On 11/19/2014 5:50 PM, amdx wrote:> > On 11/19/2014 3:02 PM, rickman wrote: >> On 11/19/2014 11:51 AM, Don Y wrote: >>> On 11/19/2014 3:34 AM, Paul E Bennett wrote: >>>> Don Y wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sheesh! This has got to be one of the most *obvious* ideas... >>>>> >>>>> <https://www.enhancedvision.com/low-vision-product-line/pebble-hd-hand-held-portable-electronic-magnifier.html> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I picked up an older version of same, recently, and suspect it >>>>> won't be >>>>> far from my work table henceforth! Good to see simple applications of >>>>> technology -- even if it seems like overkill! >>>>> >>>>> (controls could use some more thought, but...) >>>> >>>> As I already use my mobile phone for such tasks (and it has also been >>>> useful >>>> for getting at the really awkwardly positioned labels on installed >>>> equipment) there is little incentive for me to purchase one. >>> >>> I wouldn't suggest *anyone* purchase one -- even if suffering from low >>> vision problems! Most assistive technology is *incredibly* overpriced; >>> $750 four-function calculators, $15,000 laptops; $5,000 power chairs; >>> etc. >>> >>> I've often wondered why the pricing -- a consequence of "subsidies"? >>> Or, a true reflection of the cost of doing business? (special needs >>> customers tend to need more hand-holding, more paperwork, etc.). >> >> Subsidies? Subsidies would make it cheaper, not more expensive. > > I need to think about that, ever since they started Obamacare > subsides, my insurance premium has gone up. > On the other hand, I'm paying $7,752 for my family's policy. > The subsidized Obamacare policy, very equivalent to my $7,752 policy > costs $13,800. > > Ok, my thinking is done, clearly subsidies make things more expensive. > > However the taxpayers want* to pay part for me, $7,440 so I only need > to pay $6,360 for the Obamacare policy. > I could save $1,392 this year if I bought the Obamacare policy. > I don't know how long that can last. > > * want-- bet you didn't know you wanted to subsidize me. > A fellow taxpayer earning a good living, putting 30 > to 40 thousand dollars into investments every year. > And you stupid Americans "want" to do that for me. > Consider yourselves Gruberized :-)You are a complete fruitcake... And your signature flag isn't right. -- Rick
D'uh... (low vision product)
Started by ●November 19, 2014
Reply by ●November 19, 20142014-11-19
Reply by ●November 19, 20142014-11-19
On 11/19/2014 2:30 PM, amdx wrote:> On 11/19/2014 2:11 PM, Don Y wrote: >> On 11/19/2014 12:31 PM, amdx wrote: > >>> I think you missed, it zooms. >> >> Not sure what you mean by that. The magnifying glass zooms but *after* >> the fact -- like taking a photo and *then* zooming in on portions of it. > > Oh, never mind. > It should be made to zoom with a lens. I thought that was the + and - > near the handle.The button (at least on my unit) cycles through three predefined magnification factors. The thinking being that you probably only *need* a few. It's not like you're thinking, "Gee, my glaucoma is such that I need a 4.297 magnification factor in order to see well. Next week, it may be 4.65!">> Cameras can zoom *while* framing the shot -- but, you need to see whats >> *in* the shot via viewfinder, etc. >> >>> I think it's cool, but I won't buy first generation. I'll wait until >>> it's under $100, maybe next year! >> >> It's already at least second generation (mine is an earlier model). >> I doubt it will *ever* be under $100 simply because of the market >> that it is targeting. > > It's less than, a camera phone with a handle. > Should be able to get the price down.There's no incentive to do so. Costs money to make a new mold for the plastic, reengineer the electronics, etc. All the while, you're probably spending $100 on each sale (marketing, sales staff, after sale support, etc.). <shrug>>> Pray you never need "specialized kit" -- the prices alone will give >> you a coronary > > Ya, I worked with some video equipment for visually impaired in the 70's > and saw other specialized equipment. I couldn't believe the prices then.Subsidies play a big roll. They effectively *inflate* the price. E.g., there is no incentive for "diabetic test strips" to be sold at lower margins -- insurers will pay $X so why not *charge* $X?? (You will note the glucometers keep getting revised to require folks to move on to "newer" strips -- like giving away toilet paper dispensers so you can sell YOUR toilet paper!) Like getting (car) window replaced: "Do you have glass insurance?" "Why?" "Well, I can't give you a price until I know" "Which is cheaper?" "If you *don't* have glass coverage... But, if you *do*, I can give you a three day trip to Cabo!"
Reply by ●November 19, 20142014-11-19
On 11/19/2014 6:14 PM, rickman wrote:> On 11/19/2014 5:50 PM, amdx wrote: >> >> On 11/19/2014 3:02 PM, rickman wrote: >>> On 11/19/2014 11:51 AM, Don Y wrote: >>>> On 11/19/2014 3:34 AM, Paul E Bennett wrote: >>>>> Don Y wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sheesh! This has got to be one of the most *obvious* ideas... >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.enhancedvision.com/low-vision-product-line/pebble-hd-hand-held-portable-electronic-magnifier.html> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I picked up an older version of same, recently, and suspect it >>>>>> won't be >>>>>> far from my work table henceforth! Good to see simple >>>>>> applications of >>>>>> technology -- even if it seems like overkill! >>>>>> >>>>>> (controls could use some more thought, but...) >>>>> >>>>> As I already use my mobile phone for such tasks (and it has also been >>>>> useful >>>>> for getting at the really awkwardly positioned labels on installed >>>>> equipment) there is little incentive for me to purchase one. >>>> >>>> I wouldn't suggest *anyone* purchase one -- even if suffering from low >>>> vision problems! Most assistive technology is *incredibly* overpriced; >>>> $750 four-function calculators, $15,000 laptops; $5,000 power chairs; >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> I've often wondered why the pricing -- a consequence of "subsidies"? >>>> Or, a true reflection of the cost of doing business? (special needs >>>> customers tend to need more hand-holding, more paperwork, etc.). >>> >>> Subsidies? Subsidies would make it cheaper, not more expensive. >> >> I need to think about that, ever since they started Obamacare >> subsides, my insurance premium has gone up. >> On the other hand, I'm paying $7,752 for my family's policy. >> The subsidized Obamacare policy, very equivalent to my $7,752 policy >> costs $13,800. >> >> Ok, my thinking is done, clearly subsidies make things more expensive. >> >> However the taxpayers want* to pay part for me, $7,440 so I only need >> to pay $6,360 for the Obamacare policy. >> I could save $1,392 this year if I bought the Obamacare policy. >> I don't know how long that can last. >> >> * want-- bet you didn't know you wanted to subsidize me. >> A fellow taxpayer earning a good living, putting 30 >> to 40 thousand dollars into investments every year. >> And you stupid Americans "want" to do that for me. >> Consider yourselves Gruberized :-) >> You are a complete fruitcake...What's your first clue? Please answer, I want to know what I said the you disagree with.> And your signature flag isn't right.Tell me what a signature flag is and I might fix it for you. Thanks, Mikek
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:51:06 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:>On 11/19/2014 3:34 AM, Paul E Bennett wrote: >> Don Y wrote: >> >>> >>> Sheesh! This has got to be one of the most *obvious* ideas... >>> >>> <https://www.enhancedvision.com/low-vision-product-line/pebble-hd-hand-held-portable-electronic-magnifier.html> >>> >>> I picked up an older version of same, recently, and suspect it won't be >>> far from my work table henceforth! Good to see simple applications of >>> technology -- even if it seems like overkill! >>> >>> (controls could use some more thought, but...) >> >> As I already use my mobile phone for such tasks (and it has also been useful >> for getting at the really awkwardly positioned labels on installed >> equipment) there is little incentive for me to purchase one. > >I wouldn't suggest *anyone* purchase one -- even if suffering from low >vision problems! Most assistive technology is *incredibly* overpriced; >$750 four-function calculators, $15,000 laptops; $5,000 power chairs; >etc. > >I've often wondered why the pricing -- a consequence of "subsidies"? >Or, a true reflection of the cost of doing business? (special needs >customers tend to need more hand-holding, more paperwork, etc.).Medicare paperwork and similar. Now even more bollixed up thanks to Obummercare.> >I also note many assistive tech companies change hands regularly. >Either cash cows *or* flailing businesses!Special case of both. ?-(
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On 19/11/2014 21:00, rickman wrote:> On 11/19/2014 6:14 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote: >> On a sunny day (Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:34:46 +0000) it happened Paul E >> Bennett >> <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> wrote in >> <cd3a26Feh5U2@mid.individual.net>: >> >>> Don Y wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Sheesh! This has got to be one of the most *obvious* ideas... >>>> >>>> <https://www.enhancedvision.com/low-vision-product-line/pebble-hd-hand-held-portable-electronic-magnifier.html> >>>> >>>> >>>> I picked up an older version of same, recently, and suspect it won't be >>>> far from my work table henceforth! Good to see simple applications of >>>> technology -- even if it seems like overkill! >>>> >>>> (controls could use some more thought, but...) >>> >>> As I already use my mobile phone for such tasks (and it has also been >>> useful >>> for getting at the really awkwardly positioned labels on installed >>> equipment) there is little incentive for me to purchase one.Why do PC manufacturers these days insist on putting product tags on the underside of laptops and in some cryptic size 0pt font? As netbooks become more common the labels have shrunk with them. I have better than normal vision and for some new kit I have to use a loupe to read them.>> >> It is false advertizing too, it calls itself HD, but the spec says: >> Resolution: 480 x 272 >> here you can only use the word HD if it is at least 1920x1080 or >> something. > > Even if it were HD at 1920x1080, the screen is only 4 inches (10 cm)! > Who can resolve 1920 pixels in a 4 inch screen?Certainly not someone in need of a low vision aid. Their typical acuity is something along the lines of being able to read letters that subtend an angle of 0.02 rad or worse so at normal viewing distance of say 20cm anything more than 1000 pixels is probably wasted. Heuristically zoom ratio of 1.6x is probably about optimal in spanning a range that is certain to include one setting that is easily legible in the smallest number of ranges. Powers of two is too brutal.>> My Canon camera can do all that and more for a fraction of those 600 >> dollars. >> >> My android can do it and translate the photographed labels. >> >> And google ebay for 'electronic magnifier' >> better prices... > > Yeah, someone is trying to pick some low hanging fruit. A product like > this is all about the marketing.And the cunning marketing men certainly know how to target the disabled. -- Regards, Martin Brown
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On 11/19/2014 8:33 PM, amdx wrote:> On 11/19/2014 6:14 PM, rickman wrote: >> On 11/19/2014 5:50 PM, amdx wrote: >>> >>> On 11/19/2014 3:02 PM, rickman wrote: >>>> On 11/19/2014 11:51 AM, Don Y wrote: >>>>> On 11/19/2014 3:34 AM, Paul E Bennett wrote: >>>>>> Don Y wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sheesh! This has got to be one of the most *obvious* ideas... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://www.enhancedvision.com/low-vision-product-line/pebble-hd-hand-held-portable-electronic-magnifier.html> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I picked up an older version of same, recently, and suspect it >>>>>>> won't be >>>>>>> far from my work table henceforth! Good to see simple >>>>>>> applications of >>>>>>> technology -- even if it seems like overkill! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (controls could use some more thought, but...) >>>>>> >>>>>> As I already use my mobile phone for such tasks (and it has also been >>>>>> useful >>>>>> for getting at the really awkwardly positioned labels on installed >>>>>> equipment) there is little incentive for me to purchase one. >>>>> >>>>> I wouldn't suggest *anyone* purchase one -- even if suffering from low >>>>> vision problems! Most assistive technology is *incredibly* >>>>> overpriced; >>>>> $750 four-function calculators, $15,000 laptops; $5,000 power chairs; >>>>> etc. >>>>> >>>>> I've often wondered why the pricing -- a consequence of "subsidies"? >>>>> Or, a true reflection of the cost of doing business? (special needs >>>>> customers tend to need more hand-holding, more paperwork, etc.). >>>> >>>> Subsidies? Subsidies would make it cheaper, not more expensive. >>> >>> I need to think about that, ever since they started Obamacare >>> subsides, my insurance premium has gone up. >>> On the other hand, I'm paying $7,752 for my family's policy. >>> The subsidized Obamacare policy, very equivalent to my $7,752 policy >>> costs $13,800. >>> >>> Ok, my thinking is done, clearly subsidies make things more expensive. >>> >>> However the taxpayers want* to pay part for me, $7,440 so I only need >>> to pay $6,360 for the Obamacare policy. >>> I could save $1,392 this year if I bought the Obamacare policy. >>> I don't know how long that can last. >>> >>> * want-- bet you didn't know you wanted to subsidize me. >>> A fellow taxpayer earning a good living, putting 30 >>> to 40 thousand dollars into investments every year. >>> And you stupid Americans "want" to do that for me. >>> Consider yourselves Gruberized :-) >> > > >> You are a complete fruitcake... > > What's your first clue? > Please answer, I want to know what I said the you disagree with. > >> And your signature flag isn't right. > > Tell me what a signature flag is and I might fix it for you. > > Thanks, MikekThis was at the end of the message I replied to... --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com Notice it is not treated as a signature by either my or your newsreader. Mine is below with a correct flag and will be treated as a signature. -- Rick
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On a sunny day (Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:11:22 -0700) it happened Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote in <m4ithl$4ei$1@speranza.aioe.org>:>On 11/19/2014 12:31 PM, amdx wrote: >>> A digital camera (to be used as a magnifying glass) tends to require the >>> user >>> to *view* the subject of interest (e.g., you can't just reach behind your >>> computer *under* your desk and take a snapshot to see which way the network >>> jack is oriented) to know that it is in focus and at the desired level of >>> magnification. Nor can most of them focus at half an inch (none of mine >>> can -- the optics just "hunt" forever!). >> >> I think you missed, it zooms. > >Not sure what you mean by that. The magnifying glass zooms but *after* >the fact -- like taking a photo and *then* zooming in on portions of it.My canon can zoom in optically, and then after that in the acquired 3072x2304 pixel picture you can pan and zoom again. On the viewfinder or on the PC. Just flash an object, and process the picture later. You are : clueless. And WTF does it have to do with sci.electronics.design
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On a sunny day (Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:00:59 -0600) it happened Frnak McKenney <frnak@far.from.the.madding.crowd.com> wrote in <eNGdnX4Sdd-WmPDJnZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>:>On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 02:19:48 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote: >> >> Sheesh! This has got to be one of the most *obvious* ideas... >> >><https://www.enhancedvision.com/low-vision-product-line/pebble-hd-hand-held-portable-electronic-magnifier.html> >> >> I picked up an older version of same, recently, and suspect it won't be >> far from my work table henceforth! Good to see simple applications of >> technology -- even if it seems like overkill! >> >> (controls could use some more thought, but...) > >Gee, Don, if all you wanted was a high-tech magnifier for under $200 (my >guess), how about a RaspberryPi with a camera, cellphone lens, and an LCD >panel: > > <http://www.raspberrypi-spy.co.uk/2014/11/how-to-create-a-raspberry-pi-video-capture-unit-part-1/> > <http://www.raspberrypi-spy.co.uk/2013/07/macro-photography-with-the-raspberry-pi-camera-module>/ > <http://www.raspberrypi-spy.co.uk/2013/06/cheap-interchangeable-lenses-for-the-raspberry-pi-camera-module/> > >When I saw this writeup my first thought was, "I wonder whether I could >use that approach to make a cheeeep Mantis-alike?"I have already tried that, with normal webcams, in stereo: http://panteltje.com/pub/defeating_the_mantis_1_img_1545.jpg http://panteltje.com/pub/defeating_the_mantis_2_stereo.gif http://panteltje.com/pub/defeating_the_mantis_pic_7.jpg I tried it with genlocked analog cameras too. I do not have the raspi hd camera, its way to expensive.
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On 19/11/2014 17:37, John Larkin wrote:> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 02:19:48 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote: > >> >> Sheesh! This has got to be one of the most *obvious* ideas... >> >> <https://www.enhancedvision.com/low-vision-product-line/pebble-hd-hand-held-portable-electronic-magnifier.html> >> >> I picked up an older version of same, recently, and suspect it won't be >> far from my work table henceforth! Good to see simple applications of >> technology -- even if it seems like overkill! >> >> (controls could use some more thought, but...) > > I have a nice little Edmund magnifier lens that I use to read > microscopic, zero-contrast laser markings on US8 packages and such. > Small. Reliable. Never needs batteries. > > I'm pretty nearsighted, but nobody can make out this stuff any more > without optical assistance. Our machine-vision machines (AOA, PnP) > have a hard time, too.I agree. TiO2 is a relatively cheap pigment you would think that they would use a bit more of it! Can't do much about the size on small smd parts but it is getting really annoying to find similarly 0pt tiny fonts used on macroscopic objects like disk drives and netbooks! -- Regards, Martin Brown
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On 19/11/2014 21:00, Frnak McKenney wrote:> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 02:19:48 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote: >> >> Sheesh! This has got to be one of the most *obvious* ideas... >> >> <https://www.enhancedvision.com/low-vision-product-line/pebble-hd-hand-held-portable-electronic-magnifier.html> >> >> I picked up an older version of same, recently, and suspect it won't be >> far from my work table henceforth! Good to see simple applications of >> technology -- even if it seems like overkill! >> >> (controls could use some more thought, but...) > > Gee, Don, if all you wanted was a high-tech magnifier for under $200 (my > guess), how about a RaspberryPi with a camera, cellphone lens, and an LCD > panel: > > <http://www.raspberrypi-spy.co.uk/2014/11/how-to-create-a-raspberry-pi-video-capture-unit-part-1/> > <http://www.raspberrypi-spy.co.uk/2013/07/macro-photography-with-the-raspberry-pi-camera-module>/ > <http://www.raspberrypi-spy.co.uk/2013/06/cheap-interchangeable-lenses-for-the-raspberry-pi-camera-module/> > > When I saw this writeup my first thought was, "I wonder whether I could > use that approach to make a cheeeep Mantis-alike?"Quite a few of the basic tablets that sell for �50 when new will do this even after they are broken as far as booting Android is concerned. Several apps exist that will do contrast enhancement. You can run the diagnostic tests from a hard reboot and engage the "test the forward facing video camera". Zoom rang is limited. -- Regards, Martin Brown
