Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Artist Wants to Replace Lost Eyeball With Webcam 156

Posted by samzenpus
from the all-the-better-to-film-you-with dept.
A one-eyed San Francisco artist, Tanya Vlach, wants to replace her missing eye with a Web cam. There has even been talk of her shooting a reality TV show using the video eye. "There have been all sorts of cyborgs in science fiction for a long time, and I'm sort of a sci-fi geek, with the advancement of technology, I thought, 'Why not?'" said Vlach. I'm a bit perplexed that the obvious things you'd want in a cyborg eye: range finder, infrared/lowlight vision, and a hypno-ray are not discussed in the article.

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Artist Wants to Replace Lost Eyeball With Webcam

Comments Filter:
  • by smooth wombat (796938) on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:35PM (#25790235) Homepage Journal

    just let the Borg come to 0, 0, 1 and she'll have her replacement eye in no time.

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by Yvan256 (722131)

      I never understood why the borg had the Earth at coordinates 0,0,1. I mean, they didn't even know about humans before Q launched the Enterprise D into Borg space.

      Are we back to the dark ages? The Earth as the center of the Universe?

      • Much can be explained as artistic license, or perhaps convenience, in Star Trek canon. Sometimes the writers work to have the audience understand that the story is from the human's perspective, but in many other ways this perspective is simply implicit.

        If you must have an answer, consider that our current maps of the globe have no "center" because we understand it as a whole. Imagine the very first attempts at cartography where centered ideologically, with the unknowns at the fringe. This could also be s

      • by Eudial (590661)

        I never understood why the borg had the Earth at coordinates 0,0,1. I mean, they didn't even know about humans before Q launched the Enterprise D into Borg space.

        Are we back to the dark ages? The Earth as the center of the Universe?

        I have no idea what radix and endianness the Borg are using. In decimal, 0 0 1 could be 10^23 digits long.

      • by Khashishi (775369)
        Notice how much borg look like humans
      • by tzhuge (1031302)
        Isn't there some episode that suggests a human origin to the Borg? A Von Neumann probe or something?
      • I'd assume that the Borg, having already assimilated Federation ships and technology already, naturally used the Federation's own mapping coordinates system when dealing with them, and since Starfleet and the Federation originated on Earth, Sol system ended up being sector 0,0,1.
      • by Lars T. (470328)
        Errm, no the Borg where responsible for the destruction of several Federation outpost (near the Romulan Neutral Zone) before that incident.

        And while we are at it - did the Borg ever say anything about Sector 0,0,1 or was that just Starfleet personnel talking?

      • by ByOhTek (1181381)
        angle-angle-radian. Say the galaxy is of radius 2 or 3 (can't remember of exact position). One angle is for offset of the galactic plane (depending on the margin of error, we could be 0). The other is a vector is some direction (random chance could cause us to be on the '0' arc around the galaxy). Alternatively, it could be 'mission coordinates'. Set your target as the 0 point, such as 'the enemy's gate is down' in Ender's Game.
  • I would prefer a video port wired to the brain.
    Infinite resolution screen FTW!
    • My first thought was "Blair Witch" will have *nothing* on the nausea inspiring motion of a human eye when someone views this recorded video stream on a stationary screen...
      • by yincrash (854885)
        the new scifi reality show cha$e have people with glasses mounted cameras. it's pretty much a headache to watch it when they switch to that view.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Solution: Capture at twice the output resolution (eg, 1600x1200 for an 800x600 video), then correct jitter by moving the video window within the capture frame and using AI to determine whether something is jitter or intentional frame movement (eg. does the new direction return to near the old one within some time limit, is the camera focusing on an object I should be locking on to, does the new position of the capture frame force a static video frame outside of the capture frame, etc). Basically similar to

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      YES! A brand new prank avenue! Jab a flashdrive in your buddy's brain and he cannot escape the goatse [no link, for humanitarian reasons]. What has been seen can never be unseen!
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by hairyfeet (841228)
        Nah,you're thinking WAY too small there buddy! What you do is wait until they are asleep,and THEN plug in a flash drive,but not with the wussy Goatse,but with 2G1C on infinite loop! Imagine the horror of having THAT played over and over in your dreamscape!
  • by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:38PM (#25790275)
    Infrared and rangefinder is good, but I want the targeting crosshairs.
    • Just black out some pixels. Crosshairs==linear blindspots in a perpendicular orientation intersecting over the origin.
      • by Yvan256 (722131)

        Black out some pixels? For crying out loud, ever heard of an alpha channel?

    • Re:Obvious things (Score:5, Interesting)

      by corsec67 (627446) on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:55PM (#25790565) Homepage Journal

      Infrared and rangefinder is good

      I don't know if I would want an infrared seeing eye. The top layers of skin become almost transparent, so any veins near the skin become much more obvious, like in this picture [flickr.com] of a model wearing a swimsuit. The vein along the side of her stomach and on her legs are very obvious.

      On the plus side, some dyes are transparent in IR, along with some synthetic cloths, so what would normally be a dyed shirt [flickr.com] looks transparent [flickr.com]

      (Maybe linking to a few pictures of girls in bikini's is karma-whoring, but they really do illustrate the point I am making. I modified that IR camera for taking pictures of burning stuff [flickr.com], not making models look like zombies.)

    • what about xray vision? or 'undressing' on the fly post-processing?
    • I want the targeting crosshairs.

      Yeah, for the the laser death ray that no one has mentioned so far but we all really want...

    • by Jodka (520060)

      Infrared and rangefinder is good

      Infared eyes work better if you are cold blooded, like pit vipers. Otherwise, infrared emissions from warm tissue surrounding the detector swamp the signal

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One

  • by Loibisch (964797) on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:43PM (#25790359)

    ...as long as the world doesn't look like this. [icarusgames.net]

  • Webcam? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nasajin (967925) on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:45PM (#25790389)
    Who would want a web-cam for an eye anyway? I mean, seriously, it's about 1fps, shitty resolution, terrible image, etc.

    If I was paying for a new eye, I'd probably invest more than fifty bucks on it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Yvan256 (722131)

      You haven't used a webcam in a loooooooooong time, have you?

      They got them working at 15 fps now!

      • by randyest (589159)
        It hasn't been much more recent for you either, has it? 30fps (even at decent resolutions, like 1280x1024) is common. 60 fps is available, and you can even get 90 fps [philips.com]

        Sorry to spoil the joke, but it's time to come up with a new one, don't you think?
        • by Yvan256 (722131)

          Okay I guess I should've said "5 fps" for my original post, then.

          However, you can't push 30 fps at 1280x1024 via USB 2.0, it's got to be interpolated from 640x480 or something. Even your Philips link mentions interpolated several times, too.

          • by randyest (589159)
            You can do 30 fps at 1280x1024 with 8-bit or 10-bit color (480Mbps > 1280x1024x30x10) but of course lower resolutions are required for 32-bit color at 30/60/90fps.

            Why would "5 fps" have made more sense in your original post? Was it supposed to be a joke?
    • by mikael (484)

      A web-cam goes up to 320x240 at 15 frames/second. You can get Firewire cameras that do 640x480, and mobile phones that go up to 1024x768

      A mobile phone eyeball camera might just be the next thing ...

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:45PM (#25790401)

    Sorry, I just can't read this article without thinking about G'Kar and what he spies with his little eye.

  • by fiordhraoi (1097731) on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:47PM (#25790423)
    with this [slashdot.org] one, just for maximum creep out factor.

    "I wonder what's going on down the hall?"
    *Fwoomp*

  • Wireless? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:47PM (#25790439)
    FTA:
    "It is possible to build a wireless camera with the dimensions of the eyeball,"
    Want said the camera, which would be encased in Vlach's prosthesis to avoid moisture, could link wirelessly to a smart phone.
    The smart phone could send power to the camera wirelessly and relay the camera's video feed by cell phone network to another person,

    The effects of cellphone emissions are as yet unproven to be harmful or not harmful. But I'd think putting the rad source right next to your brain, without even the skull material as a blocker, would be a pretty bad idea.

    But, if she wants to be the guinea pig...go for it.
    Who knows...she may spontaneously sprout a 3rd eye.
    • by plague3106 (71849)

      Well.. the eye socket is already a hole in the brain. Any idea how much radiation your eyes actually block?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I have a prostheic eye (wood, not glass - don't ask).

      Needless to say, I had a difficult time dating. No girl would ever date me because of my wooden eye. There was one girl, who was OK looking, except she had larger than average ears. So I decided to ask her out. She didn't date much, so she was excited to go out. Even with me! Alas it was not to be.

      I asked her, "Would you like to go to the dance Friday night?" She retorts, "Would I! Would I!" Well enough was enough. I tell her, "Forget it! I don't go aroun

    • I'd think putting the rad source right next to your brain, without even the skull material as a blocker, would be a pretty bad idea.
      But, if she wants to be the guinea pig...go for it.

      I suspect my HMO would describe the rig as an unlicensed - untested - modification to the prosthesis, with all the risk of infection and other complications that implies - and they wouldn't want any part of it.

    • If I understand correctly, the transmission between the camera and the cell phone will not use the same technology as is used between the cell phone and its base station (i.e. gsm, umts etc). It may be a very low power system, especially if it needs to be powered over the air. A spread spectrum system or even FM would be very suitable as they allow to trade (frequency) band width for power. Obviously, taking up so much band width, you don't want to interfere with other wireless users, but this is unlikely a
    • The effects of cellphone emissions are as yet unproven to be harmful or not harmful. But I'd think putting the rad source right next to your brain

      Well, it's not as if her eye was directly beaming the video stream to the next cell-tower. (Anyway, you couldn't probably easily fit the necessary battery and anthena).
      Given that the picture is relayed by the smartphone, probably Bluetooth would be the best protocol (already has a protocol for transmitting video, handy for this situation).
      Given the short range involved a class 3 bluetooth (~1m range) is enough to transmit the feed from the eye-cam to the phone in the pocket.
      Class 3 bluetooth emits at 1mW po

  • Human hack (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ItsColdOverHere (928704) on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:48PM (#25790455)
    Imagine cracking the encryption (if any) in the wireless feed from the eye to the receiver. Instant Ghost in the Shell
    • by HexaByte (817350)
      Can I crack the encryption and get a raw feed of the video?

      If there's going to be a reality show, I want all the outtakes, like her in the shower! Okay, I don't really, but someone will. This is a bad idea!

      If you think Big Brother is bad now, wait until they can monitor your every move as seen by you, yourself! "You're under arrest for buying dope, we have the recordings. No you can't get off by turning states evidence against the dealer, we got him too, thanks to your eye-cam!"

    • by Yvan256 (722131)

      More like "spy on the shell's activities".

  • You just know this is going to end with some type of new p0rn.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:56PM (#25790573)

    she'll never be admitted into a movie-theatre again !!!

    "im sorry ma'am ... is that a recording device in your eye socket ? "

    BANNED !!!

  • Reminds of Rhona Mitra in Doomsday (hey, I expected more from the guy behind Dog Soldiers)

    Since the camera isn't connected to her brain, it's just a fancy pocket for a webcam. Just like Mitra, the only way she could use her eye-cam is to hold the video screen up to her good eye. Tell me what's wrong with that picture.

    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by jgtg32a (1173373)
      That's the second time I saw someone mention Dog Soldiers and imply that it wasn't bad. I saw most of it before, but it was late at night on the Sci-Fi channel, I was thinking this is bad but there is nothing else on and I'm to tired to go to bed.

      Should I give it another chance?
  • ...a Logitech Trackball instead?

    Sure, it'd be quite useless, but it'd still rock somehow. No?
  • by jdb2 (800046) *
    This brings a whole new meaning to Aughra's [youtube.com] "I'll get my eye [youtube.com] to you!"

    ( You have to be a Dark Crystal fan to get this one ;)

    jdb2
  • Suggestion (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The first couple of versions aren't going to work right or be what you want anyway.

    So make a couple breadboard versions first to try out different feature sets.

    When you have the features you like, make a portable book-size prototype and work the bugs out.

    And then worry about reducing the size to fit your cybernetic eyeball.

    Remember Moore's Law. Electronic's size, power requirements and cost go down over time (yeah, I know, that's not exactly Moore's Law, but that's the effect of Moore's Law).

    • And then worry about reducing the size to fit your cybernetic eyeball.

      Well since as far as I can tell, she's not intending to wire this webcam into her optic nerve (the technology to do this exists but is rather preliminary at this point), who cares? I say get the best eyeball-sized wireless webcam she can get today, and then in two years, get the new greatest eyeball-sized webcam, and so forth. Maybe by the time she feels she's done all she can with successive webcam upgrades, the synthetic eye technolog

  • I can't find an actual link to the blog, anyone?
  • by nategoose (1004564) on Monday November 17, 2008 @03:15PM (#25790933)
    She could have the camera transmit it's images to a screen positioned over her good eye so she could see what was going on.
  • by Eganicus (1374269) on Monday November 17, 2008 @03:16PM (#25790947)
  • goes to caltech and asks if any graduate students would be interested in building her a webcam eye

    she meets with a professor who is intrigued by the idea and says he will see if he can drum up any further interest. he asks where she lives in san francisco and remarks she lives in the same neighborhood as his daughter, and that he'll be visiting there soon

    the artist says "oh ok, i'll keep an eye out for you"

    badumpCHING

    thanks, i'm here all week

  • by rtgarden (1098795) on Monday November 17, 2008 @03:54PM (#25791513) Journal
    Tanya is my pal and we discussed this on facebook. Originally she asked about a webcam, however I pointed out to her that she may be able to regain vision properly if we can match her with the right scientist (who is that guy that helped people see with a chair?). She lost her eye in an auto accident returning from Burningman two years ago, and she would very much like her eye back please. She would also accept infrared, UV and any other type of alternative vision that could go along with this. She is the sort of artist who could genuinely take advantage of this technology, and I seriously hope that we can find someone to work with her.
    • Hmm, she should go big time.
      It was done years ago.
      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.09/vision.html [wired.com]

      Check that out. Wetware. Ya .. Rly!
    • She lost her eye in an auto accident returning from Burningman two years ago, and she would very much like her eye back please. She would also accept infrared, UV and any other type of alternative vision that could go along with this.

      We don't have nearly enough understanding of the visual systems of the brain for that to happen. The eye does a lot of processing on its own (edge detection, direction of movement, etc) before the signal ever reaches the brain. It doesn't just pump a bitmap down the optic
  • She'll never get laid again. Not ever.
  • Could be interesting if it had its own LED lightsource as well. Creepy and marginally effective. Bonus points if the light's on and she puts it in backwards... YUCK!
  • I'm reminded of the scene where, at a banquet full of notables, the artist/gadfly type turns over a goblet, pops his glass eye out, looks at it and says "Watch them", places it on the upturned goblet, and leaves.

    I'm half tempted to poke my own eye out just to be able to pull that off at parties.

  • ...it seems that Tanya has other artificial members on her...

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Working...