[krenzo]

What exactly cost so much? You can build a retinal display using a $200 off-the-shelf laser projector if you turn down the power and add less than $100 in lenses. I've done it, and I've even managed to get it up to 8K resolution with some more time and money thrown at it. I've since formed a company to try to commercialize it: http://www.alphalux.io

[kempbellt]

Not sure what you are attempting to commercialize, but your website doesn't explain at all what you have made. Unless I'm supposed to guess it from your background picture of 3d rendered glasses with some sensors in them...

From most studies I've read on the subject, there are a couple big issues. Firstly, physics is hard. It's very difficult to get a useful amount of digital information presented that closely to your eye, where it is in focus, and comfortable to look at. Scaling up resolution beyond a low-res screen is even more difficult. Secondly, tech just isn't there yet. The closest thing I've seen in the market is Google Glass, and that was a huge flop. It also looked dorky as hell, while providing very little real value. Sure, you could read a text, if you squinted and focused your attention up and to the right, but at that point, pulling out your phone is just as easy. It it also makes you look like a strange android while taking your attention away from the real world.

For a product like this to work in the market it has to meet a lot of requirements. Resolution, invisibility (as in, it doesn't feel like you're wearing a clunky awkward device on your face), battery life, safety (you're shining light into your eyes), and provide real, useful, functionality.

Useful functionality, to make it worth caring about a device like this, is good augmented reality integration. And I mean very good. If you put the device on your face and the mapping of the real world stutters for a second, you're going to hate it and never use it - and no one will buy it.

Also, no, being able to project a little cartoon monster on the surface of a table is not "useful" AR functionality...

[kbenson]

> Also, no, being able to project a little cartoon monster on the surface of a table is not "useful" AR functionality...

I would think being able to do that means you've solved most the hard problems you mentioned, so if it can be done well it means we've achieved a certain level of usefulness.

Sort of like how bouncing a white square between two movable white rectangles was a "useful" bit of functionality for consumer AV electronics. Pong isn't exactly blowing anyone's mind now, but it did mean they had to solve a lot of problems to make a machine that could interface with current televisions, deal with user input, do it and update the display within an acceptable time period so it was responsive, and hit a cost and form factor so the general public could make use of it.

[jayd16]

You think Google Glass is the closest thing to ever be made or the closest you've personally experienced? The Hololens and the Magic Leap execute much better on the idea of a HUD.

[mycall]

Even Steve Mann couldn't get past the dork factor, but having waypoint visual reminders is a wonderful option.

[andrewla]

I don't know if you have a working project, but if you do, let me throw an idea at you. Instead of trying for an 8k projector, give me something that can handle a couple of lines of text -- say 6 lines by 25 characters, and supports a simple serial API.

Augmented reality is a great dream, but an unobtrusive heads-up-display for simple information would be revolutionary in itself. Baseline applications like a clock/calendar/compass, maybe reminders, or a no-look note-taking tool. Next-gen involving real-life closed captioning, or, when supplemented with a camera and an offline database, a basic "who is this person I am talking to" / protocol officer. Further than that a very rough "am I facing the right way" waypoint finder, etc.

If the hardware can be made cheaply for this sort of application, use cases will emerge faster than you can shake a stick at. Overlaying reality, etc., are way less interesting without huge amounts of compute.

[AstralStorm]

Unfortunately the hardware to do this is harder than a LCD or even DLP. Otherwise we'd have it already.

Galvo projectors as used in hololens etc. are vector, but tiny projectors aimed at retina are extremely hard to pull off, even ones aimed at glasses are very hard and lousy. Aiming them at a wall is ok though.

[AndrewKemendo]

Without knowing more about your solution I can't comment on that specifically.

I do know that the mems, fiber coupling to the mems and the waveguides necessary for wide enough FOV and variable focal length are very much bespoke right now and thus costly.

[ipsum2]

Where do you get an 8k laser pico projector? I don't think those exist on the market.

[krenzo]

You can get 720p pico projectors off the shelf, but to do 8K, you have to make a custom design with faster laser modulation.

[anoncareer0212]

I'm fairly confused - that would be an absolutely massive breakthrough that several companies worth billions are looking for. What's the downside?

[newsbinator]

This is cool. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter (seriously).

[krenzo]

Send me your e-mail using the Contact button on my site, and I'll keep you updated.

[ddalex]

if the image doesn't sit superimposed in the center of the vision no matter where you look, that's not a retinal display

[p1necone]

Seems like a nitpicky distinction to make. If I could buy a small cheapish device that would replace a large 4k/8k monitor that costs thousands I'd buy it in a heartbeat even if it didn't track which direction I was looking in.