Talk:Virtual retinal display

message: "On the other hand, although the power required is low, light must be collected and focused down in a point. This is easy to do with a laser, but not so easy with an LED. Even so, advances in LED technology have been needed to further concentrate the light coming from these devices."
(Emphasis added)  Huh??  This doesn't parse, what does it mean...  Xamuel (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.63.22 (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Having trouble parsing this sentence

message: I'm not sure why this entire article talks about LED which is an incoherent light source, also all research, prototypes and papers use Lasers.  93.97.63.22 (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: LEDs

message: I've amended the military usage section, the helmet mounted systems referred to (Stryker commander's helmet and aviation applications) are all based on conventional displays, not laser projection based VRDs. VRDs have been investigated for military use, but haven't made the step to operational systems.
77.96.255.55 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Usage

message: This is not the display tech used in the new iPhone, correct? VRD projects directly into your eyeball. matt kane's brain (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. It's been removed and added to this article continuously since yesterday. I believe that some mention be made here in some form or another, since many people will undoubtedly end up here in search of information of the iPhone. The text that is there now is incorrect, according to this article at least. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Phew... As it seems Mr. Jobs's improper usage of technical terms resulted in just another marketing tidbit for Apple. I would like to see this removed - even if "people will undoubtedly end up here in search of information" Zuckerberg (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with removing it is that people will search for Retina Display and find this article.  As a result, they will think that the iPhone has a virtual retina display, when it actually just has a screen that has the maximum number of pixels that is useful to a person of average vision when viewed from a foot away.  A disambiguation link (I'm assuming that's what is meant by a redirect) would be increasing the marketing effect while not providing any new information.  This should be debunked here rather than merely on the iPhone 4 page.  Simply saying that the iPhone display is only a high resolution display and not a virtual retina display would be sufficient.  Another possibility would be to create a new article on retina displays that explains the actual usage of the term with a disambiguation link to that at the top of this article.  The PC World article is a useful citation but more dealing with retina displays outside of the Apple context would be helpful for such an article.  Mdfst13 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPhone usage 

message: I find it logical that virtual retinal displays should be included in 4G and especially 5G smartphones. Has anyone found any research article supporting that idea? In that case we can mention that in related Wikipedia articles. Mange01 (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[4G]] or [[5G]] smartphone usage 

message: Maybe it's just me, but the section "Why VRDs", as of r431206703 reads as if it's been lifted from an advertising brochure. In particular:
What if you could bypass defects in the eye's optical system, such as damaged cornea and lens and reduced retinal sensitivity? What if you could remove the problems of the display environment, such as ambient brightness, angle-of-view and display brightness? What if you could naturally augment the image you see naturally with other information?
This is the promise of a new display device called the Virtual Retinal Display or VRDs.
 and Eye tracking is currently used in advanced still and video cameras for focusing on the object you wish to record. Coordinating augmented visuals from the VRD and real world scenes with eye tracking is an exciting I/O combination.
Probably not helped by the lack of citations. (One at the end of the section, as an afterthought, which looks like it was just thrown on to attempt to make it look like verifiable content?)
86.112.105.67 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Why VRDs" section reads like Ad copy? 

message: "(However, the portion of the visual area where imagery appears must still intersect with optical elements of the display system. It is not possible to display an image over a solid angle from a point source unless the projection system can bypass the lenses within the eye.)[1]"
and
"More recently, there has been some interest in VRDs as a display system for portable devices such as cell phones, PDAs and various media players. In this role the device would be placed in front of the user, perhaps on a desk, and aimed in the general direction of the eyes. The system would then detect the eye using facial scanning techniques and keep the image in place using motion compensation. In this role the VRD offers unique advantages, being able to replicate a full-sized monitor on a small device."
contradict each other.
Do or dont VRDs allow the solid angle of the display to be wider than the solid angle of the device itself?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.3.157 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence is correct. A ray of light cannot come shooting up out of a cell phone sitting on a desk, then suddenly change direction in midair (in the absence of some reflecting, refracting or diffusing surface there) and head straight for your eyeball, thus seeming to come from some other location. The laws of optics remain in force. Now, if someone opted to have the lens in their eye surgically removed, or wear an extremely powerful negative lens that produced the same effect, it would be possible to "paint" an image directly on the retina and produce the illusion described, but then the rest of the world would all be an undecipherable blur. It would seem much easier to have a tiny, featherweight, energy-efficient high-resolution OLED panel sitting above each eye, and view the images in them by means of transparent curved reflectors in a comfortable sunglasses-like frame, which would have the effect of superimposing a seemingly very large and 3-D-ready hi-res monitor on the still-clearly-visible real world. Clunky, uncomfortable, overpriced lo-res head-mounted video displays have been available for many years, but they are the veriest dinosaurs compared to what is already possible now. The subject of "virtual retinal displays" seems to be a magnet for a great deal of hype and nonsense. A pair of binoculars can be said to "project images directly into the eye", too. AVarchaeologist (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in article 

message: I don't see any evidence that airscouter is a VRT; am I missing something? - rlpowell 12.199.7.82 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  AirScouter?  Really? 

message: Is there anything that classifies this display as a VRD other than the makers of the display claiming that it is one? There is no coherent light source, no optical scanning, etc. The optical path seems to be identical to any other HMD, except that a LED needs to be shone onto the DMD. 100.9.139.246 (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avegant Glyph, VRD? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Virtual retinal display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121122080922/http://www.brother.com/en/news/2011/airscouter/index.htm to http://www.brother.com/en/news/2011/airscouter/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130616115002/http://www.brother.co.uk/g3.cfm/s_page/888150/s_name/Airscouterhome1/s_level/264620/ to http://www.brother.co.uk/g3.cfm/s_page/888150/s_name/Airscouterhome1/s_level/264620
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13116669_The_virtual_retinal_display_A_new_technology_for_virtual_reality_and_augmented_vision_in_medicine
"4. Conclusions
The VRD is a safe new display technology. The power levels recorded from the system are several
orders below the power levels prescribed by the American National Standard. The VRD readily
creates images that can be easily seen in ambient roomlight and it can create images that can be seen
in ambient daylight. The combination of high brightness and contrast and high resolution make the
VRD an ideal candidate for use in a surgical display. Further, tests show strong potential for the
VRD to be a display technology for patients with low vision."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutasthanos (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come none of the findings from the following research article were included on this Wiki page? 

message: Would it be appropriate to include information from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-virtual-retinal-display-market-2016-2025---vrd-technology-is-expected-to-commercialize-in-2016-and-expected-to-be-worth-usd-230-million-564347111.html and http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/tpvcgn/virtual_retinal, or is it too recent? I would be bold and add it in, but I would probably too closely paraphrase the material. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new sources 

message: The concept described and depicted here-- a scanning point-source emitter positioned outside the eyeball that projects a raster display onto the retina of the user-- is impossible. It violates the laws of optics. The lens in the eye prevents this concept from working. When the emitter is at the eye's plane of focus, all photons it emits (among those that go through the lens of the eye, at least) will land on the same point on the retina. Scanning across the lens won't accomplish anything. When the emitter is out of focus (when it's too close to the eye, for example), its output can be scanned over the area of its circle of confusion on the retina, but this is a very small area; for me, a point source at one inch from my eye when my eye is focused at infinity produces a circle of confusion with approximately the same solid angle as a one-inch circle at a distance of two feet, or roughly 0.001 steradian (I invite you to test this for yourself).
The only way to create a display that appears to cover, say, 0.2 steradians (roughly the apparent size of the average computer monitor at typical working distances) of the human visual field is to use some kind of lens system or projection screen that ACTUALLY covers 0.2 steradians of the human visual field. This is how the traditional head-up display works. This is how the hypothetical contact-lens display would work, though that still requires light field display technology at a level not yet practical.
In short, "retina scanning" offers us no shortcuts, no way to make a tiny display produce big images.
Well, except one. You could literally cut into the eyeball and install the scanning point-source emitter inside it. That method would work fine, but I don't think much of its commercial potential.
Anyway, one thing I hope we've all learned from editing this article (and I've edited it many times over the years, only to see every sensible thing I wrote deleted or distorted into absurdity) is that optical science is almost an ideal growth medium for the Dunning–Kruger effect. Keeping this article on a firm scientific footing will require firm editing. I recommend starting with Select All, Delete. 64.125.50.162 (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably time to start over