> Also, physical packaging is not an issue - it's parts I'm
> after
> (suggestions for camera lens/display lens with suitable FOV, etc).
Well then...you mentioned that cost was the all important factor
in this project. Let me suggest an NTSC video camera viewfinder,
which should include a CRT, mirrors, and a lens with adjustable
focus. It'll look geeky, but work beautifully. If you have the
original camera, too, it's "easy" to trace what signals go on what
connectors. I have a selection of them, though without the camera,
which means I'll have to do it through guess work...and I'm not very
good at that type of thing.
(Anyone have any hints for me?)
Anyway...now you have a display, and a virtual image at some
distance, probably close to infinity. Now you need a camera.
Try one of those micro-NTSC style cameras for surveillance.
I've seen some at Fry's. Basically, they're a B/W video camera
that's about the size of a webcam...managable, but not ideal.
There are color version available, but they're significantly more
expensive, and if your intent is to see an IR spot, the B/W
cameras are probably a better choice, because of their response.
You'll need to figure out some way to put the camera, virtually,
inside your eye. Your suggestion of 2-way mirrors would work,
and a slightly more elegant way to do it would be a partially
silvered beam splitter. Same idea, though. Since your virtual
display will block the vision from one eye, you need only place
the camera assembly "in front" of the display...folding the optical
path will result in the image being recorded as if the camera was
physically inside your eyeball, if you do it right. There are also
prisms that can do this type of thing...some handle multiple
"beams" and are practically made for this type of thing, but again
cost comes into play.
Be aware, though, it will not track your eyeball...if this is your
intention, it'll have to be a LOT more complicated.
(I'm not clear on this requirement -- what is it you hope to attain,
that a camera only slightly askew would not be able to handle?
If you want to compensate for parallax, that's a relatively simple
task, especially considering that the IR LASER could act as a
rangefinder, and "dial in" the right amount of compensation. )
Now, if you have a slghtly higher budget, there are NTSC pinhole
cameras that fit on a postage stamp sized PC board, with integrated
sensors and optics...some of which are IR sensitive, etc. But, the
cost goes up significantly.
Now, as to camera lens. I assume you mean focal length. This goes
back into photography. A "normal" lens, i.e. one which recreates
a field of view roughly equivalent to that seem by the human eye, is
defined to be one with a focal length roughly equivalent to the diagonal
measurement of the image sensor. Example...a 35mm negative has a
diagonal measurement of appx 50mm, and a "normal" lens for a 35mm
camera is 50mm. The same thing for a 110 camera was something like
an 18mm lens...same "field of view," but with a physically smaller
sensor.
-- Chuck Knight
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
--
Subscription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to 
Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org
Please, *PLEASE* don't subscribe through a forward/expander/false domain
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail