Page 1 of 1
do you think this is a bad idea?
Posted:
Sun May 15, 2005 8:03 pmby redline
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... 28617&rd=1
might make a interesting device for looking at pics on the on.
or a way to look silly and unable to see.
Posted:
Sun May 15, 2005 8:44 pmby sheepie
You too can look cool on the beach!!!
My concern would be what are you bombarding your eyes with so close? I guess LCD isn't too bad.
Looks dumb though!
lol
Posted:
Sun May 15, 2005 9:08 pmby Matt. K
If you could plug it into the D70 and see a six foot preview then it would be very useful. But for $51???? Not sure what that buys?
Posted:
Sun May 15, 2005 9:45 pmby Nnnnsic
Why would you be wearing a bikini and wearing that at the beach?
You know, as someone who is very interested in virtual reality technology, and always has been, this thing looks like an absolute heap of junk.
Go see
Mindflux for reference.
Posted:
Sun May 15, 2005 9:53 pmby Nnnnsic
Maybe
this article by The Age suggested something bad about it.
Undeterred, Jaz Media
seem to respond to it.
Posted:
Sun May 15, 2005 10:11 pmby nito
My first question to the seller is where do you strap the battery pack when using it on the beach. Its not clear where the
model hides the batt pack in the picture.
The other thing that is miss leading about it, is the fact that you have to find a power supply for the console to make it fully "portable".
Posted:
Sun May 15, 2005 10:14 pmby kipper
I'll take option #4 thanks for $100......VR device optional.
Posted:
Mon May 16, 2005 7:29 pmby Killakoala
I might get one of these for my drive to work.
Posted:
Tue May 17, 2005 9:17 amby owen
Wouldn't it be bad for your eyes to focus on something so close for so long?
Posted:
Tue May 17, 2005 10:35 amby MCWB
The Age wrote:Sophisticated VR technology is currently being used around the world in such diverse fields as space exploration, physiotherapy, medicine and dentistry.
I know I use 'sophisticated VR technology' in photography as well!
Posted:
Tue May 17, 2005 10:39 amby dhess
I wouldn't bother with it as resolution is crap.
I remember having a look at a similar sony product a few years ago that was about ten times more expensive and it was pretty useless.
Posted:
Tue May 17, 2005 10:56 amby Nnnnsic
Actually, dhess, the Sony Glasstron is a pretty decent piece of technology in both design and useability compared to something that looks as blatantly crap as this.
And by the way, resolutions on VR headsets have never been good. Look at a projector for similar resolution levels.
Owen, depending on a combination of a few elements, looking at the screen so close can be bad, but it tends to be different for every screen / headset. Some can feels as comfortable and not be in danger with your eye sight for well over an hour, where as some suggest to take headset use in for a max of 45 minutes before taking a break.
It is really dependant on the quality of the technology a company is using, and that is usually well reflected in the price.
Posted:
Tue May 17, 2005 11:12 amby dhess
Yep sony glasstron is pretty decent for watching video where resolution is of secondary importance. For looking at digital still images it just doesn't cut it.
Posted:
Tue May 17, 2005 11:23 amby Nnnnsic
Well, I'm not sure that anyone buying a VR headset to look at pictures with is entirely in their right mind.
For entertainment purposes, VR headsets are used in video games and movies... looking at a picture in a headset won't improve the picture.
It might irritate you seeing someone larger than life...