IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> So it begins...Or progresses..., If that's the way you wanna see it...
Kyuhan
post Apr 5 2005, 12:44 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 276
Joined: 4-September 04
Member No.: 6,628



Checketh this out folks: The Eyes Have It
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crimson Jack
post Apr 5 2005, 12:39 AM
Post #2


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,129
Joined: 11-June 03
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 4,712



How much essence does this cost?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penta
post Apr 5 2005, 12:51 AM
Post #3


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,978
Joined: 26-February 02
From: New Jersey, USA
Member No.: 500



Heh.

Note, however, the limits. It can *just* do 20/80. For the record, 20/80 is one step above blindness, legally. And they say that it would be impossible to get to even 20/40.

Well...That would make SR cybereyes impossible.:-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DocMortand
post Apr 5 2005, 02:04 AM
Post #4


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,088
Joined: 8-October 04
From: Dallas, TX
Member No.: 6,734



Well we do have 45 years or so to get it right...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Apr 5 2005, 02:14 AM
Post #5


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



What I want is a smartlink.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hahnsoo
post Apr 5 2005, 02:15 AM
Post #6


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014



Their relevant webpage (with a link to the paper they've published) is here:
http://www.stanford.edu/~palanker/lab/retinalpros.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kyuhan
post Apr 5 2005, 03:07 AM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 276
Joined: 4-September 04
Member No.: 6,628



QUOTE
Heh.

Note, however, the limits. It can *just* do 20/80. For the record, 20/80 is one step above blindness, legally. And they say that it would be impossible to get to even 20/40.

Well...That would make SR cybereyes impossible
That's only using this type of tech, there're other things that could make up for the shortcomings; nanites, quantum dots etc.

QUOTE
What I want is a smartlink.
Why?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Apr 5 2005, 02:21 AM
Post #8


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,013
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



What I want is a VCR-3. And a transducer. And an image link. And a datajack. And… and… and…

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lucyfersam
post Apr 5 2005, 03:23 AM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 226
Joined: 29-July 03
Member No.: 5,137



Actually that's a good ways short of legally blind (which I believe is 20/300). The problem they have with getting better resolution than that is currently unbeatable, and will require advances in biology of massive nano-tech advances (SR level of nano-tech should be able to easily overcome this problem). Advances in both of these areas to overcome this problem are quite possible in the next 50 years, although the nano-tech advance seems more probable. Quantum dots don't solve the problem as the problem is not electrode density but getting the ganglion cells to contact at that density.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bane
post Apr 5 2005, 04:42 AM
Post #10


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 12-September 04
Member No.: 6,654



QUOTE
Each year, 700,000 people are diagnosed with AMD, with 10 percent becoming legally blind, defined by 20/400 vision.


From the article.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penta
post Apr 5 2005, 04:54 AM
Post #11


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,978
Joined: 26-February 02
From: New Jersey, USA
Member No.: 500



<digs through blindguy stuff> The number varies. I've always heard 20/200 as blind. It's also the federal definition - visual acuity, corrected, of 20/200 or less.

20/60 is the standard qualifier for visually-impaired services. 20/80 is still very significant visual disability.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lucyfersam
post Apr 5 2005, 06:02 AM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 226
Joined: 29-July 03
Member No.: 5,137



Yes, 20/80 is still significant, but a long way from blind, you can still function in a visual sense at 20/80, not as well as at 20/20 of course but you can. This system is a big step in the direction of useable artificial vision. Not that anyone without severe vision problems will ever likely get an artificial eye (the common nature of the cyber eye in SR is cool, but really quite silly).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shockwave_IIc
post Apr 5 2005, 06:20 AM
Post #13


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,512
Joined: 16-August 03
From: Northampton
Member No.: 5,499



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
What I want is a VCR-3. And a transducer. And an image link. And a datajack. And… and… and…

~J

And not much else as thats already 5.5 Essence! :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Apr 5 2005, 06:33 AM
Post #14


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,013
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



I will become the world's first cyberzombie :cyber:

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SpasticTeapot
post Apr 5 2005, 07:50 AM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 21-December 04
Member No.: 6,893



If I'm not mistaken, most of the current problems pertain not to the cybereye itself (a 3mp digital camera will give you 20/20 vision) but in the data processing and transmission end of the deal. Anything more than 16 or so pixels, and you run into some problems even if you're toting around a 8-way SMP opteron server. Some hope to tap directly into the optic nerve (much easier than brain surgery) and let the brain do a lot of the processing instead of the computer. Regardless, I would expect to see the first primitive cybereyes around 2015 or so, with all the goodies we know and love becoming options by 2016. (After all, the hard part is processing the image, not magnifying it or swapping from color to infra-red (effectively B&W)


NOTE:
By 2015, I meant that we're likely to have a functioning prototype, and not a production model. Once you've got the DSP (digital signal processing) hardware fast enogh and small enough, all you need to do is attach an external CCD setup for the other eye varieties (think flip-down lenses) and patch in the signal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penta
post Apr 5 2005, 03:38 PM
Post #16


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,978
Joined: 26-February 02
From: New Jersey, USA
Member No.: 500



Not by 2015. It'll take longer for it to even begin clinicals. And the clinicals will be long and difficult. FDA won't let *that* get screwed up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kyuhan
post Apr 6 2005, 05:42 AM
Post #17


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 276
Joined: 4-September 04
Member No.: 6,628



I saw a thing on the news once that said the CIA has tech 20 years ahead of the public, so it could be that they have this tech fully operational already. Look at the camera film they had on the moon landing, it took them almost 40 years to release it to the public as "cutting edge".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2025 - 11:57 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.