On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:27:20 +0000, the renowned Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:>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!It's not printed anymore- it's laser etched, so the contrast sucks. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
D'uh... (low vision product)
Started by ●November 19, 2014
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On 11/20/2014 3:07 AM, rickman wrote:> 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, Mikek > > This 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. >Your flag and signature did not show up in your post. As to mine, I didn't put that in the post my antivirus protection did. If it is important to you I will see how I can prevent it from putting that in my email. Better yet, since I just learned what it is, it would be better if you find out how to stop Avast from putting a flag and signature in my emails. You also said "You are a complete fruitcake..." I ask, "What's your first clue?" And requested, " Please answer, I want to know what I said the you disagree with." What did I write that makes you think I am a complete fruit cake? Mikek
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:24:18 -0500, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:>On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:27:20 +0000, the renowned Martin Brown ><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>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! > >It's not printed anymore- it's laser etched, so the contrast sucks. > >One trick is to swipe it with a q-tip saturates with alcohol or acetone. As it evaporates, the laser marking will be more visible for some hundreds of milliseconds. Once you can see the top mark, you can try to determine what part it is, and maybe even locate pin 1. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
Hi, Don. On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:16:20 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:> On 11/19/2014 2:00 PM, 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: > > I wasn't "in the market". I have a steroscope, here, that I use for > close-up work. And, an inspection camera on a gooseneck (tied to my > PC) -- which I can also position at one of the eyepieces for the > stereoscope. > > This was headed for the trash (it's "mostly plastic") so I rescued it > and invested $5 in some NiMH cells.I need to start hanging around the same thrift stores you do. <grin!>> My first thought was to use it to view the backs of my workstations. > All are on the floor, under my work tables, with their back ends > pretty close to the wall -- so, almost impossible to *see* behind them > to see the connectors (moving them is problematic due to all the > cables mated to them -- many not having useful service loops). I > figure I could crawl under the table, point the "magnifier" at the > rear of the machine in question, snap a photo and then pull it out > to see what's there -- without having to worry about focusing, zooming > to get the required detail, etc.How about one of these to go with your wonderful gadget to cut down on the crawling? ( I'm starting to notice how hard those back corners can be to get to. ) <http://www.amazon.com/Durable-Extender-Grabber-Helping-Device/dp/B00I2US5VG> [...]>> When I saw this writeup my first thought was, "I wonder whether I could >> use that approach to make a cheeeep Mantis-alike?" >> >> ( "I'm thinking. ... I'm _thinking_!" -- Jack Benny ) > > Go for it! :>Thanks for the encouragement. <grin!> Frank -- We hold meetings to discuss problems that would never occur if we held fewer meetings. -- Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887 Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney aatt mindspring ddoott com
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
Hi Frank, On 11/20/2014 10:49 AM, Frnak McKenney wrote:> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:16:20 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote: >> On 11/19/2014 2:00 PM, 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: >> >> I wasn't "in the market". I have a steroscope, here, that I use for >> close-up work. And, an inspection camera on a gooseneck (tied to my >> PC) -- which I can also position at one of the eyepieces for the >> stereoscope. >> >> This was headed for the trash (it's "mostly plastic") so I rescued it >> and invested $5 in some NiMH cells. > > I need to start hanging around the same thrift stores you do. <grin!>There are several places that recycle/repurpose "used" electronics. Fix/clean it up and redeploy it in schools, disadvantaged areas, etc. It is alarming just how much stuff gets *discarded* on a daily basis! (one of the places I was affiliated with would process 3500 pounds of stuff daily, 6 days a week -- and that's just from folks who knew the place EXISTED!) If you can't find a new home/use for an item (too old, too broken, etc.) then you can always recycle it for its "content". The magnifier consists of: - a small QVGA display - a tiny PCB - a bunch of plastic The display (glass) isn't really recyclable, per se. The plastic isn't recyclable AT ALL (no one will pay you anything for "used plastic"). So, that leaves a little bit of electronics -- a one-ounce PCB?? So, it's recycle value is maybe 10c-25c?? AFTER you separate it from all that plastic???>> My first thought was to use it to view the backs of my workstations. >> All are on the floor, under my work tables, with their back ends >> pretty close to the wall -- so, almost impossible to *see* behind them >> to see the connectors (moving them is problematic due to all the >> cables mated to them -- many not having useful service loops). I >> figure I could crawl under the table, point the "magnifier" at the >> rear of the machine in question, snap a photo and then pull it out >> to see what's there -- without having to worry about focusing, zooming >> to get the required detail, etc. > > How about one of these to go with your wonderful gadget to cut down on > the crawling? ( I'm starting to notice how hard those back corners can be > to get to. ) > > <http://www.amazon.com/Durable-Extender-Grabber-Helping-Device/dp/B00I2US5VG>I've actually been looking for a MUCH LONGER version of something similar (with *softer* "hands") to pick oranges off the top of the trees. A ladder can get me up to the correct height. But, reaching *in* (ladder being out past the tree's drip-line) 5 or 8 feet is a recipe for broken bones! The space under my tables typically only has large things -- servers, workstations, etc. And a boatload of *cables*/cords! The bigger/heavier things need a fair bit of muscle to move around (so, the grabber wouldn't be of much help) and the cables/cords tend to require fine motor skills to mate/unmate. I've just learned to crawl around under there as needed. It's one reason why I like to "connect EVERYTHING" and then just cycle power to the items that I am actually interested in using, *now* (instead of plugging them in when/as needed).>>> When I saw this writeup my first thought was, "I wonder whether I could >>> use that approach to make a cheeeep Mantis-alike?" >>> >>> ( "I'm thinking. ... I'm _thinking_!" -- Jack Benny ) >> >> Go for it! :> > > Thanks for the encouragement. <grin!>At the very least, you will learn something -- and, perhaps, get a better understanding of the *actual* (technical) issues involved. I didn't realize the significance of using an "illuminator" with my stereoscope; "it's just a LIGHT, right?". Or, you may get distracted by some *other* idea that you stumble on while trying to "solve" that problem! And, come up with a good solution for something that was waiting for one! E.g., thinking of this "magnifier" as JUST an expensive magnifying glass indicates an ignorance of the issues it is trying to address. OTOH, actually looking at those particular issues, you realize how inadequate a "piece of curved glass" is for them! Likewise, you'd notice that the batteries aren't installed in the typical "head-to-toe" fashion (i.e., the + terminal alongside the - terminal of the adjacent battery) but, rather, both facing the same direction! (if you can't easily *see* what you are doing when you replace the batteries, "put them both in facing the same direction" is a lot easier than "one up, one down" -- even if it adds a few millipennies to the manufacturing cost!) [I.e., You *really* don't want to learn about these issues due to a personal *need*! Then, you'll be really annoyed with the lack of "solutions" -- esp "affordable" -- to these SIMPLE problems! :< ]
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On 11/20/2014 10:32 AM, rickman wrote:> On 11/20/2014 9:18 AM, amdx wrote: >> Ok, my thinking is done >>> 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. Ah, you don't follow context well. You, rickman said, "Subsidies? Subsidies would make it cheaper, not more expensive." I, Mikek, followed up comparing my health insurance policy to a subsidized Obamacare policy, the subsidized Obamacare policy it 78% more expensive than the unsubsidized policy. So, I didn't need to think anymore about what you said, "Subsidies would make it cheaper, not more expensive" because the evidence shows the subsidized policy is more expensive. Making you in this case wrong. But feel free to call me a fruitcake, but complete fruitcake, I don't think so. Mikek
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:16:13 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> Gave us:>On 11/19/2014 5:09 AM, Martin Brown wrote: >> On 19/11/2014 10:22, David Brown wrote: >>>> What does this do that most cell phones won't? >>> >>> More to the point, what does it do /usefully/ that a magnifying glass >>> won't do? > >A magnifying glass won't "discard chroma" on command. Try reading a silver >label on a field of yellow. > >A magnifying glass won't enhance contrast -- it just makes the images "bigger". > >A magnifying glass won't convert to false color (folks with vision problems >can often see yellow (text) on a field of black far better than black text on >a field of white, etc. > >A magnifying glass won't "take a snapshot". > >(most) magnifying glass won't "stand" in a fixed position while you work >*behind* it. E.g., have it "watch" while I solder a fine pitch SMT device... >or, dig a splinter out of a fingertip (cases where both hands are in use). > >A (generic) magnifying glass is usually ineffective sitting *on* the material >you want to magnify -- like a newspaper, magazine, etc. (my first use of >this was to read the *insanely* fine print -- on the order of *3* pt -- on >the package of NiMH cells that I purchased for it). > >[Folks with one "disability" are often prone to having *other* disabilities. >E.g., folks with macular degeneration are most likely to be older and, thus, >higher incidence of ET or PT. Ditto diabetic retinopathy.] > >(some) magnifying glass don't illuminate their subjects. Non (?) dynamically >vary that illumination to compensate for ambient light levels. > >The brightness of a magnifier's image isn't easily controlled (even with >subject illumination). > >Most magnifying glasses are "low power" and/or introduce distortions at >close range. > >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!). > >> Contrast enhancement and/or thresholding is a possible advantage of a computer >> aided magnifying app (although this one is seriously overpriced). This can help >> people with very limited vision. > >Yup. The point of my post was that this is a no-brainer idea. I.e., as soon >as cameras were available and small LCD's, *this* should have appeared. In >much the same way "electronic readers" (instead of those relying on optics) >should have exploited TV/monitor interfaces (why sell the user another >monitor AND A PLACE TO STORE IT when he's already got something similar?) > >> There are plenty of similarly overpriced low vision aid gadgets of various >> levels of usefulness. You have to count your fingers before and after when >> dealing with disability salesmen - they make double glazing salesmen look like >> saints. > >I'm not sure it is all "flim flam". See my comments elsewhere this thread. >I don't see many such companies publicly traded and selling at big multiples. >Rather, they all seem to be struggling to stay afloat. Small markets, high >per-sale cost, high support cost, etc. > >KCP was fortunate Xerox came in and rescued them. And note that Xerox didn't >see the future as "reading assistance" but, rather, document prep. > >> Check out the prices of wheelchair batteries for instance (and compare to the >> obvious unit that they have rebadged to sell for 4x the price). > >Yup. But the same is also true of UPS batteries. Even the $5 I paid for the >magnifying glass (the cost of the batteries to power it) was "outrageous" >(reflecting their presumed *value* and not *cost* + decent margin!)The biggest problem I saw (aside from the ridiculous price)is that they do NOT declare the pixel array size in the camera, other than a simple "HD", which is pretty low res by today's camera standards. Even the cheap ones are far better. Get a simple flex tripod and take a still macro, and get far more image resolution in the captured image. I buy cheap macro cameras and have one that allows a focus at half a cm from the primary lens face. The Megapixel count the imaging device has is VERY important. Two or three different spectrum LED lighting arrays would be good as well. I slightly chilled imager can do IR better than the room temp jobs too. The idea is nice, but a lab grade job would be better. A matte black walled light box between the target and imager. That should collapse like those old folding coffee cups allowing the operator to shorten the box height from the target. The box is what would sell. Then a lab could get whatever camera the spectral needs required, and the LED illumination too. BUT THAT POS is probably just that. a triple overpriced, lower resolution than you were expecting turd.
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:43:18 -0600, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> Gave us:> > But feel free to call me a fruitcake, but complete fruitcake, I don't >think so.I always thought there was something missing from your flavor profile.
Reply by ●November 20, 20142014-11-20
On 11/20/2014 3:13 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:43:18 -0600, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> Gave us: > >> >> But feel free to call me a fruitcake, but complete fruitcake, I don't >> think so. > > I always thought there was something missing from your flavor profile. >lol! Ya, when I wrote that I was trying to think of an obscure ingredient to refer to, but I'm not aficionado of fruitcake. Mike
