Obviously the lenses make it seem like the virtual image is several feet away, so in terms of focusing it's no different from an actual object several feet away. If anything, it's probably healthier than a computer monitor that sits up closer. Plus, these glasses would actually be better than a VR headset in that the lenses can be designed so that the focal distance matches the virtual screen distance perfectly. (In VR, there's a mismatch for most distances.)
The only thing you might have to worry about is interpupillary distance (IPD) -- the space between the OLED displays needs to be adjustable to the space between your eyes. E.g. the Oculus Quest 2 has 3 settings for this, while the Quest 1 had a smooth adjustment. Adjustable IPD is essential, so I'd assume this either has it or they'll sell different versions for different IPD's?
I'd bet they're going to be overall better for your health. You'll be able to have a focal distance farther than a screen, without having to look up or down (causing eye and neck strain), while also choosing the healthiest posture for yourself.
On my camera, the viewfinder (the thing you use to look "through" the lens) is a screen. You can alter dioptry, which, AFAIK, is the equivalent of "moving the screen back". Essentially, you can have the screen visually as close or far as comfortable.
Odds are, these glasses have that built-in. And it's going to be a lot better for your eyesight than staring at a screen 50cm away from your face.
Can't possibly make the eyes in China any worse. But in all seriousness, if they cause you to be cross eyed like regular VR glasses, then it has the same negative impact on development of eyesight as normal VR/3D has.
Crossing your eyes to look at something is normal. What's weird is that it's all at one focus depth, so your individual eyes don't need to refocus on things that should be at different distances, even though you're still getting the depth signal from crossing your eyes.
"VR gets you cross eyes and impacts development" has never been substantiated, so far only the opposites were reported online. That means there are unknown side effects, but don't seem like there are serious harms.
Light brightness and spectrum are associated with retinal damage. Blue light from LED overexposure can certainly do harm and can also affect your sleep cycle and hormone balance. I would not bake my eyes with these things anytime soon.
All of this is totally untrue for a device like this.
The brightness is orders of magnitude less than daylight, there's zero retinal damage happening. They're not outputting UV so zero spectrum issues as well. There's also no "blue light overexposure", it's balanced.
Yes, cool color temperatures late at night can keep you up. Which is why 'night mode' exists, even the Oculus Quest 2 has it -- it's trivial to solve using software alone. But that's no different from staying up playing exciting video games or watching too much TV because of the cliffhanger at the end of each episode.
But nothing is "baking your eyes", sheesh. And using these for productivity during the daytime will affect your sleep and hormones precisely zero. Being outdoors on a sunny day, or even a cloudy day, is flooding your eyes with orders of magnitude more blue light than these dinky little screens.
You can’t possibly say it’s untrue because long term effects have not been studied for this device but it is a documented fact that screens aren’t good for us. Having it literally an inch from your retina cannot make it more benign.
Yes I can say it's untrue because it's simple physics.
You can literally measure the light spectrum from sunlight and from LED screens. Daytime sunlight is full of blue light, far more than from a screen. It's physically impossible for LED's to do some sort of damage that doesn't happen from regular walking around outdoors, because it's 100% known what they emit.
And an inch from your retina makes zero difference when the brightness is much less than daytime and the focal length is far. Because with lenses, as far as your eyes are concerned, the light is coming from far away.
You don't need to study long-term effects when the physics are 100% known here.
Again, blue light close to bedtime is the only thing that's different, and that's trivial to fix.
Whether it's true or not, I know for me personally I prefer a much darker screen to most other people. My monitor for example is currently on 0% brightness. I find bright monitors uncomfortable to look at.
Citation needed. The first wave of reports I saw suggested this, the second wave suggested the reverse (no damage, no hit to sleep duration or quality). What's the current consensus, if any?
