At 05:22 PM 19990706 -0500, Tony Havelka wrote: [Dan is >>] >> I can get a Pilot really cheaply. (I did, in fact.) But in order for me >> to make the compromises in weight and battery life to get a serious CPU >> (386/486/Px/StrongArm) then I demand a real display at a reasonable >> price point. > >While our display's are very real and only the image is virtual (bad play on >words) - what price point is reasonable, and who is it reasonable to? If it >is reasonable to the consumer, it would be say $300 - in line with the CRT >on your desk. If it is reasonable to the manufacturer, it would be $1,500 - >capturing the development cost and risk associated with selling product in >such a small market. I identified (IMHO) the price point just below - US$500-800 for an 800x600 monocular HMD. Monochrome, even - the point is that to have a general-purpose wearable computer, I need many, many pixels to convey information to me. I won't argue if you set the price at $300 - but you had better have capacity to make a half-million units quickly, because they'll be in demand instantly. Over time, prices of commodity goods drop towards cost. Is an HMD a commodity? Not this year. Is a desktop CRT a commodity? 80% of them are, and the rest are fulfilling a special need. Someday HMDs will be commodity goods. Manufacturers get to make the most profit per unit in the early stages - but the make the most profit, period, when the unit has just been converted to commodity status and has not yet found its level. >> they've made a serious investment. Even 640x480 is too wussy these days, >> and in a year or so the baselevel for a mass-experimenter's HUD will be >> 1024x768. > >Who and what sets this baselevel? If I gave you a 1024x768 6" panel that you >could strap to your head, would this fit the requirement? What I'm getting The minimal resolution for a general-purpose computer's HMD is one to two steps below the average desktop resolution of that year. This year, all the Compaq boxes being shipped to corporations are defaulting to 1024x768, and are capable of 1600x1200. The natural limit of this progression is the effective resolution of the human eye. I would argue that when we get to the equivalent of 2700dpi photos being held at reading distance, there's no point in getting smaller. Would a 6" 1024x768 panel be acceptable? Do you really think that's an HMD? I can strap my head to a 32" Toshiba, too. Now, come up with an innovative optics system that lets me put the 6" panel on my back and see it through a lens held by my eye, and I'll call that an HMD. -dsr- -- Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" toWear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail