[HN Gopher] Zeiss's "Holocam" turns glass windows into cameras
___________________________________________________________________
Zeiss's "Holocam" turns glass windows into cameras
Author : toss1
Score : 549 points
Date : 2024-01-05 17:42 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.digitalcameraworld.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.digitalcameraworld.com)
| Comfy-Tinwork wrote:
| Wonder how long intelligence agencies have had this.
| throwup238 wrote:
| One comes standard with every shower door.
| forward1 wrote:
| Implants which modulate and reflect incoming radio signals back
| to the radar device, especially powered by the radio wave
| itself, is nothing new in clandestine surveillance.
| i8comments wrote:
| They'd probably put it in lightbulbs (to get a long lasting
| power source and good viewing angle).
| 93po wrote:
| They'd probably pay a contractor $60 million to develop it
| for the military and not actually wind up with anything of
| use
| sheepscreek wrote:
| This is beyond even science fiction. I could have never imagined
| something like this was even possible - I still can't. Is there a
| demo of this tech in action?
| a2l wrote:
| Found this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NORPeCcIXRQ
| dazhbog wrote:
| holy shit, the glass camera in action.. Scary
| adolph wrote:
| Rough translation of video transcript (YT transcript
| translated by deepl.com): Lenses. This
| year's theme is now holograms and it's pretty funny
| that this is is called a holocam, and it's pretty
| funny. If you look at it right now, if you look at the
| spring right here. you can see a little bit of blue
| you can see a little bit of blue, which is actually
| what is it? it's actually acting as a camera, so
| Now, if you listen to the explanation what we call
| holography. is that it's now reflecting light, so we
| can gather that light and you can collect that light
| and act like a camera like a camera, so for example,
| you can now what? the meat. it can
| recognize the blue color and only recognize the blue
| part. Jace's holocam. It's quite
| interesting.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| great find, this is much better than the article
| pushcx wrote:
| I spent a few minutes looking for more info, doesn't seem that
| Zeiss has published anything but a press release yet:
| https://www.zeiss.com/corporate/en/about-zeiss/present/newsr...
| fourteenfour wrote:
| Here's their CES page with a video:
| https://exhibitors.ces.tech/8_0/exhibitor/exhibitor-details....
| airstrike wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. More of an animation than a proper video
| stronglikedan wrote:
| A video of an animation is still a video.
| airstrike wrote:
| Hence why I said "proper" video
| fourteenfour wrote:
| For sure, was disappointed with the original article for
| only linking generic keywords back to their own site. At
| least the CES one is from the horse's mouth.
| ylere wrote:
| I found a recording of it here (from IAA 2023):
| https://youtu.be/NORPeCcIXRQ
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| This video is nothing but holographic displays. The article
| is about an invisible layer camera sensor.
| junon wrote:
| https://www.zeiss.com/oem-solutions/products-solutions/multi...
| wiml wrote:
| It seems to be their "multifunctional smart glass"?
| https://www.zeiss.com/oem-solutions/products-solutions/multi...
| mikewarot wrote:
| Having played with light fields and photography, I have
| questions.
|
| There has to be an imaging sensor somewhere. Where is it?
|
| I strongly suspect most of this "magic" will condense out of this
| cloud into a puddle of marketing sponsored bovine excrement.
| notaustinpowers wrote:
| > The Holocam technology "uses holographic in-coupling, light
| guiding and de-coupling elements to redirect the incoming light
| of a transparent medium to a hidden image sensor."
|
| It looks like it still requires a sensor, it can just be hidden
| in the frame of the glass.
| ithkuil wrote:
| Sure it has a sensor, it's not magic. But OTOH if it can
| capture the POV of a real line of eye contact with another
| image projected _through_ the camera, the effects are
| transformative, it doesn't matter whether ultimately there is
| a sensor somewhere or not
| beginning_end wrote:
| That was a truly horrible web-page. Does anyone have a link to
| the actual technology?
| aftbit wrote:
| Do a search on "non line of sight imaging" (aka NLOS). Here's
| just one public paper.[1] If this is what is being published,
| what do you think the intelligence agencies have?
|
| 1: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2024468118
| haswell wrote:
| > _Given the current fear around hidden cameras in Airbnbs, the
| idea of every single window (or even shower door) in a rental
| property being able to spy on you is a little disconcerting._
|
| While there are some really interesting potential applications
| for this tech, it is also more than a little disconcerting.
|
| The ubiquity of camera phones and the emergence of tech like
| those Meta glasses is already pushing us to disconcerting (albeit
| interesting and in some cases very useful) places, but some of
| these cutting edge concepts worry me. WiFi seeing through walls
| also comes to mind...
| pedalpete wrote:
| I'm surprised this isn't the top comment. I'm all for the
| benefits of this tech, and hadn't even thought about the airbnb
| style implication.
|
| People didn't like that Google Glass could always be filming,
| now we don't even have a physical camera.
|
| Rayban/Meta (I believe) have a sensor to detect that the wearer
| has not attempted to cover the light which shows that the
| camera is in use, but how will that work when every piece of
| glass is a camera.
| internetter wrote:
| There are already microscopic cameras that can be bought for
| thousandths of the price
| mintplant wrote:
| Sounds like this could work great for eye-tracking in VR/AR
| headset optics?
| saalweachter wrote:
| I'm curious if we'll finally get videoconference technology
| that lets you look people in the eye.
| calmworm wrote:
| Or make eye-contact, rather? Interesting to consider. Though
| I imagine a camera behind a screen could do this, too.
| KMnO4 wrote:
| The article is poorly written, as it only discusses the camera
| component. Strangely, they chose stock images of holographic and
| optical displays, but didn't mention that even once.
|
| The Zeiss site is a much better read:
|
| https://www.zeiss.com/corporate/en/about-zeiss/present/newsr...
|
| In summary:
|
| 1) ZEISS unveils holographic Smart Glass at CES 2024, both for
| displays/projection/filtering, but also another component which
| is a holographic camera
|
| 2) The holocam works by utilizing coupling, decoupling, and light
| guiding elements to redirect incident light to a concealed
| sensor, eliminating the need for visible cutouts or installation
| spaces in visible areas.
|
| 3) ZEISS doesn't plan to be manufacturer, so other companies can
| use the tech
| lawlessone wrote:
| >nd light guiding elements to redirect incident light to a
| concealed sensor,
|
| So you can't just stick on any existing window or pane of
| glass? That's good.
| buffington wrote:
| I don't think so. From the article:
|
| > The Holocam technology "uses holographic in-coupling, light
| guiding and de-coupling elements to redirect the incoming
| light of a transparent medium to a hidden image sensor."
|
| That suggests, at least to me, that you'll need something
| more than just a simple sheet of glass. There's probably some
| engineering required to allow light to be guided and
| redirected towards what sounds like a typical camera sensor.
| p1dda wrote:
| in-coupling and de-coupling of light, anyone care to
| explain?
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| Yes I interpret it as guiding light inside the glass such
| that the sensor is on the lateral aspect of the glass
| embedded in a glass frame perpendicular to the target
| image.
|
| Sounds like they embedded a light splitter with some sort
| of periscope style lense inside a glass pane.
|
| So not actually bolted oblique to the glass as GP
| suggested.
| Groxx wrote:
| > _ESA and NASA space missions have carried this trailblazing
| ZEISS technology on board for many years. It is also well
| established in the semiconductor and medical technology
| sectors._
|
| Huh. Seems like it should be fairly easy to find info on
| then... though some googling around makes me think they might
| just be referring to their more general diffraction gratings
| and whatnot.
| itishappy wrote:
| Zeiss multifunctional smart glass
|
| Product page: https://www.zeiss.com/oem-solutions/products-
| solutions/multi...
|
| NASA/ESA mention:
| https://www.linkedin.com/posts/zeiss_automotive-
| augmentedrea...
| data-ottawa wrote:
| This looks really cool.
|
| Could you put a polarizer on this and have that filler out
| the other side of the display, so a smart window is one way
| visible? That could make smart glasses and headsets much
| better.
| itishappy wrote:
| I doubt you'd even need to. The fact that it's not a
| uniform grey blob means they're already controlling how
| the light leaves the device. I suspect it's already
| directional.
| swyx wrote:
| Edit: theres an actually good demo video showing the real state
| of the tech rather than mockups:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NORPeCcIXRQ buried below in the
| comments so just surfacing higher. everything else is artists
| lying to you.
|
| ---
|
| > Glass surfaces can also generate energy. The microoptical
| layer in the window pane absorbs incident sunlight and
| transmits it in concentrated form to a solar cell. This
| combines the advantages of conventional windows - natural light
| and an unrestricted view - with the additional benefit of
| efficient energy production.
|
| what? holy shit?
| IshKebab wrote:
| Nah, this will only be good enough for sensor-level power
| (like 5W from a whole window). Only useful in _very_ limited
| circumstances. It 's not going to replace normal solar power.
| swyx wrote:
| but like, thats enough for the camera to power itself.
| pretty cool no? we can deploy this tech without plugging it
| in.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| I guess it might be not enough if the day is not sunny
| enough
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _deploy this tech without plugging it in_
|
| you mean because it can also power a wireless transmitter
| or a large memory array storage? cuz a hologram that's
| not "plugged into something" might turn out to not be
| that useful.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Since you can run a PI on that level of power it seems
| enough?
| IshKebab wrote:
| It is, but do you really want your windows to have
| integrated cameras? You can't just add this on to a
| window because the light is transported to the edge of
| the glass and that is inaccessible in normal windows.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| 5W is nothing to sneeze at.
| augustulus wrote:
| 5W is enough to power an ESP32
| sroussey wrote:
| That video is pretty cool. Truly an invisible camera.
| 0xNotMyAccount wrote:
| Thanks for linking to that.
|
| > coupling, decoupling and light guiding elements to divert
| incident light to a concealed sensor
|
| So, there's a camera in the dash looking up at the windshield
| and focusing where it expects to see a face, thereby using the
| windshield as a reflector? And maybe there's some additional
| etching and deposited films in the windshield to support the
| angles required?
|
| And perhaps you can put cameras elsewhere, and similarly subtly
| modify the windshield or other glass to look at other things as
| well?
| lowdest wrote:
| It collects through the edge, and the glass can be
| (apparently) flat:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NORPeCcIXRQ
| JoBrad wrote:
| Wow. The original article was talking about doorbells and
| TV broadcast applications. That looks like the quality of
| the original moon landing broadcast.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| First, holy crap!
|
| Second, #3 is always a red flag for me. It is sometimes code
| for "we can do this in the lab but we have no idea how one
| would manufacture it." A similar analogy is "we've got this
| great idea for a program you can license but no one here knows
| how to actually code it up."
|
| Third, the impact of this going mainstream would be hard to
| underestimate. All those people working on transparent displays
| like they do in sci-fi movies? Yup they could do that. A video
| conference system with solid eye contact (mentioned in a couple
| of places) sure you could do that too. A mirror that could show
| you wearing different clothes? Yup I could see how that would
| be coded.
|
| That #3 though. That is what tempers my enthusiasm. Did I miss
| any announcement that they had a display at CES? (or was it
| just an announcement) If the former I would seriously consider
| flying over to Vegas to check this out.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > Second, #3 is always a red flag for me.
|
| Does Zeiss manufacture any public facing camera currently ?
| All their general public facing projects are collaborations
| with Sony or Vivo or other makers, and I think they only
| manufacture lenses, so nothing with a high quality chip in
| it.
|
| It's probably another story on the medical side, but this
| doesn't fit a highly specialized, peofessional only niche
| with a PC doing the processor on the side.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| If it was anyone but Zeiss I'd call it a red flag too, but
| they're basically Old Gods of Glass.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| I don't disagree. One way to know if it can live up to the
| hype is that it will be the lighthouse feature of the next
| iPhone which will both not have a notch for the front
| facing camera, it will do "touch anywhere" touch ID and
| process all of the screen operating gestures visually
| rather than capacitively so that you can operate you phone
| while wearing ski gloves if you want too.
| epaga wrote:
| Here is a demo video from someone who was there:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NORPeCcIXRQ (from another hn
| comment)
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Ooh thanks for that! Showing monochrome only. I wonder if
| three layers of glass would get you color? And fixed focus
| (not too surprising) but that answers two questions I had
| initially.
|
| As they claim this can also do display (presumably to
| replace the camera element with a projection element) it
| would be interesting to see what level of opacity they can
| achieve in a brightly lit environment.
| lgkk wrote:
| Pretty cool and hella alarming lol.
|
| Next someone will tell me they have a way to "ssh" into the
| universe and get process details on every entity in it including
| every human and what's happening.
|
| Kind of like in the matrix with The architect.
| i8comments wrote:
| I guess the closest thing you can get to that -- ssh into
| somewhere and get details on every human -- is to ssh into the
| government's database on everyone remotely of interest, or even
| accidentaly connected, (in essence almost everyone), both made
| of computer and human agent collection and analysis.
| schainks wrote:
| So... more mass surveillance tech coming from every window in
| every building?
| lawlessone wrote:
| Nah , It would be easier and cheaper just to stick tiny regular
| cameras everywhere.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| It's a reverse light guide. We've been beam forming for a long
| time, it's unsurprising that the reverse is possible (imaging
| through a light pipe).
|
| The principal issue will be gathering enough energy. A well lit
| source like a bathroom mirror (mirror behind the light guide)
| could work pretty well I'd wager. If the light guide is too
| efficient then it will appear opaque, so there is a trade-off.
|
| I find "turns any window" pretty misleading. Unless I'm missing
| something this needs very special glass or at the very least a
| special coating/laminate.
|
| For folks worried about privacy, it will almost always be more
| convenient and cost-effective to install a tiny spy camera
| somewhere.
|
| Zeiss isn't going to aspire to sell cheap glass on razor thin
| margins.
| ysofunny wrote:
| > Zeiss isn't going to aspire to sell cheap glass on razor thin
| margins.
|
| why not?
| verall wrote:
| It's not what they do, like they probably won't start selling
| lawnmowers either.
| alexchamberlain wrote:
| Whilst I kind of see where you and the sibling comment is
| coming from, Zeiss do make glass- they make precision
| glass. Making cheap glass would be quality diversification,
| which is not exactly unheard of.
| verall wrote:
| It sounds reasonable, but if they diversified quality, it
| would mean making precision glass and then also somewhat
| less precise glass. They will not start mass producing
| large panes of low margin glass. It's not what they're
| good at and it's not a lucrative market. Like Intel isn't
| going to start making jellybean parts.
|
| They could license their name to some existing glass
| company, but they still wouldn't really be the ones
| producing it, and I think Zeiss has avoided diluting
| their brand name like this so far.
| alexchamberlain wrote:
| I don't disagree with you, but the way the GP comment
| made a joke of the idea was unfair IMHO.
| itishappy wrote:
| I doubt Zeiss makes their own glass. Most optics
| companies outsource that to one of the big glass fabs:
| Schott, Ohara, CDGM.
| alexchamberlain wrote:
| Zeiss and Schott are both owned by the Carl Zeiss
| foundation; the origin story is somewhat covered by
| Material World by Ed Conway. It's a fantastic book and
| well worth a read.
| itishappy wrote:
| WHAT!? This is my day job, but I'm embarrassed to admit I
| never realized that!
|
| Thanks for the book rec, I'll probably start digging into
| it this weekend.
| cududa wrote:
| I assume if you're on HN you work in tech.
|
| As a side hustle, why don't you start building and selling
| desktop PC's to local businesses, competing with HP, Dell,
| etc on margin? That's also tech, right?
|
| While building cheap PCs at razor thin margins is adjacent to
| whatever your tech job is, and probably something you're able
| to do, it probably wouldn't be the most profitable use of
| your time
| itishappy wrote:
| They don't have to. They're the best in the world, and they
| know it. They price accordingly.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Zeiss isn't in the business of selling cheap stuff on thin
| margins, no matter the product.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| because they're Zeiss. They made the lenses for the photos on
| the moon, they're not small potatoes.
| MadnessASAP wrote:
| > It's a reverse light guide. We've been beam forming for a
| long time, it's unsurprising that the reverse is possible
| (imaging through a light pipe).
|
| Beamforming in RF frequencies is old, beamforming at optical
| wavelengths is pretty new shit. Doing the reverse, that is
| receiving a signal, is brand spanking new fresh out the cow hot
| shit at any frequency.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| No, it's not really new. Small form factor is relatively new
| but even then the issue lies in yield and quality control.
|
| Projector light engines include potentially many light-beam
| forming condensing and projection lenses precisely to
| concentrate light into a uniform quadrilateral. That's not
| new. The industry continues to advance, though.
|
| Even holographic projection isn't new. This is just that,
| except the light is (sort of) taking the reverse path.
|
| Technically there is no reason why it can't also project
| light outwards simultaneously. However light guides aren't
| really reversible like that: the light usually exits through
| a small fraction of the guide's external surface area.
| Reversing that means the entire external surface area is
| potentially collecting light, which would result in some
| undesirable caustics in all scenarios I can imagine. Light
| engines are in part designed to account for this (by
| reflecting or sinking light into an absorber) but this is
| still pretty different from what Zeiss is promoting.
|
| For a small permanent installation where you are in control
| of the lighting I could see this working relatively well, but
| I have a hard time imagining you could get close anything
| resembling photo quality without a lot of environmental
| treatment. Conversely holographic projection is pretty doable
| on a mobile platform like a headset.
|
| This is pretty new only in that it's probably at least an
| order of magnitude more difficult to accomplish and thus
| hasn't been viable up until now. Fundamentally none of the
| concepts are new, as far as I can tell.
|
| As an example look at your nearest window and imagine it
| divided into a grid of uniform pixels. Each pixel is a small
| mirror that reflects a point of focus (wherever you are) to a
| another, smaller point on an imaging sensor somewhere in the
| frame. This would look pretty jarring (and jagged) to most
| people, until you layer a complimentary piece of glass on top
| of it to make the exterior flush. The two pieces of glass
| would be high enough precision that once you put them
| together they are effectively one piece of glass. Ta da.
|
| This is effectively the same process as making any other
| multi-lensed glass, and that's Zeiss's wheelhouse.
| buffington wrote:
| > Zeiss isn't going to aspire to sell cheap glass on razor thin
| margins.
|
| Especially true since Zeiss isn't planning on selling these at
| all. They're selling licenses to the tech.
|
| I doubt that undermines your privacy argument in any meaningful
| way however. Even if the license was free, the cost of
| producing the components is certainly magnitudes higher
| compared to the cost of current tech that accomplishes similar
| goals.
| samstave wrote:
| jiminy christmas!!!
|
| I lit (pun) came to gripe about light pipes...
|
| However here is you solution:
|
| 3D print lenses in a header for threads to be arbitrarily
| placed in a [COMPOUND] lens and pull that feed with AI spatial
| mapping (yes these are easy now)... EYE
|
| And you can make these in many increments - micro even... _"
| Hey NSa, super simple optical prince Rupert drops on a
| composite eye"_ (self destrucing fiber lens when discovered)
| raphman wrote:
| As I posted below, Microsoft's Applied Sciences Group did
| something similar (I guess) back in 2011:
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/applied-sciences/uploads/publicati...
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/applied-sciences/projects/the-wedg...
| sleepybrett wrote:
| I remember a friend on a team adjacent to the surface table
| team talking about them trying to do this when they switched
| from projection tables to tables with screens in them. As I
| recall with the projector based tables (the ones that looked
| like old cocktail arcade tables) I think they were using an
| ir camera to detect items and touches on the 'screen'.
| raphman wrote:
| Yes, the original Surface tabletop used IR cameras. Its
| successor, the Samsung SUR40 had in-cell sensing, i.e.
| photosensors embedded into the LCD so that it could capture
| a 960x540 image of the table surface.
| mrandish wrote:
| After some searching I found a patent I _think_ may be related to
| this https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020225109A1/en because
| it uses the phrase "Holocam", is German and was filed by Audi
| (the press release mentions automotive applications as the
| primary initial use case). It's a translation from German which
| makes it a bit tougher to parse than the usual patent.
|
| The total lack of any deeper information beyond the bold yet
| vague claims in the press release is frustrating. The PR makes it
| sound like a miraculous breakthrough destined to change
| everything. The source release on the Zeiss site only adds two
| bits of info.
|
| > _" The transparency of the holographic layer has only a minimal
| effect on the brilliance of the image reproduction. It is also
| possible to detect spectral components as additional information
| to complement the visible image. The resulting data provide
| insights into environmental contamination such as air pollution
| and UV exposure."_
|
| However, experience shows that in reality bold+vague claims like
| this inevitably come with significant trade-offs and constraints
| which limit its applications (little things like cost, power,
| fidelity, size, speed, etc). This is especially true in early
| implementations of new tech. That said, it may still be both
| interesting and useful. Unfortunately, we have no way to even
| think about how it might be useful because Zeiss marketing has
| chosen to play 'hide the ball' instead of just releasing a
| technical explainer outlining relevant trade-offs, limitations,
| etc.
|
| If I was talking to someone from Zeiss my first questions would
| be about how much the additional components impact the optical
| characteristics of the glass, what the resolution of the
| resulting image data is, how large are the components needed at
| the edges and how far away can they be from the capture zone?
| Then, of course, how the output of the resulting imaging system
| maps into traditional camera/lens metrics like f-stops, aperture,
| imager size/density, gain, focal length, etc. Zeiss is an optics
| company after all.
| mannykannot wrote:
| Thanks for finding this.
|
| The paper mentioned in the Description section can be read
| here:
| https://www.academia.edu/52566311/_title_Volume_phase_hologr...
|
| My guess is that each of the items in patent diagram labeled 20
| and 22 are gratings of this sort, perhaps with the fringes
| angled at 45 degrees.
|
| Some additional info may be gleaned from the one patent citing
| this one, invented by one of the co-inventors of the latter:
| https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102019206354A1/en
| bcherny wrote:
| Are there any numbers on how many megapixels the camera is, and
| how many DPI the display is? (What are the upper bounds for these
| over time?)
|
| The demo looks greyscale, and super low res and low FPS.
| lawlessone wrote:
| >The demo looks greyscale, and super low res and low FPS.
|
| I think then intention is it just needs to be enough to know
| where the users face is and project a HUD at them.
| teeray wrote:
| > This means that everything from the window in your car to the
| screen on your laptop to the glass on your front door can now
| possess an invisible image sensor.
|
| Retailers, marketers, and data brokers are salivating.
| autoexec wrote:
| I can't wait until the windows in our homes plaster ads over
| everything every time we look outside.
|
| It'll sure be distracting when it's the windshields of our
| cars, but I do look forward to the legal drama when companies
| get sued for painting their "holographic" ads on top of the
| adspace other people already paid to pollute with their own
| advertisements.
| from-nibly wrote:
| how would an image sensor display ads?
| autoexec wrote:
| > Holographic 3D content permits more design, _branding_ ,
| guidance and information functions. For example, side and
| rear windows can be used for eye-catching Car2X
| communications. It is also possible to black out window
| glass or make projected text and images visible only from
| the inside or outside. Video content is also supported.
| (https://www.zeiss.com/corporate/en/about-
| zeiss/present/newsr...)
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| I'm not sure where you live, but in many places there's
| strict city/county level ordinances restricting signs
| (Particularly lit up signs) and advertising. There's a reason
| people's backyards aren't littered with billboards.
|
| Anyone that's experienced a cracked windshield understands
| that this won't be going anywhere outside of some very niche
| and expensive cars.
| itishappy wrote:
| > Anyone that's experienced a cracked windshield
| understands that this won't be going anywhere outside of
| some very niche and expensive cars.
|
| Don't do the whole windshield. My car uses a bit of plastic
| on the dash to reflect a display. I love it!
|
| https://i.imgur.com/jXfWf5b.png
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| I think it may be more cost effective to put ads in
| subsidized smart glasses and contact lenses. (A little
| dystopian, I know.)
| LegitShady wrote:
| It honestly doesn't seem that useful to me.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| If you look at it where does it show your eye looking once
| captured?
| iamthepieman wrote:
| They're specifically marketing to car manufacturers in the press
| release video. Which is unfortunate because I don't need more
| non-haptic buggy interfaces in my car. The technology itself is
| amazing even though the holo-cam appears to be just greyscale and
| rather blurry right now. The ability to embed the optics in/near
| (hard to tell from the marketing) the edge of the glass is
| awesome as you don't need a projector that is separate (by much)
| from the display surface.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah it sounds like a great option to place a camera invisibly in
| the middle top half of your screen so you can actually look a
| person in the eye when videoconferencing. No more weirdly looking
| down or to the side for everyone.
|
| I'm sure it can be used for creepiness as well but I see the
| benefits too.
| boxed wrote:
| iPhones solve the camera angle by changing the position of the
| pupil in software instead.
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| 1986 solution vs cyberpunk solution
|
| how did we even get here?
| marcellus23 wrote:
| Are you sure? I remember that being present briefly in a beta
| several years ago, but then it was removed. I don't remember
| it ever coming back.
| k1t wrote:
| Some searching says it was trialed in iOS 13 betas, but
| didn't make it into the final cut. It was released with iOS
| 14 though.
|
| https://ios.gadgethacks.com/how-to/disable-facetimes-
| creepy-...
| marcellus23 wrote:
| Oh, TIL.
| jameshart wrote:
| Given that this will probably only produce a relatively low
| res, high SNR image, it might be the sweet spot is to use
| this tech to capture a true eye-contact perspective from the
| glass in front of a screen, then neural net combine it with
| images from offset cameras, to create a 'true' through-the-
| screen view.
| cushpush wrote:
| why stop there? one rendering for each eyeball
| bilsbie wrote:
| It's a bit uncanny valley though, right?
| cal85 wrote:
| I've never noticed it, so apparently not.
| bentcorner wrote:
| Nvidia Broadcast has a similar feature but it's _really_
| bad and completely unusable if you wear glasses. I don 't
| have an iPhone to compare.
| hammock wrote:
| Which versions of iphones do this?
| 05 wrote:
| Any model newer than iPhone X (XR/XS and up).
|
| It's a Facetime exclusive, though - no API so other
| videoconferencing apps can't use that.
| godelski wrote:
| Having the screen be the camera 1) removes the need for the
| holepunch as well as magic island workaround 2) could clearly
| be used in tandem to improve the effect, even potentially
| reducing the required computation. Sure, Google also fixes
| images in post, but that's still not a substitute for better
| cameras. You're always information limited.
| gitinit wrote:
| I believe Nvidia offers something similar with Nvidia
| Broadcast[0]. [0] https://www.nvidia.com/en-
| us/geforce/broadcasting/broadcast-...
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| This doesn't solve the issue, because it looks like the
| person is _always_ making eye contact! You don 't want that--
| you want it to look like the person is making eye contact
| only when they are actually making eye contact. Constant eye
| contact is exhausting.
| doodlesdev wrote:
| It does what??? How have I never heard about this before? Is
| this deployed right now? Is it always enabled? I have so many
| questions, don't even know where to start. That sounds
| amazing.
| jh00ker wrote:
| If I look at my camera lens when I'm talking and I look at the
| screen while you're talking, and then you do the same, then
| there's no issue. Am I the only one that does this? (I know the
| answer. I am. At least at my company, I am.)
| danjc wrote:
| This feels normal if you make videos but it's pretty
| unnatural.
| wil421 wrote:
| Years ago I was able to visit Zeiss in Oberkochen. They had a
| fantastic headquarters with a few older lithographs. I think a
| couple of the instruments were 80 millions dollars or so.
|
| There's a facility across from the Autobahn that was so sensitive
| trucks going by would throw off their machines. They had to put
| padding on the autobahn to prevent it. This was after they put
| the foundation on some kind of suspension. My coworker said they
| hire the most PHDs in Europe.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Sounds like LIGO, but they're in the US. They had to put the AC
| unit for their entire facility on suspension because their
| instruments were so sensitive. And they ask people to not
| accelerate or decelerate so quickly when driving around the
| campus.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Feels like it would be easier to buy land not next to a highway
| :-)
| wil421 wrote:
| You need to attract PHDs and account for logistics. If you
| want to attract top talent you need to be in a desirable
| place or be a desirable place with access to desirable
| places.
| mannykannot wrote:
| None of the PhDs are in Facilities Management.
| tqi wrote:
| "Webcams that enable you to look anywhere on your screen."
|
| Minor aside, but does anyone actually care about this? Forever
| ago, I was told to try and look into the camera in order to
| project eye contact during video calls, but now that just seems
| like a cultural hangup that arose from people not being familiar
| with video calling. Now that it is more ubiquitous, I feel like
| we all have collectively agreed that the eye contact thing is
| unnecessary?
| toomim wrote:
| It's not just cultural. We've evolved to recognize eye-contact.
| Newborn babies immediately know when you look at them. Eye
| contact with a dog communicates dominance.
|
| You've just acclimated to losing that signal during video
| chats. Bring it back, and you'll have a richer experience.
|
| More generally, we have evolved special neural hardware to
| recognize _gaze_ , with a special case for when gaze is
| directed at our eyes. Gaze is important because it's a sign of
| where people are attending. And as Herb Simon said: "in the
| information age, attention is the scarce resource."
| hn8305823 wrote:
| No, and I'm absolutely not willing to give up the mechanical
| camera shutter I have on my laptop for that feature. They could
| add a mechanical shutter to the hidden camera in the frame but
| why do all of this.
|
| Edit: Should have said "mechanical lens cover" instead of
| "mechanical camera shutter"
| asow92 wrote:
| Just so you know, in photography, "mechanical camera shutter"
| can mean something very different from what I think you mean.
| heleninboodler wrote:
| This is an odd, almost _reverse_ nitpick. The word
| "shutter" is general-purpose. It's literally a thing that
| shuts the opening. There's one inside an SLR camera, as you
| point out. There's often one on a webcam. They are common
| on windows on houses.
| asow92 wrote:
| All words are general-purpose, but when we arrange them
| they adopt new meaning. I'm not nitpicking, and just
| pointing out that the meaning of those words as arranged
| may not be perceived as the author originally intended.
|
| Alternatively, I'd suggest a different arrangement of
| words like "lens cover", "webcam cover", "webcam cover
| slider", or "webcam privacy shield" to be more accurate.
|
| Of course we were able to grock what "mechanical camera
| shutter" meant in this context, although at first I was
| confused and wondered if in fact there were webcams with
| mechanical focal plane or leaf shutters.
| cududa wrote:
| Idk, I've noticed when I'm on sales calls, some sales people
| make a very conscious effort to look into their webcam, and the
| effect of them "looking at me" in the video feels:
|
| A)Initially, a little bit odd, because 98% of people don't do
| it/ I'm not use to seeing that
|
| B) Then feels pleasantly good/ natural.
|
| I'm not going to make a decision on a performative behavior
| like looking at the webcam - at least, not consciously - but
| I'm sure if/ when this becomes the norm, webcams NOT focused on
| eyes will seem very "off"
| krisoft wrote:
| > but now that just seems like a cultural hangup that arose
| from people not being familiar with video calling.
|
| Eye contact is about as old as humankind. So maybe in 300,000
| years we can check if we get over it with video calls.
|
| It is not that communication is not possible without it. It
| just removes an additional layer.
|
| Eye contact conveys all kind of useful meta data. Depending on
| the circumstances and other verbal and non-verbal cues it can
| mean "I'm listening to you", "oh, maybe let's push more on this
| topic", "have you also caught that?", "perhaps it would be
| wiser to not talk about that", "i'm specifically addressing
| you" or "can you help me out here?". And these are just the
| ones immediately applicable in business settings. Let's not
| even talk about all the ways it can be used during flirting.
|
| And it works on a subconscious level. I regularly DM role
| playing games, both online and in-person. The lack of eye
| contact is a serious impediment in online games. One can use
| eye contact, or the lack of it to judge engagement. One can
| signal with eye contact turns or who an NPC is talking to. It
| can also be used to help less talkative players seize amazing
| role playing moments.
|
| Can we get by without it? Sure. We can communicate anything
| using a 1-bit communication channel using morse code. It is a
| bit like dancing in shackles. Can be done, just leaves
| something extra on the table.
| tqi wrote:
| To clarify I didn't mean that all eye-contact is cultural, I
| meant specifically during video calls. I was told that if I
| didn't look into the camera during my interview, it would be
| perceived as rude or unprofessional.
| layer8 wrote:
| No, we haven't agreed that. I continue to feel somewhat rude
| when not looking at the camera during a conversation. And it
| matters to nonverbal communication.
| tqi wrote:
| I also still habitually look at the camera (due to said
| training early in my career), but I think that the important
| thing is I don't think it is rude when other people don't do
| it. And in my experience, the vast majority of people I
| interact with don't either, which is why it feels like we
| have agreed that it is not important.
| jameshart wrote:
| Consider the possibilities when the screen-glass camera view
| could be different for each of the participants on your
| videoconference screen - so as you shift your eyes from one to
| another, they get _different_ experience of eye contact.
|
| Staring into your camera on a multiparty call means everyone
| feels like they are getting your eye contact, which devalues
| it. Eye contact moving between participants is the gel that
| holds conversations together and it's why video calls are still
| stuck in the conference call era in terms of talking over one
| another.
| from-nibly wrote:
| I'm just excited to have a cheapish webcam embedded in my
| monitor. That way I can look at people while I'm on zoom. That's
| it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Glass surfaces can also generate energy. The microoptical
| layer in the window pane absorbs incident sunlight and transmits
| it in concentrated form to a solar cell. This combines the
| advantages of conventional windows - natural light and an
| unrestricted view - with the additional benefit of efficient
| energy production._
|
| This is pretty cool.
| mrexroad wrote:
| Agree. Obviously a few orders of magnitude in cost reduction
| would be required... but this seem like it could have
| interesting potential for energy generation in high-rise
| buildings, which currently have near-zero solar footprint. With
| that said, the lack of any mention regarding efficiency makes
| this part of the press release seem like a bit of smoke and,
| erm, mirrors.
| bouvin wrote:
| Looks pretty cool, though it is not quite Slow Glass [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_of_Other_Days
| thr0waway987 wrote:
| The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound
| that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would
| be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the
| field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be
| seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing
| whether you were being watched at any given moment.
| _the_inflator wrote:
| Apple rejoices, I guess. This brings their vision of getting rid
| of the notch closer to reality.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| Reads like press-release wank. So not a Lytro, but imagining the
| possibilities of reflection-based computed image reconstruction.
| They accomplished getting their brand out there without offering
| anything new. Check out their about us:
|
| > From time to time we also publish advertorials (paid-for
| editorial content) and sponsored content on the site.
|
| https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/about-us
| biomcgary wrote:
| Given that Zeiss proposes this technology for vehicles, windows,
| etc., I'm curious about the effects of water droplets in direct
| contact with the surface changing the index of refraction locally
| (vs air).
| nefrix wrote:
| Let the mass surveillance begin!
| sumtechguy wrote:
| too late
| AnarchismIsCool wrote:
| For the people kinda worried: this is a highly specialized piece
| of glass that is extremely complicated to manufacture at present
| and must, due to the laws of thermodynamics, not be 100%
| transparent. It's not going to allow surveillance through
| existing glass installations in any form, just possibly new ones
| if there's room for the support equipment and through the use of
| 4-5 digit piles of cash.
|
| Any camera glass like this will have at least a mild tint and
| will be used in specialty applications. It'll also have pretty
| horrible SNR, resolution, and low light performance.
|
| Currently the structural component of this tech is mainly used in
| extremely high end aerospace applications (various heads up
| display type systems) so it's unlikely you'll ever run across one
| of these within the next decade.
|
| Nasty remote sensing tech people can be worried about right now:
| RF surveillance from various combinations of mmWave, wall
| penetrating radar, and wifi interferometry. Add in the fact that
| your IPhone has mac randomization but every other device you own
| including your car's TPMS doesn't. Also Geiger mode lidar is fun,
| one company I worked for mapped the inside of a random person's
| house with it as a demo.
| sroussey wrote:
| I agree with everything you said, but the example on the CES
| floor does not have an apparent tint.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| I assure you it is semi opaque. A one way mirror is a
| primitive example of this. You can make the reflection
| increasingly transparent but it will be tinted up until the
| point it doesn't reflect anything.
|
| It may not be noticeably visible to the human eye under most
| lighting conditions, though.
| godelski wrote:
| >> but the example on the CES floor does not have an
| __apparent__ tint.
|
| > I assure you it is semi opaque
|
| > It may not be __noticeably visible__ to the human eye
| under most lighting conditions, though.
|
| I'm not sure you two are disagreeing. Seems like you're
| just reinforcing their point. I mean if someone said glass
| is opaque and their evidence is that you can't see through
| glass and your evidence is to point at UV light... well...
| you'd be technically correct but you're talking from a
| different ballpark.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| Typically people can see better in the dark than imaging
| sensors can (only considering visible spectrum here),
| especially small sensors. If you redirect the light
| somewhere, what would you see? How much light would you
| need to divert?
|
| If the image is grayscale and has very high
| gain/noise/ISO, then I imagine with a low enough frame
| rate you could avoid noticable tinting. You would likely
| still notice the tint in comparison to regular glass, I'm
| too lazy to do the napkin math though.
|
| Practically speaking, I would expect it to be strictly
| more noticeable than glass for holographic projection. If
| true, it's likely noticeable.
|
| But the eye is fickle. You don't notice the tint of, say,
| a car window when you've been inside for a bit. Or
| sunglasses.
|
| Here's an arbitrary Google search result for in-glass
| HUDs: https://www.lumineq.com/applications/automotive
|
| They state their glass is 70% transparent. That's
| definitely noticeably opaque.
| godelski wrote:
| > in the dark
|
| I don't think how you framed this is accurate. The
| quality is a function of the pixel size and of course the
| exposure time. I mean those are the two main variables
| that control how much light hits the sensor, but we'd
| have to get into sensitivity to make direct comparisons
| (human eyes are VERY sensitive and some evidence that the
| average eye is sensitive to a single photon, but you're
| not going to see well with that and this is besides the
| point).
|
| Definitely not a straight forward calculation and I'm
| feeling too lazy to go grab my optics books. But
| guesstimating here, there should be enough light
| considering you can see light and distortions when
| looking at the side of a pane. So I'd lean on it being
| more about the quality of the signal. Which glass is
| highly structured but I'm assuming that this type of
| glass has some unique optical properties to specifically
| make the side panels have higher quality signals. My
| understanding is that they are projecting from the side,
| so that's what I'm inferring from -- basically just
| reverse the photon direction through the medium and I
| don't have reason to believe that quality is
| directionally dependent (should I?). My whole spitballing
| is dependent on this understanding.
|
| > it's likely noticeable.
|
| Well one user said they didn't notice it.
|
| > They state their glass is 70% transparent. That's
| definitely noticeably opaque.
|
| That's not uncommon for Low-E glass, so maybe not very
| noticeable, especially in many different environments.
| But yeah, I think if you compared side by side you'd
| notice. I think we're just using different criteria and
| we probably decently align?
|
| Idk, I am mostly thinking aloud here, so I do want to
| portray that I don't have high confidence here. It's been
| 10 years since I've been in an optics lab lol. But I've
| built microphones with really weak signals before and
| they are useful. Distorted, but useful. (Definitely not
| fun being forced to run experiments at 3am and find out
| someone is walking around on the other side of the
| building...) So I can't see why this couldn't
| (theoretically) be similarly done for a window? I
| definitely don't think this would work with a typical
| pane of glass, especially considering how they're cut,
| but this does seem like specialty glass specifically
| built for directing photons directed from an edge to the
| pane face. Any idea if it can only display to one face?
| (I'm sure you can invert img but projection face probably
| matters for a camera?)
| hnbad wrote:
| Neither do most storefront windows and yet they're often made
| to reduce the transmission of UV light to protect displayed
| goods from sunlight or intentionally darkened so they're less
| transparent when the display is not lit up. You just don't
| notice it normally or dismiss it as an effect of ordinary
| glare, which is the point.
| neallindsay wrote:
| I agree that this shouldn't be anywhere near the top of
| people's privacy concern list. A $1 traditional digital camera
| can already be hidden very easily and this probably costs
| thousands of dollars at least if you could even get it.
|
| It's still creepy though.
| nonrepeating wrote:
| Thanks. The original description made this seem like far-future
| technological magic. A system that can somehow analyze a random
| pane of glass and derive all the transformations needed to use
| it as a high-precision waveguide? I actually had a manager ask
| me to develop such a thing, and I asked him how many dozen
| optics PhDs I could hire to accomplish this feat.
| shrx wrote:
| Apparently the number is finite.
| Krasnol wrote:
| So what you say is: this early prototype might be hard to see
| if it's not close up?
|
| I mean, this will be worse if the tech advances no?
| thfuran wrote:
| >and must, due to the laws of thermodynamics, not be 100%
| transparent.
|
| It's perhaps worth noting, however, that it wouldn't be unusual
| for a window to have only ~60% transmittance in visible
| spectrum.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| A fresh piece of uncoated perfectly clean glass is ~ 90%
| transparent.
| dghughes wrote:
| I think people think that light goes through glass like a
| laser beam nothing in its way. Just flying right through.
| But it's actually like a pool ball hitting another pool ago
| and so on. The original photon of light is not what you see
| on the other side of the glass.
| p1mrx wrote:
| > The original photon of light is not what you see on the
| other side of the glass.
|
| Oh no! How do I check if I'm getting counterfeit
| sunlight?
| liftm wrote:
| I did mostly think that. So what's the thing in the glass
| that gets hit like the "another pool ball"?
| thfuran wrote:
| But windows are often multiple panes and coated.
| godelski wrote:
| > due to the laws of thermodynamics, not be 100% transparent.
|
| How useful is this statement though? Regular glass isn't 100%
| transparent either, even in just the visible spectrum.
| Shouldn't we be more concerned with the delta in the visible
| spectrum is if we're concerned about easy identification?
| (before mentioning that plenty of glass is purposefully tinted
| and dynamic tinting is an application here) And reasonably,
| couldn't we, theoretically, pick up a decent signal from simply
| capturing the reflections around the glass edge? I mean we can
| now do 3D reconstructions from pointing a camera at a mirrored
| ball. I'm sure it'd be very noisy, but there is signal. I mean
| to have the capability of projecting you'd have the ability to
| do the reverse too given that I doubt the internal structure of
| the glass would be (that) directionally dependent. Right? I can
| be missing something, it's been awhile since I've done optics.
| fortyseven wrote:
| I was just thinking to make ALL the glass the same tint,
| regardless of specialty.
| MrYellowP wrote:
| You can't know how much it improves in a year, two, five.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| >For the people kinda worried: this is a highly specialized
| piece of glass that is extremely complicated to manufacture at
| present and must, due to the laws of thermodynamics, not be
| 100% transparent. It's not going to allow surveillance through
| existing glass installations in any form
|
| If you're worried that your Airbnb host is going to use it to
| spy on you (which was mentioned in the article), unless you
| already scrutinize every nail hole, photo frame, electrical
| appliance, electrical outlets, smoke detector, etc, this
| doesn't open up a new vulnerability.
|
| Pinhole cameras with a lens as small as 2mm are already readily
| available and cheap, no ones going to use an expensive "window
| camera" to spy on you when they already have so many other
| options.
|
| Perhaps those that fear government surveillance or other well
| funded adversaries may have cause for concern, but few of us
| are in that category.
| theyinwhy wrote:
| Pinhole cameras by definition do not have lenses and are
| known since 500 BCE or 1893 if you need a recording unit ;)
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Language and technology has evolved a bit since 1893:
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=pinhole+surveillance+camera
| theyinwhy wrote:
| But does the use of the word pinhole make any sense if it
| is not a pinhole but a "3.7mm" lense? Pinhole camera is a
| specific term used for more than a century now. It is
| well defined. Now someone from marketing thought "let's
| call our small camera a pinhole camera". Sry, but that is
| not a pinhole camera. That camera also exists since ages
| and is called an endoscope camera.
|
| Words are important in IT and if everyone would just
| think a bit more about terms they use we would have way
| less friction with business and less business logic bugs.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| >Words are important in IT and if everyone would just
| think a bit more about terms they use we would have way
| less friction with business and less business logic bugs.
|
| I wish you the best of luck in your quest to make the
| English language follow rational rules.
| ijhuygft776 wrote:
| > It's not going to allow surveillance through existing glass
| installations in any form, just possibly new ones if there's
| room for the support equipment and through the use of 4-5 digit
| piles of cash.
|
| Total surveillance is just a matter of time...
| WhackyIdeas wrote:
| I agree. I had this worrying idea (realisation..?) that one
| day, maybe triple digit years away, maybe sooner, that tiny
| cameras and mics the size of grains of salt will be
| everywhere. They will cost nothing to produce, be self-
| charging, interconnected to each other and created to 'reduce
| crime' or 'make you safer'. And in the same way as forever
| chemicals, you can't get rid of them. Trillions of them, in
| fields, the ground. Spreading around stuck to your shoes, on
| your car tires.
|
| Just a crazy idea, but I think that if they could make that
| happen today then they would. And that part is the main point
| - There is no limit to surveillance anymore. I live in the
| UK, that realisation is in my face every day. Can't even take
| a trip to Tesco without being run through facial recognition.
|
| There is no care for the concept of privacy anymore. All the
| richest companies in the world don't make their money from
| caring about our privacy.
| BirAdam wrote:
| Politicians and high ranking unelected officials also will
| want privacy so truly omnipresent surveillance would be
| concomitant with jamming and obfuscation technologies.
| There'd just be endless arms race.
| WhackyIdeas wrote:
| There will come a time when everyone will face the
| panopticon though. It'll be unavoidable, like forever
| chemicals. I suppose that will be when the machines take
| over!!
| akamoonknight wrote:
| I believe I read a science fiction book around this topic.
| Postsingular by Rudy Rucker I believe, related to
| nanotechnology. Can't remember most of it, but delved a
| little into how it affects relationships re: every thing
| being visible always to everyone. Not sure I'd entirely
| recommend it, but still interesting to see the thoughts and
| outcomes others come up with in regard to these types of
| potential technological changes.
| WhackyIdeas wrote:
| I hadn't heard of Postingular, so had a quick look at
| Wikipiedia and the first part I read about it reminded me
| of a Black Mirror episode with the killer robot bees (a
| scary but brilliant episode which somehow felt realistic
| one day!). Will check this out further thanks.
| rocqua wrote:
| With a sufficient culture shift, I could imagine a world
| where the capability exists but is outlawed and shunned.
| Surveillance capitalism, and blanket security Surveillance
| feel possible to overthrow politically. And to limit
| somewhat through legislation.
|
| That leaves targeted surveillance, emergency surveillance,
| and war-time surveillance. Those will probably not be
| limited, though they are inherently more limited.
| WhackyIdeas wrote:
| As soon as one country implements such tech, all the
| powerful countries would do the same. It's not really
| that far away from the tech we have already, just
| simpler, smaller and super dispensable and don't get
| carried around in our pockets all day long (smartphones).
| hutzlibu wrote:
| " that one day, maybe triple digit years away, maybe
| sooner, that tiny cameras and mics the size of grains of
| salt will be everywhere"
|
| Why spend the effort, if everyone is already carrying their
| smartphones around with them?
| JCharante wrote:
| > and through the use of 4-5 digit piles of cash.
|
| 5 figures doesn't sound like much for an organized crime
| network
| kristjansson wrote:
| Where could someone surreptitiously place a wildly expensive
| pane of glass they couldn't already put an $20 hidden camera?
| AceyMan wrote:
| I read it as the thickness of the deck of bills (thousands or
| more) so if they are 20s or 100s, that's be some serious
| funding.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| > Add in the fact that your IPhone has mac randomization but
| every other device you own including your car's TPMS doesn't.
|
| The truly pathetic thing is that virtually all of these devices
| _could_ use RPA but don 't, because nobody remembered to flip
| that flag from "n" to "y"
| Log_out_ wrote:
| Oh tempo oh rex moores
| i8comments wrote:
| Is there on the market any device that should be able to detect
| this tech if it is used as hidden cams?
| neilv wrote:
| Get legislation against all hidden cameras.
| sroussey wrote:
| Is it just me, or does their car stuff look a lot like the BMW
| Neue Klasse stuff?
| nickpinkston wrote:
| This video seems to show what they're talking about better than
| that article:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NORPeCcIXRQ
| xyproto wrote:
| Changing rooms will never be the same.
| erikpukinskis wrote:
| I've said many times, eye contact will be the killer app of VR...
|
| ... but it will be ironic if 2D beats the VR companies to it,
| using technology like this.
|
| What an utter failure on the part of Meta that would be. With
| such a huge head start and they still don't sell eye contact
| (except on their Pro device? Maybe?)
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Looks cool. The unfortunate thing, is that, whenever an "exciting
| new camera tech" is announced, the image quality is often
| debatable.
|
| But even relatively poor image quality might be cool, if you had
| a camera built into your monitor, so you could do direct-eye-
| contact video calls.
| justinl33 wrote:
| Can some correct me in saying that this is equivalent to having a
| 20+ inch sized sensor? The focal length would be extraordinary
| regularfry wrote:
| That's what's making me wonder about marketing it to car
| makers. What does it do if your entire windscreen is a lens?
| raphman wrote:
| Microsoft's Applied Sciences Group did something similar (I
| guess) back in 2011:
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/applied-sciences/uploads/publicati...
| https://www.microsoft.com/applied-sciences/projects/the-wedg...
| emmelaich wrote:
| ... Does _not_ turn glass windows into cameras. From the headline
| I thought this might be a possibility.
|
| Requires Zeiss Multifunctional Smart Glass(tm)
| olivermarks wrote:
| Would be good to have a formal notification on glass stating
| 'this window/screen/etc contains a camera that may broadcast your
| image'
| jack_riminton wrote:
| Am I alone in thinking this is cool but not inherently useful?
| The only use case where this might be useful is in video calls to
| make 'eye contact' more realistic but I'm sure there are software
| fixes (altering pupils)
|
| In most cases such as the windscreen you can just have a camera
| on the frame. Why does it need to utilise the glass itself?
| Aeolun wrote:
| > Why does it need to utilise the glass itself?
|
| I think you'll find that for a lot of people, it looks
| cool/elegant/stylish is a deciding factor.
| ericfrederich wrote:
| https://youtu.be/NORPeCcIXRQ?si=7uonp0AGn5dNdGti
| tgbugs wrote:
| I'm super excited about whether something like this could be used
| to prevent bird strikes on windows. If anyone wants to grow the
| market for this technology there are likely square miles worth of
| glass that could have this installed to prevent birds from being
| killed.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| So embedded micro light pipes? Cool idea. I wonder if it creates
| any kind of noticeable perturbation in the glass. Like if you
| embedded this in a window and were looking through a portion of
| the glass that contained these light pipes would you be able to
| notice them? Might be a problem for putting this type of glass in
| front of a display.
| chernoby wrote:
| There is a video on youtube, camera resolution a bit poor quality
| but game changer.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NORPeCcIXRQ
| crazygringo wrote:
| I've read through all the comments here but I still don't have
| the slightest idea of how this _works_.
|
| I see some references to "light guides" and words like "coupling"
| but I don't know what those mean at all, and all of my googling
| is not helping to explain how light guides embedded in a thin,
| mostly transparent layer could possibly be used to project a hi-
| res holographic 3D light field out of a piece of glass. How big
| is each guide? What is it exactly -- what is it actually made of?
| How is it shaped? How are they arranged? How are they
| illuminated? How do you manufacture something like this?
|
| Can anyone ELI15 how this works?
| terminous wrote:
| Don't think of it like a transparent camera. Think of the
| window as a giant external periscope lens, connected to the
| rest of the camera with such thin fiber optics that you can't
| notice.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Sure, but how do you build fiber optics like that? Especially
| so each "pixel" has to shoot out hundreds (?) of separate
| fibers to cover every possible angle to achieve the
| holographic effect?
|
| For just a 1MP display, we're talking like hundreds of
| millions of fibers? That fit in some thin transparent layer?
| How?
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| I also am a bit over my head here but I'd guess the major
| innovation is around manufacturing glass in a way that
| optic channels are a natural part of the glass'
| characteristics as it's developed. We're probably talking
| fiber optics at a molecular level.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| There are nanoscale features in the glass that scatter or
| reflect the incoming light in an engineered way to small camera
| sensors in the frame.
|
| It's basically something like the Microsoft Halolens in
| reverse.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-06 23:01 UTC)