Just in case:

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-smart-glasses-automatically-fo...

Original:

http://www.ece.utah.edu/2017/01/26/i-can-see-clearly-now/

Phys.org often just republishes university press releases.

Yep, good catch, though the "I CAN SEE CLEARLY NOW" title seems clickbait (even if it is the original, University one)!

Thank you, better than the stupid paywall.

A different approach...not automatic, but the form factor is much nicer: https://www.eyejusters.com/technology/

It's worth noting that this is a research prototype, and that the team is anticipating rapid progress towards a better form factor. From the utah.edu link posted by maxerickson above:

Mastrangelo said a lighter, more attractive pair could hit the marketplace in as early as three years and that a startup company, Sharpeyes LLC, has been created to commercialize the glasses.

Huh. That's a super simple and affordable approach. I'm somewhat surprised that they're able to do that without problematic distortions though.

Tunable glasses are great for developing countries as well, where eye doctors are scarce, even when the focus is not automatic [1].

These glasses still require perfectly circular lenses, right? That's a bigger hindrance than slimming down the clunky prototype.

[1] https://www.wired.com/2010/07/fluid-filled-adjustable-eye-gl...

Beyond a built-in motor, rangefinder, and extremely minor circuitry, are these actually different from a 2008 version? http://cvdw.org/ Seems like you could use off-the-shelf stuff and still fit it into that enormous frame.

edit: ah, maybe this? (from: http://www.ece.utah.edu/2017/01/26/i-can-see-clearly-now/ , thanks! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13572830)

>Hasan says the lenses can change focus from one object to another in 14 milliseconds

Pretty speedy, especially if that's the total time to focus and settle. Might miniaturize enough to be a normal-ish set of glasses, given time.

So these are autofocus for you eyes (there's not much meat in the article)?

Basically. There's a rangefinder in the frame, whatever you point your head at shifts the lens focus for your prescription, which means it can handle bi/tri/infinite-focal with no problem. A more 'real' example would probably use eye tracking, but the demo is much more about the lens adjustment than auto-tracking (seems tacked on to make it more interesting / a more complete demo).

> Shift your gaze from the wall menu of your favorite fast-food joint down to the smartphone in your hand, and these glasses can make the adjustment in 14 milliseconds.

That's how it should work, not how it actually works. You have to move your head to focus, same as with bifocals. It might even be harder to use to focus on a small object like a phone.

> You have to move your head to focus, same as with bifocals.

In the given example, I'm going to be holding my phone within the field of the reading lenses, and looking over them at the menu. No head movement is required.

Based on Their clunky prototype—sleeker versions are in the works—is based on an infrared distance meter built into the bridge of the frames. I think head movement is required.

If it used pupil tracking to determine where the wearer was looking it wouldn't required head tracking, but it sounds like the focus is set based on what is in front of the distance sensor.

That's the point I'm making. The clever adjustable lenses require head movement. My boring old bifocals do not.

I had to watch the video twice, here's the important piece of text:

"the curvature of each lens changes,"

"responding to input from an infrared distance meter build into the bridge of the frames"

So the glasses have to know your personal prescription. I know very little about optic, but one thing I've been wondering for a long time is why can't there be a camera pointed to your eyes that adjust the lens until the image on your eye is in focus?

I had an eye test recently (in the UK, if it's relevant), and they had a device which seemed to do that. You sit down, look into the device and see a blurry image, which sort of "snaps" into focus as it works out the shape of your eyes.

That device was a fairly big thing linked to a desktop, though - no idea if it could be miniaturised or not. In addition, they followed it up with more "traditional" tests, which in my case disagreed with the results from that device. So maybe it's not quite there yet?

that already exists, it's the machine at the optometrist with the picture in it, usually of a farm or road for some reason. I imagine that technology is too bulky and too expensive as is to put in reasonable glasses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor

I increasingly find these articles not worth the time, because the promise is never fulfilled. Therefore I prefer the original title: Could This Pair of Eyeglasses Mean the End of Bifocals?, which contains one of the words could, might, may. My automatic internal parser will read this as This Pair of Eyeglasses Will Most Likely Not Mean the End of Bifocals.

Presbyopia is certainly a major drag, and it would be great to have a fix for it.

The ultimate fix would be to replace the lens in the eye with one that can focus. There are people working on that (e.g. [0]).

[0] http://ocumetics.com/

Thhis is already possible, but it's a fairly expensive and delicate procedure, so doctors only do it when you have a severely debilitating condition of the lens, e.g., cataracts.

Still, old folks who undergo lens-replacement cataract surgery often end up with fantastically restored vision -- beyond even what the lack of cataracts would give them.

I think they look quite stylish, in a nerdy sort of way! Some day young hipsters with good eyesight will be wearing huge klunky glasses like that but without any lenses, just to look cool. They could even include big batteries and a USB phone charger!

Would this be useful for VR?

How so? To "automatically" focus on different things? Maybe with some eye tracking and foveal rendering? Seems like it'd be a more immersive experience.

Only thing I can think of is to adjust for people who can't see clearly at VR focal lengths (~1-2 meters from what I can find, which is a sweet spot for many, but not all). In that case, space around the lens exterior doesn't matter much, it could be a great fit.

Eye tracking and foveal rendering: I really hope we get that, and soon. It'd look more natural, and seems like it could substantially reduce rendering costs.

Oculus bought the eye tribe for this purpose, I believe.

I guess dynamically changing the focal distance in VR. So when you are looking at something close it adjusts so that the focal length of the eye is close.

Right now VR has a fixed infinity focal length which feels a little strange for things close by.

No matter what glasses I wear, I still can't get past the WSJ paywall. It would be a public service for people to stop submitting links to this site.

What's wrong with a paywall? Websites don't have to give you their content for free.

Paywalls with workarounds are ok.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989

The WSJ workarounds have stopped working for many people.

For people who don't know what the workaround is: open the [web] link (under the HN submission title) in an incognito window; open the first search result.

This workaround has stopped working, at least for many (including me).

You may want to re-read my post.

Apologies, I thought that was referring to some other workaround.

A referer-controlling browser extension tends to work too, and is a lot more automatic.

The other half of that though: should this site allow links that require payment to view?

Yes.

It's super easy to ignore an article/discussion, even without the "hide" button that completely disappears it from the front page.

Problem is, the topic itself may be worthy of discussion -- but then you limit the people involved in the discussion (who have read the article) only to those who have a subscription to that given site.

What would be more useful is, where possible, post a non-paywall link, to maximize the number of potential participants in the discussion. An alternative in cases where the paywall link is the primary source, is to post a summary in a comment. But then you risk having the editorial slant of the summary be tilted towards whoever wrote up the summary.

I think it's maybe a little optimistic to assume that only people that read an article will brave a comment.

And even so, is it that big a problem if subscribers to some publication are the ones that can make an interesting comment about an article? Where's the downside to hosting that discussion?

An article has to be pretty special in quality for that level of exclusion to be worth using it instead of a similar article elsewhere.