I really would love to test pilot one of these, and not just for the "hah, bow to me peasants for I have technology" aspect :v: The ability to have say, a map projected right into your god damn eye, in an unobtrusive manner is sweet, being able to record video and take pictures from a great POV at a moments notice is awesome, let alone being able to share them with others instantly.
Lets hope when they launch they catch on, if people can accept this technology, then we are likely going to see even more awesome shit in the near future.
TOO BAD I CAN'T USE THESE IN BRAZIL AT ALL ROFL
[editline]22nd February 2013[/editline]
i'd get MUGGED and RAPED for having one of these
[QUOTE=hexpunK;39681601]being able to record video and take pictures from a great POV at a moments notice is awesome, let alone being able to share them with others instantly[/QUOTE]
someone developing instagram for it came to mind and I got a little sad
[QUOTE=laserguided;39680134]As many people as they can.. heh they are going to need to make it affordable. I would never walk outside with $1500 glasses.[/QUOTE]
As many people as possible.
$1500.
They're not gonna be $1500 at release, that'd be too expensive.
I expect them to be about the price of a new high end smartphone.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;39681828]someone developing instagram for it came to mind and I got a little sad[/QUOTE]
Ohh, why would you do this to me Dai...I don't think I'll be able to sleep tonight now out of fear.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;39681828]someone developing instagram for it came to mind and I got a little sad[/QUOTE]
the good bit is that you can instantly look down upon people who are walking around yelling at their glasses to "APPLY LOMO FILTER, UPLOAD"
[QUOTE=laserguided;39680134]As many people as they can.. heh they are going to need to make it affordable. I would never walk outside with $1500 glasses.[/QUOTE]
can I just say this again
$1500 isn't the price of the unit at all, it's a [b]buy-in[/b].
You [i]submit an application[/i] and they pick the top 8,000 programmers/groups who are serious enough about developing that they'd be willing to invest a portion of money in being able to make software and solutions available for the product release.
That way it comes out with ton of good functionality, not a bunch of shovelware. It'll probably be $500+, but they're making damn sure it'll be worth the consumer's dollar
I don't really understand why people want a smartphone on their face 24/7
[QUOTE=jaredop;39682178]I don't really understand why people want a smartphone on their face 24/7[/QUOTE]
Yeah, who'd want to have easy access to google services and a camera that records and takes pictures from your viewpoint, what nonsense is that.
[QUOTE=jaredop;39682178]I don't really understand why people want a smartphone on their face 24/7[/QUOTE]
Because [B]SciFi[/B]
Seriously, This is the shit i'v been reading about since i was 10
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;39679925]But can it scan power levels?[/QUOTE]
If it's possible, let's program a app for that ;)
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39682224]Yeah, who'd want to have easy access to google services and a camera that records and takes pictures from your viewpoint, what nonsense is that.[/QUOTE]
I have that in my pocket. I guess I'm the only person on Facepunch who doesn't want a HUD
just tried to race tapping my temple and taking a picture vs taking my iphone out of my pocket and using the camera slider
(hint, temple wins)
[QUOTE=jaredop;39682660]I have that in my pocket. I guess I'm the only person on Facepunch who doesn't want a HUD[/QUOTE]
I think the "from your viewpoint" bit makes quite a difference. Look at how weird and cool the video of them talking shot through Glass looks. Can't really do that with a phone.
[QUOTE=MenteR;39681670]TOO BAD I CAN'T USE THESE IN BRAZIL AT ALL ROFL
[editline]22nd February 2013[/editline]
i'd get MUGGED and RAPED for having one of these[/QUOTE]
Constantly be recording video to your google drive account so you can get a sure conviction!
[QUOTE=jaredop;39682660]I have that in my pocket. I guess I'm the only person on Facepunch who doesn't want a HUD[/QUOTE]
Exactly, in your pocket instead of in front of your eyes, accessible with a flick of your fingers.
[quote] First you have to touch the side of the device (which is actually a touchpad), or tilt your head upward slowly, a gesture which tells Glass to wake up. Once you’ve done that, you start issuing commands by speaking "ok glass" first, or scroll through the options using your finger along the side of the device. You can scroll items by moving your finger backwards or forward along the strip, you select by tapping, and move "back" by swiping down. [/quote]
That is so beautifully easy.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;39682751]just tried to race tapping my temple and taking a picture vs taking my iphone out of my pocket and using the camera slider
(hint, temple wins)[/QUOTE]
this is a huuuuge race that nobody takes into account these days. I've actually been writing up a bit of a rant/article on 'blaming the messenger on false pretenses', based around the fact that everybody views cameras these days as their phone or a point-and-click, thus seeing casual and even professional photojournalists as 'restricted' by the same time functions, leading to the almighty "Why didn't the photographer help them?!" question.
It takes time to reach for your phone, unlock and get to home screen, find camera icon (even if it's on your quickbar), let the app load and start the camera's live view, aim, let it focus for two seconds because it scans the full focal range to find a good point, then fire a snapshot, repeat a few times while trying to hold still and not get a blurry picture. Same goes for point-and-click cameras, turning them on requires it to do a boot-up routine and set the lens, and auto-focus while using a live viewfinder, which in itself is chuggy as hell.
When trying to push and get a fast time, using my nice droid phone takes roughly 8 seconds to go from "hands sitting on my desk with phone in pocket", to taking a photo. That may sound short at first, but count to 8 seconds while holding completely still, and imagine some insane incident just occurring in front of you. You feel you have all the time in the world to do something. It's just logical. Problem is, an event will often happen and you'll only be left with the aftermath
'Photojournalists' (mostly freelancing hobbyists) out on the street with an OK camera tend to be looking for something to capture. you watch, you listen, and you have a camera roped around you with a hand always on it. The difference between a point and click and an SLR isn't about size, it's how a photo is taken, and the biggest differences in time are two things: turning it on is almost instant, and you [i]don't rely on live-view to frame your picture[/i]. the little viewport shows what you need, and all of the focusing equipment inside works exceedingly fast because it's separate from live-view. Even in SLRs, live-view focusing is terribly slow and has trouble at times.
These people are not out like paparazzi intentionally looking for trouble and gotcha shots- they're probably out just being a hobbyist, taking pictures of life on the street or even being a tourist just seeing the sights. If they're in the right place at the right time, it takes barely a second to get the camera to your face, an instant for focus to adjust on your centerpoint, and from there the limitation of your camera's speed is all that stands between you and a dozen shots in a couple seconds. In the 8 seconds it takes for me to finally get a shot off with my phone, I could fire off roughly [i]40 photos spanning the 6.5 seconds it will have been on my face.[/i] Clearly that's unnecessary, but the point is really that you can get your shots and be done with it, and the shutter speed of the camera more often than not would even allow you to be running full speed and get decent snaps off whilst blindly firing forward.
And the deciding factor is, it's all based on your preparedness and then your reaction. If you're carrying a nice camera, have a go-pro, or wearing glass, you're going to be thinking about whether or not you can use it, and keeping the idea in your head that something awesome may happen soon will let you react accordingly; If all it takes is to say 'ok glass take pictures', then tap your temple to fire off each shot, or record a video and capture stills from that later, then it'll be way less intrusive and way more efficient than we've ever had before, and it's [i]hands free[/i].
In situations where applicable, glass would allow less-than-prepared people to react to situations and be completely capable of lending a hand, all the while capturing what could be heroic footage from their vantage point, which sounds kickass for everyone who gets to watch it. I can already see cops and emergency personnel using them being a major thing, I think it'll re-kindle the kind of entertainment people used to get from cop shows where all the footage was from the dash-cam of a cruiser and you see nothing of what happened, and what you did see was a blurry mess.
ultimately though we all have to face it and admit that as much as you complain about other people fiddling with taking pictures instead of helping, you would probably never run towards a fire, tear the door off a crushed car and carry the driver into the sunset, or even know what to do when a guy falls off the train platform a good 30 feet away with a train approaching way faster than you ever could.
Things happen. Acts of heroism, terrible tragedies, insanely lucky near misses that you wouldn't have the ability to hold a camera up for- but you experience them, first hand. What if that moment could just capture itself
I know I'm being too negative here but I can also imagine people getting really uncomfortable as soon as this gets known to the general public and people see you with the glasses on.
I have no problem with being filmed as long as I know it, security cams are special though.
[quote]capable of lending a hand, all the while capturing what could be heroic footage from their vantage point, which sounds kickass for everyone who gets to watch it. I can already see cops and emergency personnel using them being a major thing, I think it'll re-kindle the kind of entertainment people used to get from cop shows where all the footage was from the dash-cam of a cruiser[/quote]
And here is another problem. Decency. As heroic as the guy getting me out of the burning car might be, there is a possibility of me not wanting any footage of that stuff. And that is not necessarily a publicity issue. Often the thought that such footage [I]might[/I] exist is enough. Maybe it was traumatic, maybe I was in panic and he had to hit me in the face to bring me back to reality, life is big and the possibilities are vasr.
I'm not saying that they need to be censored or some shit but I think when tech gets THAT wearable it breaches a stupid, uninformed(security cams, pen cams a.s.o., the tech is actually already there but not mainstream) and lazy but nevertheless very important comfort zone of "noticable" that MANY people will have a problem with.
Would you like the feeling of does-that-gu-film-me? whenever someone with glasses is around you?
It's still a bit fuzzy and of course something as new as this bears as many problems as it bears possibilities, it's just that unfortunately people tend to take the problems, even if hypothetical, much more serious.
[QUOTE=Killuah;39683683]I know I'm being too negative here but I can also imagine people getting really uncomfortable as soon as this gets known to the general public and people see you with the glasses on.
I have no problem with being filmed as long as I know it, security cams are special though.
And here is another problem. Decency. As heroic as the guy getting me out of the burning car might be, there is a possibility of me not wanting any footage of that stuff. And that is not necessarily a publicity issue. Often the thought that such footage [I]might[/I] exist is enough. Maybe it was traumatic, maybe I was in panic and he had to hit me in the face to bring me back to reality, life is big and the possibilities are vasr.
I'm not saying that they need to be censored or some shit but I think when tech gets THAT wearable it breaches a stupid, uninformed(security cams, pen cams a.s.o., the tech is actually already there but not mainstream) and lazy but nevertheless very important comfort zone of "noticable" that MANY people will have a problem with.
Would you like the feeling of does-that-gu-film-me? whenever someone with glasses is around you?
It's still a bit fuzzy and of course something as new as this bears as many problems as it bears possibilities, it's just that unfortunately people tend to take the problems, even if hypothetical, much more serious.[/QUOTE]
Anyone can already take a video of you in public if they so wish, nothing you can do to stop them if you notice them doing it or not.
hm yea let me just trust the verge on anything ever
[QUOTE=Lazor;39683821]hm yea let me just trust the verge on anything ever[/QUOTE]
Dude, there's a fucking video and everything..
[QUOTE=Killuah;39683683]I know I'm being too negative here but I can also imagine people getting really uncomfortable as soon as this gets known to the general public and people see you with the glasses on.
I have no problem with being filmed as long as I know it, security cams are special though.
And here is another problem. Decency. As heroic as the guy getting me out of the burning car might be, there is a possibility of me not wanting any footage of that stuff. And that is not necessarily a publicity issue. Often the thought that such footage [I]might[/I] exist is enough. Maybe it was traumatic, maybe I was in panic and he had to hit me in the face to bring me back to reality, life is big and the possibilities are vasr.
I'm not saying that they need to be censored or some shit but I think when tech gets THAT wearable it breaches a stupid, uninformed(security cams, pen cams a.s.o., the tech is actually already there but not mainstream) and lazy but nevertheless very important comfort zone of "noticable" that MANY people will have a problem with.
Would you like the feeling of does-that-gu-film-me? whenever someone with glasses is around you?
It's still a bit fuzzy and of course something as new as this bears as many problems as it bears possibilities, it's just that unfortunately people tend to take the problems, even if hypothetical, much more serious.[/QUOTE]
just a bit about public surveillance, by going into public you agree to be viewed in public, this is a protective right meant to cover journalists, but encompasses all medium, from artists to building owners to traffic cams. This means that at any time you can be photographed, but the unspoken rule of common courtesy is that you may ask not to be (and to have any photos taken be deleted), and others may apologize and turn somewhere else. (furthermore, photographer's rights protect the photographer- they hold the right to keep photos. Security guards cannot confiscate your equipment, view, or delete your files or it is considered theft and destruction of property. You can't even be detained for photographing things or it's considered holding you against your will, aka kidnapping. You can be asked to stop and leave a location, only if it's private property, like a store. Even the main hall of a mall is 'privately owned', though widely regarded as public space)
The rule of photographing people that aren't within your direct permissions and don't know you're photographing them, is that you're allowed to see identifiable features (like have their face visible without needing to censor it) so long as they're [i]not the focus of the image[/i]. there's rule somewhere that basically says "if you're not the reason for the picture or you're barely 10% of the photo, nobody gives a damn whether you want it deleted because it's not about you and your privacy at that point
Furthermore, it's also legal that if you can be viewed [i]from a public vantage point[/i], if you're in a private setting. It is still considered public domain, which means several things- One: police can fine you for public indecency if you're dancing in your living room naked and people can see you from the street. This also means more invasive types like the paparazzi can abuse the rule and take all the photos they can get, provided they stay on the sidewalk.
Yes, the chances of being recorded without even having the chance to know someone's doing it is an issue- I can only imagine this will lead to a lot of sleezeballs using it to go out and get reddit creeper shot photos and videos. It's unavoidable, but at least they have to be looking right at something to get the shot, which is a little less conspicuous given certain situations. it'd be pretty hard to do what people already do these days to candidly get upskirt shots and the like.
Maybe this is also a saving grace of the voice and gesture commands, is that they're not exactly candid. Sure, recording video over a period of time may be activated before you notice them, but I'd bet that you could tell from how people are acting that they're trying to keep aim, turning their head odd or acting a bit stiff as they try to hold still. Mannerisms are huge telltale factors, [i]especially[/i] when people are trying to hide them.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39683801]Anyone can already take a video of you in public if they so wish, nothing you can do to stop them if you notice them doing it or not.[/QUOTE]
Did you actually try to process what I wrote or did you just skim through it?
oh wait why am I telling you this killuah I didn't even read the name
you should know the photographer's rights already, and know at least a bit of what's going on with public imaging already
[QUOTE=daijitsu;39683956]just a bit about public surveillance, by going into public you agree to be viewed in public. This means that at any time you can be photographed, but the unspoken rule is that you may ask not to be (and to have any photos taken be deleted), and others may apologize and turn somewhere else.
The rule of photographic people that aren't within your direct permissions and don't know you're photographing them, is that you're allowed to see identifiable features (like have their face visible without needing to censor it) so long as they're [i]not the focus of the image[/i]. there's rule somewhere that basically says "if you're not the reason for the picture or you're barely 10% of the photo, nobody gives a damn whether you want it deleted because it's not about you and your privacy at that point
Furthermore, it's also legal that if you can be viewed [i]from a public vantage point[/i], if you're in a private setting. It is still considered public domain, which means several things- One: police can fine you for public indecency if you're dancing in your living room naked and people can see you from the street. This also means more invasive types like the paparazzi can abuse the rule and take all the photos they can get, provided they stay on the sidewalk.
Yes, the chances of being recorded without even having the chance to know someone's doing it is an issue- I can only imagine this will lead to a lot of sleezeballs using it to go out and get reddit creeper shot photos and videos. It's unavoidable, but at least they have to be looking right at something to get the shot, which is a little less conspicuous given certain situations. it'd be pretty hard to do what people already do these days to candidly get upskirt shots and the like.
Maybe this is also a saving grace of the voice and gesture commands, is that they're not exactly candid. Sure, recording video over a period of time may be activated before you notice them, but I'd bet that you could tell from how people are acting that they're trying to keep aim, turning their head odd or acting a bit stiff as they try to hold still. Mannerisms are huge telltale factors, [i]especially[/i] when people are trying to hide them.[/QUOTE]
Besides the laws for this being the complete opposite in many EU countries(I can be naked in private space all I want and that includes my garden), I am not argueing laws or common decency or any hard facts. It's just that adds and "going mainstream" will make people awfully aware of being filmed at all times and "a camera is a camera " is awfully different to "these (future)glasses could be a camera". It's not about the chance to be recorded without noticing. It's about the awareness of that very uncertainty.
When people can't see the cam most of them don't give a fuck. But when every appearance of an object makes them ask themselves "am I being recorded", it gets different.
It's painfully similar to "are those girls laughing about ME?"
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=daijitsu;39684015]oh wait why am I telling you this killuah I didn't even read the name
you should know the photographer's rights already, and know at least a bit of what's going on with public imaging already[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I wasn't really referring to laws for recording,(as always my post is really fuzzy) I hope my later post explains a bit more and nevertheless a hypothetical (counter)argument still enriches the discussion.
I will almost certainly get one of these. It looks a bit dorky, but what it brings to the table is just so damn cool. I mean, just imagine what kind of applications could be possible with tech like this. Just off the top of my head, I imagine written language translators directly in your field of view, which would allow you to read anything in any common language just by looking at it. Being a big dumb American, other languages are scary and confusing, so something like that would open up the world in a very broad way. Even speech-to-text translators, to give me in-vision subtitles. The entire housekeeping staff at my hotel is hispanic, and speak pretty terrible English, if any at all. I'd love to be able to forego the miming and just have them tell me directly what they need in Spanish.
Product information would also be a cool and easy application of Glass. You could look at a movie poster and have ratings and reviews pop up to the side of it in real time. Social networking, too; introduce yourself and learn about other people damn near telepathically just by seeing their personal bios floating above their heads.
This kind of stuff gets me all giddy and excited. I only wonder how long it will take to catch on, or whether the consumer market at large will view it as gimmicky? As long as the price is within some limit of reason, this is something I simply couldn't refuse purchasing.
ah, very true, and you can bet a lot of the more out-there paranoid people will make bigger assumptions, I'd imagine it'll happen at least once where someone gets angry and lashes out at someone they think is recording. Hell, it's already happened to me, I used to work as a photographer for a bar magazine (you can tell this will end well), and one night I showed up to a location for a gig and had my camera down at my side for a few moments while I talked with the owner and their friends. A huge dude walks up behind me and [i]puts a fork to my throat[/i], and angrily says "ARE YOU TAKING PICTURES OF ME?!"
I thought he was just joking and coming over to be obnoxious and introduce himself, but he was very serious. I had to bring up the camera and show him four other bars' worth of photos to prove not one of them was of him, after which he made a threat under his breath and went back to his bar stool. Needless to say that was the last bar I ever shot
also
[quote](I can be naked in private space all I want and that includes my garden)[/quote]
I feel sorry if you happen across somebody who abuses this right who really shouldn't
I think the main big difference from using a phone to record or take a picture compared to Google Glass is the phone takes you out of the experience since you will most probably be looking at the screen than actually what's happening in real life. As the Article and video said it's all about making people more in the moment than being focused on a screen.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;39684215]
I feel sorry if you happen across somebody who abuses this right who really shouldn't[/QUOTE]
There's worse than naked fat ladies or dudes, sometimes it's art, sometimes it's perverted, the shock wears off. I didn't need to visit Amsterdam to learn that but it certainly helps to accept it ;)
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;39684204]I will almost certainly get one of these. It looks a bit dorky, but what it brings to the table is just so damn cool. I mean, just imagine what kind of applications could be possible with tech like this. Just off the top of my head, I imagine written language translators directly in your field of view, which would allow you to read anything in any common language just by looking at it. Being a big dumb American, other languages are scary and confusing, so something like that would open up the world in a very broad way. Even speech-to-text translators, to give me in-vision subtitles. The entire housekeeping staff at my hotel is hispanic, and speak pretty terrible English, if any at all. I'd love to be able to forego the miming and just have them tell me directly what they need in Spanish.
Product information would also be a cool and easy application of Glass. You could look at a movie poster and have ratings and reviews pop up to the side of it in real time. Social networking, too; introduce yourself and learn about other people damn near telepathically just by seeing their personal bios floating above their heads.
This kind of stuff gets me all giddy and excited. I only wonder how long it will take to catch on, or whether the consumer market at large will view it as gimmicky? As long as the price is within some limit of reason, this is something I simply couldn't refuse purchasing.[/QUOTE]
I share your enthusiasm but I'd like to remind you that so far it's just a smallish(greyscale colours??) rectangle in your upper right view.
But I think I've seen videos of VR glasses prototypes. I just think that in-eye projection is the future of that.
However, for researching user interaction and reaction this is a pretty big step, yes.
Also I give it 4 weeks until someone developed some crafty hacks, after all it seems to be mainly reliant on software(apps??)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
