|
Science Forum Index » Optics Forum » Computer displays that correct vision possible?
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
|
| Author |
Message |
| Helpful person |
 Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:34 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 692
|
On May 18, 4:59 pm, Quadibloc <jsav... at (no spam) ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Quote: On May 9, 9:39 pm, Helpful person <rrl... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
You cannot change the reconstructed wavefront to accomodate an
aberrated eye. You will create geometrical distortion in the
reconstructed image.
Geometrical distortion is trivial to compensate for.
John Savard
I didn't say it wasn't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| Richard J Kinch... |
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 10:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quadibloc writes:
Quote: Actually, this isn't really an issue with a holographic display, ...
The question was whether it could be done with lenses.
It's an old and worthwhile question. If eyeglasses make you see properly,
then why can't we invert the system and put "object glasses" on things to
make us myopes (or whatever your refractive error) see them properly
without having to have apparatus on our heads. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Helpful person |
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 1:47 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 692
|
On May 18, 11:30 pm, Richard J Kinch <ki... at (no spam) truetex.com> wrote:
Quote: Quadibloc writes:
Actually, this isn't really an issue with a holographic display, ...
The question was whether it could be done with lenses.
It's an old and worthwhile question. If eyeglasses make you see properly,
then why can't we invert the system and put "object glasses" on things to
make us myopes (or whatever your refractive error) see them properly
without having to have apparatus on our heads.
For the same reason that you can't use a hologram of a microscope lens
to replace the lens. You can get correct reconstruction only at one
field position and one set of conjugates. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard J Kinch... |
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 2:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Helpful person writes:
Quote: For the same reason that you can't use a hologram of a microscope lens
to replace the lens.
I don't follow that reasoning. We're postulating refractive optical
elements, not holograms. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quadibloc... |
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 9:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 18, 9:30 pm, Richard J Kinch <ki... at (no spam) truetex.com> wrote:
Quote: Quadibloc writes:
Actually, this isn't really an issue with a holographic display, ...
The question was whether it could be done with lenses.
The question was whether it could be done with whatever technology is
used to make 3D displays, at least as I understood it.
It could not be done, for example, with vertical strips and slots,
because that changes which eye an image goes to, not its distance for
focusing. Holography is another technique used for 3D displays.
Of course lenses could do it, just generate a real image floating in
air a few inches from someone's eyes if that person is nearsighted.
But a giant thick lens is not comparable to any technology used for 3D
displays, so I didn't count the question as being about that as an
alternative.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard J Kinch... |
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quadibloc writes:
Quote: Of course lenses could do it, just generate a real image floating in
air a few inches from someone's eyes if that person is nearsighted.
Of course! A 1X microscope objective with a two-foot aperture. You're a
genius! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
