"the Wrap 310 also features true 16x9 widescreen, twin high resolution displays"
HOW high resolution?
"428 x 240"
EDIT: apparently they're 640x480. it's still:
a bunch of horse shit.
i've mentioned it before, i've got prototype glasses by inviso (formerly siliscape) from 2001 running 800 x 600 that were set to retail for $250. in 2002. 1024x768 was a mere 6 months to a year of R&D away. you can guess why the money got pulled out. 2001. ahem. you can run Windows through them and not have any problems seeing what you're doing. colors are great, no flicker, great contrast.
so why? why, 8 years later, why the f*$% hasn't the technology been matched? what's the holdup?
"The Wrap 310 will feature twin high-resolution video displays, project a 55-inch screen and include removable noise isolating earphones."
Obviously it doesn't "project" anything and the display isn't "55-inch". I'm not sure why they can get away with saying that when what they mean is just that the display is equivalent in size or angular extent to a 55 inch display viewed at a distance of... what exactly? 55 inches at ten feet would not be very impressive.
@jdale: So say you are sitting on an airplane. Pull out these glasses and start watching a movie from your ipod whatever. The screen appears equivalent to a 55" screen from ten feet away. So its not impressive to get that experience sitting on a plane of all places? Now replace that with sitting in a car, or train, or where ever. Sure it may not seem that impressive if you are sitting at home, but for a personal viewing in places that it is not logical to have a 55" screen... its pretty damn impressive to me.
@Forsakenchild: My point is really that it is a meaningless measurement. If it feels better imagine I said 55" at 100 feet. Would you pay for that? No, it would be worthless. You'd be better off watching video on the tiny screen of your iPod Nano. But since they haven't specified a distance in their press release who knows?
55" at 10' is about 22 degrees of view. At 5' it would be 43 degrees of awesome, at 15' it would be 15 degrees of lame.
So, take a set of essentially $30 sunglasses, incorporate a $10 thumb drive, and slap a "designer" (*gag me*) name on it--then give it a 500% markup. Yeah, whoever among you falls for this deserves to be fleeced.
Oh, yeah, forgot to say that that ear piece is pretty butt ugly.
@bosskev: Wow, thanks for pointing that out. That earpiece is unforgivable. That reminds me, I need to thank whoever pointed out to me that Megan Fox has toe thumbs. THANK HIM WITH A KNIFE THAT IS.
09/15/09
HOW high resolution?
"428 x 240"
EDIT: apparently they're 640x480. it's still:
a bunch of horse shit.
i've mentioned it before, i've got prototype glasses by inviso (formerly siliscape) from 2001 running 800 x 600 that were set to retail for $250. in 2002. 1024x768 was a mere 6 months to a year of R&D away. you can guess why the money got pulled out. 2001. ahem. you can run Windows through them and not have any problems seeing what you're doing. colors are great, no flicker, great contrast.
so why? why, 8 years later, why the f*$% hasn't the technology been matched? what's the holdup?
09/15/09
Obviously it doesn't "project" anything and the display isn't "55-inch". I'm not sure why they can get away with saying that when what they mean is just that the display is equivalent in size or angular extent to a 55 inch display viewed at a distance of... what exactly? 55 inches at ten feet would not be very impressive.
09/15/09
09/15/09
55" at 10' is about 22 degrees of view. At 5' it would be 43 degrees of awesome, at 15' it would be 15 degrees of lame.
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
I'd be interested in something like this if they could get the resolution up to at least 720p, though.
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
07/11/09
Here is the Brando $99 version:
http://www.rainydaymagazine.com/RDM2006/RDMHomeAug2006.htm#Brando
Here is the Oakley $30 version:
http://www.rainydaymagazine.com/RDM2006/GearNGadgets/July2006/O_ROKR/RDMGG_O_ROKRFirstLook.htm
07/11/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/11/09
Designers make me laugh and sad at the same time...
...and, uh, wtf was LV thinking? Wait, don't tell me.
07/10/09
What does that sweet retro style combined with the "designer" price tag upgrade your douchebaggery to?
07/10/09
Oh, yeah, forgot to say that that ear piece is pretty butt ugly.
07/11/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
03/03/09
Mr. Garrison's gyroscoping wheel-thingie. I think this runs a close second, though.
03/03/09
03/03/09