[HN Gopher] Contacts let you see in the dark with your eyes closed
___________________________________________________________________
Contacts let you see in the dark with your eyes closed
Author : geox
Score : 94 points
Date : 2025-05-22 22:11 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (scitechdaily.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (scitechdaily.com)
| bn-l wrote:
| Very cool but:
|
| > Currently, the contact lenses are only able to detect infrared
| radiation projected from an LED light source, but the researchers
| are working to increase the nanoparticles' sensitivity so that
| they can detect lower levels of infrared light.
|
| > "There are many potential applications right away for this
| material. For example, flickering infrared light could be used to
| transmit information in security, rescue, encryption or anti-
| counterfeiting settings."
|
| Hmm
| snitch182 wrote:
| Good. I remember a certain video camera operating in the
| infrared fringe of the visible spectrum. You could see through
| light clothes. We do not want that again. At all.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| All, or at least nearly all, digital camera sensors are
| sensitive in the IR. That's why most "normal" digital cameras
| have IR blocking filters. Security and astrophoto cameras
| have the filter removed. For astro there's also people who
| remove the filter manually[1].
|
| [1]: https://camerasnipe.com/how-to-remove-the-ir-filter-
| from-a-d...
| NBJack wrote:
| That link is kind of a fever dream of information a little
| ways in. Are you sure you meant to post that?
|
| "First, remove the smartphone camera's infrared filter as a
| whiteboard is on the floor. The beginning of the CCD chip
| is the scar we need to eliminate. Enter the IRF address,
| and use a hot air gun to remove it and your piece."?
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Thanks for the catch. Was on the phone and in a hurry so
| didn't read the whole thing carefully, just several
| sections which looked ok.
|
| Several passages that do not make much sense, looks like
| weird translation errors or something. Sorry about that.
|
| Here's a proper guide[1] also with some sample post-
| conversion pictures. Though the specifics do vary from
| model to model so if you want to try make sure you find a
| suitable one, LifePixel has a collection[2] of model-
| specific tutorials for example.
|
| [1]: https://petapixel.com/2014/09/19/in-depth-diy-
| eos-550d-infra...
|
| [2]: https://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-
| tutorials
| baxtr wrote:
| _> In humans, the infrared contact lenses enabled participants to
| accurately detect flashing morse code-like signals and to
| perceive the direction of incoming infrared light. "It's totally
| clear cut: without the contact lenses, the subject cannot see
| anything, but when they put them on, they can clearly see the
| flickering of the infrared light," said Xue._
|
| Sounds like promising tech but that's not "seeing in the dark",
| yet.
| Terr_ wrote:
| I wonder if similarly-lackluster results could be achieved by
| special facepaint.
|
| Kind of like how when you're camping, you can shield your eyes
| and still know where the campfire is.
| rawling wrote:
| Several recent posts, think this one has the most discussion:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44063051
| M95D wrote:
| Light in visible spectrum is emitted by the contact lenses. There
| can be no optical focusing for that light. No image formation on
| the retina. That means the user may see that there is IR light
| somewhere around, possibly the general direction where it's
| coming from (left vs right), but that's all. No IR image, not
| even general shapes.
| itishappy wrote:
| I noticed the same thing, and while the article comments on it,
| I suspect the comments may be inaccurate:
|
| > Because the contact lenses have limited ability to capture
| fine details (due to their close proximity to the retina, which
| causes the converted light particles to scatter), the team also
| developed a wearable glass system using the same nanoparticle
| technology, which enabled participants to perceive higher-
| resolution infrared information.
|
| No, putting the contact closer to the retina would improve
| imaging, because it would have less distance to scatter.
| Glasses will not fix this. A potential solution would be
| implanting these nanoparticles directly above the retina, but
| that's a significantly more invasive option than what's being
| described here.
| amelius wrote:
| You can also focus a pixel by guiding it through a narrow tube,
| basically cutting off any out-of-focus light. Maybe they use
| meta-materials to do it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Yeah, the research is interesting, but the headline is, as
| usual, bs clickbait, also known as "false".
|
| The article also mentions at the end that the contacts are only
| sensitive enough to detect IR emitted by an LED - they're not
| sensitive enough to "see" ambient IR. A far cry from "Contacts
| let you see in the dark with your eyes closed".
| constantcrying wrote:
| You do not "see" in the dark with these lenses in any meaningful
| way. They just light up in the visible spectrum when infrared
| light is shone on them.
| harvey9 wrote:
| If it works then this is the product Bob Shaw described in A
| Wreath of Stars.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-25 23:02 UTC)