the thing. For example, you just can't patent an electro magnet, but you can (or could reasonably recently) patent an MRI; you can't patent an automatic ball pitcher (anymore), but you can patent a gun that uses baseballs as amunition, also you could probably get a patent on a auto-baseball throwing "car denter and windshield breaker." My point is you can be validly awarded a patent on something that is not original or novel in any way, but it is being applied in a way that original patent did not specifically cover.

Re:uh uho. problems.. (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46799545)

Did you mean "there are no more novel, original ideas"? If so my answer would be (A) Bullshit. and (B) So? Then there's no more need for patents. They were always a social contract of dubious benefit to begin with. Innovation tends to surge in countries that remove their patent system.

>My point is you can be validly awarded a patent on something that is not original or novel in any way, but it is being applied in a way that original patent did not specifically cover.
*Only* if the invention is also something novel and non-obvious to one skilled in the field. Otherwise it's something that anyone so inclined could be reasonably expected to create given a reason to do so, and the "invention" offers society no benefit to compensate it for granting the inventor government-backed monopoly rights. Remember, like copyright, patents aren't an expression of some sacred right to exclusivity, they're a limited deprivation of the natural right to mimicry that is granted in order to encourage creators to be more prolific and provide more value to society. If that equation falls out of balance then they no longer justify their existence.

Re:uh uho. problems.. (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 4 months ago | (#46813261)

Did you mean "there are no more novel, original ideas"?

Yes, that is what I meant. Nice catch. I wrote the exact wrong thing, and yet you still were able to understand what I meant. I should really slow down when I respond to posts. Thanks.

If so my answer would be (A) Bullshit.

Don't be so hard on yourself. I'm sure your answer has value. heh, just kidding. My answer to that is "prove it." Show me this novel and orginal idea, that is new and not based on what came before, and is not standing on the shoulders of giants.

and (B) So? Then there's no more need for patents.

I don't see how you can legitamately draw that conclusion, certainly not by what you wrote subsequently. Why don't you dumb up your reasoning for me a little bit, if you're so inclined, I would appreciate it (if you're serious).

They were always a social contract of dubious benefit to begin with.

...says someone obviously biased agianst the existence of patents. Certainly there are unncessary patents hurting innovation. But those are the exception. The purpose of patents is not to prevent innovation, but to protect the IP of the patent holder for an extremely reasonable period, in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem and is a product or a process. Without the patent system, an inventor has no incentive to share their invention with anyone, possibly to the extreme detriment of society.

Copyright is not a good way to describe patents... copyright is out of control (Disney, et al., yada yada yada), and the public domain is suffering for it. Not every patent is unncessary, certainly not to the inventor or patent holder who, very often, has a lot invested in their innovation. I don't think you would be perfectly happy slaving over a marketable innovation for the better part of your life only to have me copy the idea, and effectively steal profit from you, the very wind from your sails, the moment you share the innovation or a day after you finally achieve that wonderful goal of tagging it and bringing it to market.

Innovation tends to surge in countries that remove their patent system.

I am not aware of this. Obviously, you must have some specific examples. Please share them so I know what you're talking about, as I'd like to examine these innovation "surges" myself. Because, as it stands, it appears that you just made this up out of thin air because you don't like patents for some reason, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out why.

My point is you can be validly awarded a patent on something that is not original or novel in any way, but it is being applied in a way that original patent did not specifically cover.

*Only* if the invention is also something novel and non-obvious to one skilled in the field. Otherwise it's something that anyone so inclined could be reasonably expected to create given a reason to do so, and the "invention" offers society no benefit to compensate it for granting the inventor government-backed monopoly rights.

I'm nearly certain the US Patent Office is using a broader definition of "novel" and "non-obvious" than you are. And merely creating something new doesn't cut it... one must also understand and document in the patent application what it is exactly and the correct and undeniable mechanisms that permit to function.

Remember, like copyright, patents aren't an expression of some sacred right to exclusivity, they're a limited deprivation of the natural right to mimicry that is granted in order to encourage creators to be more prolific and provide more value to society.

Again, using copyright as an example is not the way to go... because the state of copyright as it stands today is exactly as you describe it as not being, i.e. effectively an "expression of some sacred right to exclusivity" (I like how you phrased that) that apparently goes on and on, long after the author has died and his children have grown old, and the author cannot possibly benefit or suffer any longer for their copyright expiring within a reasonable period, to the detriment of society. And as the rich copyright holder approaches the end of this ridiculously long period, they just pay enough to change the laws, and extend their exclusive rights, and this has happened over and over with copyright. Nothing even remotely like that has happend with patents, nor have patent holders been able to extend the quite reasonable time of granted exclusivity. I'm not certain it is fact, but I think that time period has been reduced on occasion, from 20 years, to 14 years, or whatever that period is now.

If that equation falls out of balance then they no longer justify their existence.

And yet again you have drawn a specious conclusion without sharing any of your reasoning to support such a conclusion.

Look, if you want to argue about software patents (which we haven't even breached the subject of in this thread) being unncessary and innovation-killing monsters, then do so, and I will eagerly and gratefully consider your argument for the effort you put into it. But if you're trying to convince me or anyone that all patents are bad, and that, if I may invoke a poster child of the patent system, the destitute but brilliant Nikola Tesla did not deserve the patent unltimately awarded him for the invention of none other than radio and everything necessary for it, you're going about it the wrong way. Certainly there are wonderful examples of amazing generocity and philanthropy that have occured by individuals sharing ideas and inventions, to societies incalculable benefit, and not seeking exclusivity nor to be compensated in any way whatsoever for their significant work (Archimedes, Leonardo Da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Jonas Salk, plenty more I'm sure). But these anacdotal examples do not invalidate all patents nor the patent system (which often necessarily includes disputes settled by an adversarial court system).

Just because Bill Gates gives hundreds of millions of dollars away, and it is a good thing that he does so for a lot of individuals that it must benefit, and further, owe their very lives to, doesn't mean that you or I must also do so. (I can't afford that!) Nor does the innovation-stifling train wreck that resulted from the Wright Brother's patent on flight control, directly setting US aviation back years, invalidate the whole system and all patents. To say so is a fallacious argument. The litigation steming from the Wright Brother's flight control patent ultimately lead to the birth of patent pools, which are a good thing, and help prevent a patent's exclusivity from stifling further development while still compensating the patent holder. And the Wright's patent expired in 1917, less than 14 years after it was granted to them. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me, even if the US really needed that innovation for WWI, because that, relatively speaking of course (I don't want to offend any veterans), is merely an accidental circumstance of history. Patents, if nothing else, are very limited, almost limited to the point that an inventor might not think it even worth it to invent if s/he could only benefit exclusively from it for such a short period... it's right on the border there.

Again, patents are not like copyright, which are a complete disgrace and an insult to rationality, when technically you owe fees for singing "Happy Birthday" to your child once a year. That song was awarded its copyright in 1935, and it doesn't expire until 2030!! There is nothing in the patent system even remotely as absurd as this.

And if I may be so bold, I need the patent system intact, because I am not rich, but at times I think I am clever, and I intent to personally scoop everyone on the patent on these new VR devices and HMDs, because every single developer is rushing into to the endzone without the football. And I won't actually need to physically develop anything because I have an understanding of these devices, that I have never, btw, used nor even seen in person, that these foolish manufactures do not have (and no, I'm not going to share it with you just because you're curious or just because you believe patents are evil). In the same way that a hypothetical patent holder for an invention to make "fire" could have their patent invalidated, because they failed to explain sufficently, or explain correctly or comprehensively, how it works (magic!) would be scooped and lose their patent to a chemist who came along years after the fact by explaing what it actually is and how it actually works. Years after the first patent was awarded for such a device, I will file my patent application, and be awarded my patent, and retroactively invalidate all previous patents because my patent will be comprehensive, complete, and correct, and none of the current manufactuers patents can be... because, as I insinuated and have stated in posts elsewhere, it is obvious they have no idea what they have nor any idea what it really is and what it is going to do for humankind... namely, cause us to literally evolve, likely within our lifetimes. It's not my fault they are fools, (albeit brilliant fools) nor is it my obligation to help make some rich company richer just so some tweener can get their game on.

Re:uh uho. problems.. (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46825299)

Wow, talk about reading a lot into my comment. Okay, lets agree that copyright is out of control, but irrelevant to the conversation. Let's further postulate that patents extend for a reasonable time-frame (aside from the methods of extending and renewing them I would agree), I'll ignore the other issues around software patents as well, since it sounds like you are familiar with that argument already, and they are really more of a distraction from the core topic. Also let me say that I am not opposed to patents in principle, only to the excessively generosity with which the patent office awards them. Finally, can we also agree that there's absolutely nothing "natural" about patents, that for most of humanity's history the idea of retaining exclusive rights to an idea through anything other than secrecy was laughable, and it's only in recent centuries that the idea has caught on for making the social exchange of bestowing limited exclusivity in exchange for breaking the secrecy and/or to encourage more resources be spent pushing the boundaries of technology? I.e. that patents are in a sense a bribe/payment by society, and are thus only justified insofar as they benefit society in turn.

Now, let me readdress the points.

(A) Novel technology - you seem to have a very different understanding of this term than I have commonly heard used. Novel technology isn't something created without standing on the shoulders of giants - pretty much *all* modern technology builds upon what came before. That is the march of technology. The question is, could anyone reasonably skilled in the field stand on those shoulders, look at the same problem, and come up with the same basic thing? If so, then you've done nothing novel - if you hadn't invented that widget then the next person to consider the problem would have. Allowing patents on such a thing only slows innovation, because now you've locked out everyone else from using the obvious solution, at least until your patent expires. If I were to use a physical analogy of a disorganized crowd spreading across a landscape called "possible technology", then you're simply the first person to cross through an obvious mountain pass, and you went and set up a tollbooth there.

On the other hand if you've done something *not* obvious - for example found an elegant solution to a problem that has traditionally been crudely worked around, or even stopped progress altogether, then that *is* novel - your own insight contributed something above and beyond having a vantage point on the shoulders of giants. You built a bridge across an obstacle, and society rewards you with the right to charge a toll for using it for a while. But still only a while, because it's understood that you could not have done what you did without crossing countless older bridges yourself, and if a toll were still charged on all of them then no-one would ever expand the frontier.

Similarly if an invention is simple in concept, but difficult to implement properly, then you have contributed something in developing a functional implementation. In that case it makes sense to grant you a patent on your implementation(and potentially individual elements thereof, if they are themselves novel). But not on the obvious idea. *Anyone* looking at the problem would have the obvious idea - you contributed nothing of value there. And if someone else can come up with a completely different implementation of the obvious idea, then their implementation is likewise a novel solution, and the two of you will be in competition based on the relative qualities of your inventions and the licensing/manufacturing costs. The two of you have managed to build two completely different bridges across the same chasm, and you can now compete on quality and price - but importantly neither of your bridges built upon the other's, so there's no reason that one of you should be allowed to demand a toll from those using the other guy's bridge.

As for (B) my "so what?" comment - when you say there's no more novel technology to be created I hear you say the only obstacles left in technology are the mountains with obvious easy passes - not even any benefit in digging non-obvious shortcut tunnels. If that were truly the case then there would be no incentive for society to grant patents anymore - all paths would be obvious. Giving the first person to cross each of those passes the right to install a tollbooth doesn't help the next bunch of people get through the pass. They already knew where to go, and had to do exactly as much work to get there as the first guy did - so the only thing the toll booth can do is slow things down. And why should society actively contribute to such a thing?

Finally, with the patent revocation thing - take a look at European history. Many countries have declared themselves patent-free zones at one time or another, and the result is almost always a surge in innovation as inventors are free to improve and extend upon all the previously patented technologies. The state rarely lasts long as their allies tend to pressure them into re-implementing patent protections, so it's difficult to say what the long-term implications would be, and I would be willing to concede that after the initial surge things may well slow down. The only thing we know for sure though, is that ignoring patents generally results in a surge of innovation until patent protection is reinstated.

first post santakonline (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46794141)

My Journal to a UPS Power factory April 19th, 20:20 During the CSF in HongKong last week. I went to shenzhen to visit a UPS power factory which located in nanshan. This time i feel that not all the factory in China is sound like that bad even small size factory. the sales VP his name is Monkey. sounds interesting. right? because he is thin like a monkey. but his name is Monkey king. a very young man. you feel that power ? haha During the visiting.i found Monkey King is dedicated into the company he handed. he put more efforts on the product quality control. even as we know the UPS power have two key points: one is stable and another one is long running time. i really want to share its company infomration to all others. santakonline ups power system co.,ltd. www.santakonline.com And here i share another useful link here to calculate how much power you need to buy a suitable UPS power for you: http://www.santakonline.com/UP... [santakonline.com] thank you

Instantly the most practical solution (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 4 months ago | (#46794205)

VR headsets are expensive... and really who wants to shell out more money for another bit of junk.

But this duel use concept has value. All the expensive bits are already in your phone.

This is perfect. This is how it should be done.

Re:Instantly the most practical solution (2)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 4 months ago | (#46794263)

I wonder how high he jumped the first time his phone got a notification while he was using it as a headset.

This sounds like a neat project for even kids to do.

Re:Instantly the most practical solution (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46794751)

Except for the fact that there is no reason for a phone to have a low enough "full-loop" latency (motion-tracking -> rendering -> screen refresh) to avoid rapidly inducing severe nausea in most users. And positional tracking, another essential component to limit nausea, would likely have to be done through live image analysis on a camera video feed, introducing even further lag, and likely saturating the limited CPU power of even a relatively powerful phone.

This could be great for novelty purposes, maybe quick games that only last for a few minutes, or a new generation of animated View-Masters, but unless the phone is specifically designed to address the nausea-related issues it will be completely unsuitable for extended VR. Basically to work properly you wouldn't need a mounting bracket for your phone, you'd need a VR helmet with a removable screen that just happens to have a smartphone built in. At which point you've got a hybrid device that probably costs about as much as getting two dedicated purpose-built devices - after all small screens and micro-gyros are only a small portion of the total cost of either device.

Re:Instantly the most practical solution (1)

_Sharp'r_ (649297) | about 4 months ago | (#46795679)

Yeah, this is a $20 solution...of you've already purchased a more expensive smartphone, web cam and don't mind moving your head reeeeaaaaally slowly so the lag from the screen mirroring to your phone doesn't affect you too badly.

Re:Instantly the most practical solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46795721)

You're forgetting about the resolution. I believe the highest res phone right now is 1920x1080 and if you're using that single display to render 2 separate images, cut that down to about half. Not good enough, sir. It's going to be pixel city.

Re:Instantly the most practical solution (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 4 months ago | (#46796773)

spend 400 dollars for a vr headset then.

Adding an LED seems relatively easy (1)

Grax (529699) | about 4 months ago | (#46794207)

Looks like it would be pretty easy to tape an LED with a little battery to your Poppy and I bet they could be talked into creating a version with either a visible or IR LED, if you asked really nice.

Or for $6 and a bungie cord you could do this (4, Informative)

rjejr (921275) | about 4 months ago | (#46794329)

The Hasbro MY 3D Viewer has been out for about 3 years. No it doesn't connect to a PC bu it's wireless and 3D and works w/ your head motion, no LED required. Just add a bungie cord to strap it to your head for hands free motion. http://www.amazon.com/Hasbro-V... [amazon.com]

Google Glass (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 4 months ago | (#46794371)

So how long, because some geek wearing one of these in the Bay Area, has the shit kicked out of them by some Black Panther-wannabe Luddite?

Re:Google Glass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46794639)

... Black Panther-wannabe Luddite?

Uh, you might want to actually read about the Black Panthers, who were a militant political organization for the protection of civil rights of Blacks during a tense social transitional period when violence against Blacks was common, ruthless and went unprosecuted... they were nothing like the Luddites, who ignorantly sabotaged machinery they were fearful of taking their jobs.

Re:Google Glass (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46794813)

Why would you wear such a thing in public? VR and AR(including the crappy Glass implementation) are *completely* different concepts. Good luck walking down the street wearing a headset which completely blinds you to the world around you.

Not to mention that virtually all the backlash against Glass isn't related to people having a screen strapped to their face, but to assholes walking around with a *camera* strapped to their face, often in situations where it's completely rude to be taking pictures. If I can't tell whether you're filming or not, then the presumption must be that you are. And frankly if you're walking around filming people without their permission then an occasional punch in the nose would seem to be a fairly justified response. Reporters and paparazzi are no strangers to physical confrontations over such things, why should Glass wearers be any different?

How much WiFi energy? (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 4 months ago | (#46794465)

I'm not so sure I like all that wifi power that close to my head. It's not contacting the head however it is within one wave length for 2.4Ghz and a game is a lot longer than most phone calls.

Re:How much WiFi energy? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46794823)

Consider this - your phone doesn't stop connecting to cellular/wifi networks just because the screen is off. How many hours per day do you suppose you microwave your nuts by having your phone in your pants pocket?

Re:How much WiFi energy? (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 4 months ago | (#46794941)

Consider this - your phone doesn't stop connecting to cellular/wifi networks just because the screen is off. How many hours per day do you suppose you microwave your nuts by having your phone in your pants pocket?

None. I specifically turn all the radios off untill I am using them. Cellular I accept as a cost of carrying the phone and usually hands free when talking, on the table when sitting and in my pocket next to my ass whilst walking.

I saw my Aunt use cells phones almost constantly for hours a day, no handset. She died of brain cancer and it was quite terrible to experience.

just saying...

Re:How much WiFi energy? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46795119)

I suppose ass-cheek-cancer *is* probably less horrible. For what it's worth though I've still yet to see any study conclusively linking cell phones to cancer, suggesting that the link is tenuous at best. The strongest link I recall reading of was a link to benign cancers along the auditory nerve, and the correlation was insufficient to make a confident statement that a link existed.

Re:How much WiFi energy? (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 4 months ago | (#46797733)

I suppose ass-cheek-cancer *is* probably less horrible. For what it's worth though I've still yet to see any study conclusively linking cell phones to cancer, suggesting that the link is tenuous at best. The strongest link I recall reading of was a link to benign cancers along the auditory nerve, and the correlation was insufficient to make a confident statement that a link existed.

Well until then I think I will err on the side of caution and use speaker phone and a wired earpeice for phone calls. I'd rather limit my exposure and take personal responsibility for my health, than to go through anything like brain cancer. After all an absence of evidence doesn't mean a link isn't there, all it means is no one has funded any science to find *if* a link exists.

Re:How much WiFi energy? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46799501)

A perfectly reasonable position. But there *have* been several at least apparently independent studies into the link - that no conclusive evidence has been found suggests that either any link is tenuous, or that all the multiple government-funded studies around the world have been quietly bought out. Granted I'm not quite prepared to totally discount the latter - there haven't been *that* many studies, it wouldn't have to be a major conspiracy.

Microwave radiation next the eyes... brilliant (2, Interesting)

jerryjnormandin (1942378) | about 4 months ago | (#46794511)

This is what happens people have no clue about the technology they are working with. The cell phone antennae is far too close to the eyes. The human eyes consist of a thin membrane and a lot of water. It does not take much radiation to induce eye cancer. I never put a cell phone near my head. I always use speaker phone mode.

Re:Microwave radiation next the eyes... brilliant (1)

sir-gold (949031) | about 4 months ago | (#46795087)

Put the cell phone in airplane mode first

Re:Microwave radiation next the eyes... brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46795187)

Right, then turn on WiFi! Give the man a cigar for rationally appealing to the basement dwelling, tin foil-hatted GP!!

GP, take notice and be humbled... SOMEONE CARES!! Have you any idea how rare this simple yet truly philanthropic suggestion is? You lucky, lucky bastard.

Re:Microwave radiation next the eyes... brilliant (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46795771)

It does not take much radiation to induce eye cancer.

Citation needed. No verified research has ever demonstrated that microwaves cause cancer.

The 'causes' of cancer (1)

CmdrTamale (3528239) | about 4 months ago | (#46804183)

Statistics can be arranged to show that anything and everything and nothing all cause cancer.

Just as death happens when your heart stops beating, or your heart stops beating when you die. It's always coronary failure.
--
No information has been transmitted in this message.

Re:Microwave radiation next the eyes... brilliant (2)

markass530 (870112) | about 4 months ago | (#46796387)

Citation? some reason an AC Got modded down, but but no valid peer reviewed research has ever documented microwaves causing cancer, in fact there is a good body of science explaining why they don't http://true-progress.com/why-m... [true-progress.com]

microwave radiation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46806551)

They may be confused by the fact that a strong source of microwaves (i.e. a radar) is not good to have near ones eyes. That radiates enough power to heat the liquid in the eyes. Cell phones are far too weak.

Re:Microwave radiation next the eyes... brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46798563)

Education is the best way to counter unreasonable fears and mis-information. I suggest you start educating yourself here: Ionizing radiation [wikipedia.org]

Also, the glassy body inside the eye which you referred to is designed to absorb radiation that bombards the eye with radiation that is orders of magnitude stronger than the energy emitted by a cell phone. Phones operate at under 3 GHz, UV-light at somewhere at above 300 THz; the energy of UV-radiation is orders of magnitudes higher than cell phone radios could possibly emit: Light Spectrum [wikipedia.org]

There is a much more common disease linked to cellphone radiation though. I suggest you talk to your doctor about it [wikipedia.org]

Re:Microwave radiation next the eyes... brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46798645)

You're a buffoon. Think before you type.

existing purpose-built headgear (1)

houghi (78078) | about 4 months ago | (#46794553)

This project screams for a ready-made commercial version; does anyone know of existing purpose-built headgear?

Seriously? This is a question after quoting: Not everyone can drop a few hundred dollars on a VR headset,
This means that there IS purpose-built headgear.

If you mean to say 'cheap' or 'not-expensive' or 'in a low pricerange' then say so.

Why does my smart phone need a VR headset? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46794573)

Why does my smart phone need a VR headset? It doesn't even have eyes.

As usual, xkcd beat them to it. (1)

VanessaE (970834) | about 4 months ago | (#46794735)

obligatory: http://xkcd.com/941/ [xkcd.com]

Re:As usual, xkcd beat them to it. (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 4 months ago | (#46796487)

I have got to try this sometime :)

Looks very laggy (1)

sir-gold (949031) | about 4 months ago | (#46795103)

In my experience, mirroring a PC screen to an android phone adds a significant amount of lag.
In the few seconds where they show both screens simultaneously, it looks like they are having those same lag issues

RIP English (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 4 months ago | (#46797129)

As someone only 36, it frightens me just how bad the worlds grasp of English has become over the past 15 years, it's woeful.

For $20, Build a VR headset WITH / USING your smartphone for goodness sakes.
If you're building it for your smartphone, presumably the bloody smartphone gets to wear the headset.

I'm sure you call /could care less/ though.

Field of View (1)

CityZen (464761) | about 4 months ago | (#46800239)

Half-baked solutions like this will have limited field of view (among other shortcomings). In order to get a wide FOV (which is important for immersion), Oculus is using very powerful aspheric lenses, which necessarily result in a distorted image. The distortion is "undone" by doing a pre-anti-distortion of the desired images prior to displaying them on the screen.

Latency will be another big issue, especially from tracking using a webcam that's probably running at 30hz.

I think that this stuff is great for experimenters who want to get a taste of VR on the cheap. However, it is a far cry from well-engineered setups.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>