scientists find a way to see what you see

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by vniow, Jul 30, 2004.

  1. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #1
    Posted in its entirety so I don't get any free registration required whining in this thread.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/t...=ff5bcfd82b552b5e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
     
  2. FredAkbar macrumors 6502a

    FredAkbar

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Barbara, CA
    #2
    Wow, I didn't read all of that article (just skimmed through it, reading certain bits), but that sounds really interesting. That could be an awesome technology.
     
  3. MacFan26 macrumors 65816

    MacFan26

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco, California
    #3
    cool...yet freaky at the same time. That's a pretty powerful tool that I can imagine would be used in so many good ways, but in the wrong hands could end up being a bad thing. I'd love to see how they would restore old movies with it though.
     
  4. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #4
    Sounds a lot like the HDRi process. Pretty cool.

    P-Worm
     
  5. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #5
    I'd be really curious to see how well this works on historical archived imagery - you really need a hi res image to get decent detail, but you never know what might be reflected on the eyes.

    Sounds more like an art project than a science experiment :D

    D
     
  6. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #6
    It certainly will be helpful for psychological studies. Could help with treatment.

    Businesses will be interested so they can further refine product placement.
     
  7. jared_kipe macrumors 68030

    jared_kipe

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #7
    I don't think they will ever find pictures of good enough quality to do what they were referring to with Kennedy.
     
  8. Sayer macrumors 6502a

    Sayer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #8
    Besides who cares to find out he was staring at the chesty blonde in the third row most of the time?
     
  9. Kingsnapped macrumors 6502a

    Kingsnapped

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #9
    Imagine how fun our iPhoto albums may be if this technology goes mainstream. This can open up a whole new world for people and their high-res digital images.
     
  10. Hemingray macrumors 68030

    Hemingray

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Ha ha haaa!
    #10
    Are you kidding? The public eats that stuff up. And then a book would be published just on all the things JFK looked at. Then the Kennedy family sues the author and/or publishers for defamation or something ludicrous. The entertainment possibilities are endless!! :rolleyes:

    MacFan26 is right. Anything like this is walking a fine line towards invasion of privacy. It can be used for good or bad. Let's just hope it's used for good.
     
  11. Laslo Panaflex macrumors 65816

    Laslo Panaflex

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Location:
    Tokyo
    #11
    120x120 pixels scan of an eye doesn't seem like it would be too diffucult to get by scanning old photo negatives at high resolution. Now, scanning say the Zapruder film, that would be a different story. Either way, this is very facinating technology, and all the more reason to wear sun glasses in the future.
     
  12. javabear90 macrumors 6502a

    javabear90

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #12
    Imagine this.... if you could just say look at the back button on your broweser and your computer detects your eye looking at the back button and it clicks with out you ever doing anything. And then you look at a link... :D :cool:
     
  13. MongoTheGeek macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #13
    Add into that flashing banner adds leading to deadends of popup porn... Egregiously oversized buttons that say yes drain my bank account and sodomize me sideways with a blowtorch... Like the web isn't gaudy enough as is.
     
  14. Roger1 macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #14
    Didn't they do something like this in the movie "Wild West" with Wil Smith and Kevin Kline??
     
  15. MongoTheGeek macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #15
    Yeah but that was getting images off the retinas of someone who was dead. I think this is just reading reflections from the cornea.
     
  16. Kingsnapped macrumors 6502a

    Kingsnapped

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #16
    I think if this turned into computer input, it would be paired with audible input, or a button of some kind. Otherwise there would be a lot of accidental navigating when you are just reading something.
     
  17. stoid macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #17
    I don't know if it's anything like this, but I just snapped a quick shot of my eye without the flash with my Canon PowerShot S45 digital camera. You can see the reflection of my PowerBook in my eye. If you look closely you can even make out individual keys on the keyboard! It turned out so sweet that I made a new animated gif out of it for my 'tar!

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Kingsnapped macrumors 6502a

    Kingsnapped

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #18
    This is going to make it hard to fake ransom pictures...
     
  19. blaster_boy macrumors 6502

    blaster_boy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Location:
    Belgium
    #19
    Sunglasses ? And you think that would help ? That will just give them more 'surface' to see what you are seeing (ok, agreed, without knowing perhaps what *exactly* you are looking at).
     

Share This Page