http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8lScHO2mM0
Google Glass
Google Glass (styled "GLΛSS") is a wearable computer with a head-mounted display (HMD) that is being developed by Google in the Project Glass research and development project,[9] with the mission of producing a mass-market ubiquitous computer.[1] Google Glass displays information in a smartphone-like hands-free format,[10] that can interact with the Internet via natural language voice commands.[11][12] While the frames do not currently have lenses fitted to them, Google is considering partnerships with sunglass retailers such as Ray-Ban or Warby Parker, and may also open retail stores to allow customers to try on the device.[1] The Explorer Edition cannot be used by people who wear prescription glasses, but Google has confirmed that Glass will eventually work with frames and lenses that match the wearer's prescription; the glasses will be modular and therefore possibly attachable to normal prescription glasses.[13]
Steve Mann
Digital Eye Glass
Eye Tap
An EyeTap[1][2][3] is a device that is worn in front of the eye that acts as a camera to record the scene available to the eye as well as a display to superimpose a computer-generated imagery on the original scene available to the eye.[3][4] This structure allows the user's eye to operate as both a monitor and a camera as the EyeTap intakes the world around it and augments the image the user sees allowing it to overlay computer-generated data over top of the normal world the user would perceive. The EyeTap is a hard technology to categorize under the three main headers for wearable computing(constancy, augmentation, mediation) for while it is in theory a constancy technology in nature it also has the ability to augment and mediate the reality the user perceives.
In order to capture what the eye is seeing as accurately as possible, an EyeTap uses a beam splitter[5] to send the same scene (with reduced intensity) to both the eye and a camera. The camera then digitizes the reflected image of the scene and sends it to a computer. The computer processes the image and then sends it to a projector. The projector sends the image to the other side of the beam splitter so that this computer-generated image is reflected into the eye to be superimposed on the original scene. Stereo EyeTaps modify light passing through both eyes, but many research prototypes (mainly for reasons of ease of construction) only tap one eye.
EyeTap is also the name of an organization founded by inventor Steve Mann[6][7][8][9] to develop and promote EyeTap-related technologies such aswearable computers.[4][10]
Mann has been described as the "father of wearable computing".[23][24][25] In 1961 Edward O. Thorp (with Claude Shannon) built a microprocessor timing circuit into a shoe, for covertly cheating at roulette, and referred to himself as inventor of the wearable computer.[26] However, there has been some debate as to whether or not Thorp's covert timing device is a wearable computer in the modern sense of "computer" as a general-purpose device.[27]
Mann has also been described as "the world's first cyborg" in Canadian popular press such as NOW, The Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Life but has himself rejected the term "cyborg" as being too vague.[28] Mann has been described as the founder of the field of wearable computing based on his early work in personal imaging, although there is controversy surrounding the exact definition of wearable computing, and whether any one person can be considered to have invented it. For example, a wearable camera was described by Vannevar Bush in his essay "As We May Think" in the Atlantic Monthly in July 1945, though he never built any working prototypes of such a device. Mann has also been described as "the father of AR", in association with his early computer vision systems that helped people see better (e.g. while welding, or in other high-dynamic range situations, with dynamic range management, overlays, and augmentation as well as diminishment in both the additive and subtractive sense).[29]
Vinepeek
“Posts on Vine are about abbreviation—the shortened form of something larger. They’re little windows into the people, settings, ideas and objects that make up your life.”
A Vine is a filmic phrase.
...because of its short duration ... all Vines loop endlessly
Six seconds is not much time to catch a movie. But it only takes six seconds to watch the entirety of a Vine, a post from the quick-capture video service of the same name that Twitter premièred in January. Vine is, in a sense, the simplest and most portable film-production and distribution tool in the world, with a correspondingly short payoff. Its popularity—within a couple of months, it was the most-downloaded free app in the App Store—is as inevitable as its potential for elevation to something beyond the obvious impulse of self-documentary. This week, the Tribeca Film Festival is incorporating Vine into its program by holding a competition for the best six-second films. Robert De Niro, one of the festival’s founders,said of the app recently, “You can tell a whole story in six seconds.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/the-six-second-film-grows-up.html
Vine is the “micro-version” of film, she explained at her office one afternoon. “It has all the aspects of filmmaking, but a different order.” Terranova said of the judging, “It’s the same criteria we look at when we look at a movie: strong voice, good story, creativity.” Her staff watched every entry and selected forty top contenders for the judges to consider. The finalists have been announced on Tribeca’s Web site, and the winners will be named next Friday. The pre-jury screening is standard practice, but there is a difference in this case: “Everything’s online. It puts more scrutiny on what we’re doing”— she pointed her finger, imagining a critic—“ ‘How’d you miss that?’ ”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/the-six-second-film-grows-up.html
Vine is the “micro-version” of film, she explained at her office one afternoon. “It has all the aspects of filmmaking, but a different order.” Terranova said of the judging, “It’s the same criteria we look at when we look at a movie: strong voice, good story, creativity.” Her staff watched every entry and selected forty top contenders for the judges to consider. The finalists have been announced on Tribeca’s Web site, and the winners will be named next Friday. The pre-jury screening is standard practice, but there is a difference in this case: “Everything’s online. It puts more scrutiny on what we’re doing”— she pointed her finger, imagining a critic—“ ‘How’d you miss that?’ ”
No comments:
Post a Comment