[HN Gopher] Xpanceo smart contact lenses hands-on
___________________________________________________________________
Xpanceo smart contact lenses hands-on
Author : LorenDB
Score : 34 points
Date : 2024-10-31 11:44 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (skarredghost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (skarredghost.com)
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Wow. I wonder how they manage to focus the display. After all
| it's a totally different focal distance than the real world which
| I imagine you want to see as well.
| squidgedcricket wrote:
| If the display appears at infinite focal depth it might be
| better for eyes than traditional screens that require focusing
| on something close.
| arghwhat wrote:
| There is not a distance that is good or bad to focus at.
|
| Having little variance in focus distance throughout the day
| (long or short) can be bad, while focusing to either end of
| your visual limits can be tiring.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| That's not what I mean. I mean the display inside the lens
| would require a radically different focal distance (it's
| less than a millimetre from the lens) than the world
| outside (where you would view between 20cm and infinity). I
| don't really see how they could consolidate that within one
| lens.
| lutorm wrote:
| It's actually impossible to focus on an image within the
| lens, sort of by definition. It said the display is
| holographic, which I guess means that it will diffract
| light to create the _appearance_ of an image at infinity,
| while not actually making an image in the traditional
| optics sense.
| lutorm wrote:
| That's cool and all but I'd settle for the long-promised
| customized contact lenses that take out the particular high-order
| aberrations of my eyes.
| pseudocomposer wrote:
| Have you considered PRK/LASIK/SMILE?
| lutorm wrote:
| I'm considering RLE (which apparently can at least correct
| spherical aberration), they apparently don't really do laser
| treatments on people my age (50+). However, I'm not sold on
| the risk vs reward proposition of surgically altering my eyes
| so if I could get superhuman vision with contacts that would
| be attractive.
| Topfi wrote:
| The reason laser eye surgeries such as PRK and LASIK are
| not recommended for people aged 40 and up, at least if your
| ophthalmologist is ethical and honest, are Presbyopia and
| later on Cataracts. The former, because applying correction
| to a lens and muscles that are starting to lack
| accommodative ability is likely still going to necessitate
| glasses, at least for reading. In fact, this can mean that
| a previously myopic eye post-surgery in someone suffering
| from Presbyopia will now need glasses for reading when some
| people with light Myopia and Presbyopia can read without
| glasses.
|
| Beyond Presbyopia, there are cataracts, which do affect
| almost everyone at some stage in their later life and whose
| solution is Cataracts surgery, which is essentially pretty
| much identical to refractive lens exchange (RLE), both in
| the way the procedure is carried out and how they address
| vision problems.
|
| The main difference is mainly that RLE is generally an
| expensive elective for younger people, and cataract surgery
| is more commonly covered by insurance, though this of
| course depends on your local healthcare system. Also, there
| are very significant differences in the lenses one can use,
| as well as whether and how much these can accommodate at
| different vocal lengths, with the best often being very
| expensive options. Monofocal (read one/fixed focus) are
| generally the standard and most commonly covered by
| (public) insurance, though there are also options which can
| work across a wider range.
|
| Multifocal and accomadating lenses are available both in
| RLE and Cataracts, again because the procedure is the same,
| so anyone trying to sell older people on RLE without
| informing them about Cataracts is likely maximizing
| profits. Unfortunately, there are some rather unethical
| doctors charging for RLE on people eligible for cataract
| surgery, often leading to these people paying thousands for
| a less advanced (in sever cases monofocal) lens. This is
| especially targic as had these people gone for Cataract
| surgery, they could have safed money or gone for a higher-
| end option.
|
| Any good ophthalmologist will inform you about that. Then,
| you are still free to make the choice that, knowing
| everything, you don't want to wait to become eligible for
| Cataract surgery. At that point RLE can be a good, albeit
| expensive, option that will save you from needing Cataract
| surgery later in life. If you are a very wealthy 40-60 year
| old, getting RLE with the best lenses on the market is thus
| fair game.
|
| Cataracts/RLE surgery is an incredibly safe procedure, and
| a good ophthalmologist knocks them out in less than 10
| minutes, a great one easily gets below five and
| complications are beyond rare.
|
| Because you are getting into an age range where Cataracts
| could start becoming a concern, any laser eye procedure
| doesn't make sense, as once you are eligible for Cataracts,
| you could almost certainly get literally the same you would
| receive with RLE, though at a far more subsidized price
| (again, depending on your health care system, private
| insurance, etc.).
|
| I had Trans-PRK at age 25, and, despite a few days of
| rather painful healing of the upper layers of the
| epithelium (it has the most nerve endings in our body after
| all), I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I can see slightly
| better than 20/20 and can use even the furthest corners of
| my eyes reliably, something not fully possible without
| discomfort with hard contacts. Once Presbyopia truly sets
| in, I'll make a decision based on how it progresses, what
| lenses are on the market by then and whether I can justify
| it financially, but that's going to not be for a few
| decades.
|
| Also, don't worry, the discomfort during post PRK healing
| is not the case with Cataract surgery (or LASIK for that
| matter), as they only necessitate a small incision (or flap
| in the case of LASIK) that heals differently. SMILE also
| uses a small incision, but honestly, purely personally I
| made the decision to go with Trans-PRK over SMILE and LASIK
| despite knowing the pain, simply because of the data.
|
| Essentially, once you can, consider Cataract surgery with
| your doctor and consider using the best lens you can
| afford. And, if you are able and have someone in the right
| age range with vision problems in your family whom you
| truly love, consider gifting them surgery. They will
| benefit for at least 20 years till Presbyopia slowly sets
| in and they will thank you for it every day.
| karaterobot wrote:
| With a 30deg FOV, and an apparent resolution of... two... and
| with the _prototype_ not expected until 2026, I 'm categorizing
| this as nothing yet. Which is just as well, as I'm not looking
| forward to the glassy-eyed future where everybody just
| doomscrolls directly into their eyes all day.
| cchance wrote:
| I'm confused wasn't the FOV 180, but he couldnt use it cause he
| couldnt put it in his eye, so he was looking from a few inches
| away so it was ~20deg fov cause.... it wasnt in his eye lol
| atahanacar wrote:
| >the lens has a 30deg FOV, but I can tell you that the
| perceived one was less. One of the reasons is that these
| lenses are made to show full FOV when they are worn on the
| eye, but of course, I could not do this test, so my perceived
| FOV with the lens close to the eye was probably just in the
| range 10-20deg.
| seltzered_ wrote:
| see also Verily (closed) contact lens glucose project:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18474038
| kaonwarb wrote:
| I'll wait to take any of this seriously until AR glasses are
| broadly in consumers'hands. Power in particular is orders of
| magnitude easier to solve in that form factor.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-02 23:01 UTC)