google glass-ish...

[Don Y]

I have a remarkable (or, so say my colleagues!) ability to find bugs
in products (often to their dismay).

Fortunately, I can usually recall what I was doing to trigger a
particular bug -- especially if this is in a device that is
\"new\" to me.

But, my colleagues all complain that they can cause failures -- yet
are rarely ever able to reproduce their actions leading to the
failure!

ISTR Google Glass had the ability to record video as well as having
a HUD. For my purpose, the HUD is useless. But, the eye-mounted
*camera*. This seems like it would be ideal (and unobrusive -- not
like a bulky gopro) for making a record of your actions that you
could later review (on a monitor, e.g.) to see what you had done
up to the point of the induced failure.

Ideally, something small that could clip on existing glasses (so
those of us bespectacled folks don\'t have to find alternate
accommodations).

As I think everything of interest would likely be in your immediate
field of view (i.e., not \"off to the side\"), a relatively narrow
field of view could be tolerated. And, stopped way down to give
maximum depth of field.

Could one of the little COTS \"spy (pinhole) cameras\" be used to such
results? Fashion a clip to secure it to an eyeglass frame and
a lightweight wiring harness off to a little \"recorder\" (body worn
or desktop)

What other issues might come up? (I\'d imagine the lighting requirements
of the small lens aperture would be easy to meet as its not likely that
you\'re going to be troubleshooting a prototype in the dark!)

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 24/04/2023 12:55, Don Y wrote:

<snip>

Ideally, something small that could clip on existing glasses (so
those of us bespectacled folks don\'t have to find alternate
accommodations).

Plenty of laptop internal webcams available for very little money,
They\'re usually (always?) 3.3V USB and 5 Mpixels is not unusual.
Generally on a thin PCB, one I have to hand is 8mm x 60mm. You could
pretend it was an electronic eyebrow, use two for stereoscopic recording.

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Don Y]

On 4/24/2023 5:32 AM, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 24/04/2023 12:55, Don Y wrote:

snip

Ideally, something small that could clip on existing glasses (so
those of us bespectacled folks don\'t have to find alternate
accommodations).

Plenty of laptop internal webcams available for very little money, They\'re
usually (always?) 3.3V USB and 5 Mpixels is not unusual. Generally on a thin
PCB, one I have to hand is 8mm x 60mm.  You could pretend it was an electronic
eyebrow, use two for stereoscopic recording.

I was thinking of something more along the line of:
<https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61wHRZpl3+S._AC_SL1500_.jpg>
mounted on a temple -- using the temple to support the cables as
they travel back towards the ear and eventually into a shirt pocket,
for example.

I hadn\'t considered audio important but, \"for free\" it likely wouldn\'t
be bad to capture it, as well. It would allow you to narrate your
activities, if nothing else.

[Of course the klunky connectors would have to go...]

 

[Carl]

On 4/24/23 07:55, Don Y wrote:

I have a remarkable (or, so say my colleagues!) ability to find bugs
in products (often to their dismay).

Fortunately, I can usually recall what I was doing to trigger a
particular bug -- especially if this is in a device that is
\"new\" to me.

But, my colleagues all complain that they can cause failures -- yet
are rarely ever able to reproduce their actions leading to the
failure!

ISTR Google Glass had the ability to record video as well as having
a HUD.  For my purpose, the HUD is useless.  But, the eye-mounted
*camera*.  This seems like it would be ideal (and unobrusive -- not
like a bulky gopro) for making a record of your actions that you
could later review (on a monitor, e.g.) to see what you had done
up to the point of the induced failure.

Ideally, something small that could clip on existing glasses (so
those of us bespectacled folks don\'t have to find alternate
accommodations).

As I think everything of interest would likely be in your immediate
field of view (i.e., not \"off to the side\"), a relatively narrow
field of view could be tolerated.  And, stopped way down to give
maximum depth of field.

Could one of the little COTS \"spy (pinhole) cameras\" be used to such
results?  Fashion a clip to secure it to an eyeglass frame and
a lightweight wiring harness off to a little \"recorder\" (body worn
or desktop)

What other issues might come up?  (I\'d imagine the lighting requirements
of the small lens aperture would be easy to meet as its not likely that
you\'re going to be troubleshooting a prototype in the dark!)

Maybe this would work for you, or give you some ideas:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072MPXRZ9 FreaknReviews had some not-good
things to say about it :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH57o7CXSaI&ab_channel=Freakin%27Reviews

--
Regards,
Carl

 

[Don Y]

On 4/24/2023 6:19 AM, Carl wrote:

Could one of the little COTS \"spy (pinhole) cameras\" be used to such
results?  Fashion a clip to secure it to an eyeglass frame and
a lightweight wiring harness off to a little \"recorder\" (body worn
or desktop)

What other issues might come up?  (I\'d imagine the lighting requirements
of the small lens aperture would be easy to meet as its not likely that
you\'re going to be troubleshooting a prototype in the dark!)

Maybe this would work for you, or give you some ideas:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072MPXRZ9  FreaknReviews had some not-good things to
say about it :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH57o7CXSaI&ab_channel=Freakin%27Reviews

Ooo! That\'s pretty close! The short videos are the real problem,
though. When \"tinkering\" with something, you don\'t often preplan
what you\'re going to do to fit each \"exercise\" in a 30 second shot.
E.g., you may get into a lengthy \"session\" with a device and only
stumble on a problem after investing considerable time.

Live video would also help you sort out any timing relationships
whereas your own memory may fail to see their significance.

[E.g., I just found a bug in our stove that manifests if
you are doing <something> while it is doing <somethingelse>.
If you let it finish <somethingelse> the problem isn\'t
apparent. Would you have noticed that relationship at
the time?]

Wired (to a recorder in a pocket) or wireless (to a phone in a pocket)
would remove the limitations (power and storage) from the eyepiece.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 04:55:31 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

I have a remarkable (or, so say my colleagues!) ability to find bugs
in products (often to their dismay).

Fortunately, I can usually recall what I was doing to trigger a
particular bug -- especially if this is in a device that is
\"new\" to me.

But, my colleagues all complain that they can cause failures -- yet
are rarely ever able to reproduce their actions leading to the
failure!

ISTR Google Glass had the ability to record video as well as having
a HUD. For my purpose, the HUD is useless. But, the eye-mounted
*camera*. This seems like it would be ideal (and unobrusive -- not
like a bulky gopro) for making a record of your actions that you
could later review (on a monitor, e.g.) to see what you had done
up to the point of the induced failure.

Ideally, something small that could clip on existing glasses (so
those of us bespectacled folks don\'t have to find alternate
accommodations).

As I think everything of interest would likely be in your immediate
field of view (i.e., not \"off to the side\"), a relatively narrow
field of view could be tolerated. And, stopped way down to give
maximum depth of field.

Could one of the little COTS \"spy (pinhole) cameras\" be used to such
results? Fashion a clip to secure it to an eyeglass frame and
a lightweight wiring harness off to a little \"recorder\" (body worn
or desktop)

What other issues might come up? (I\'d imagine the lighting requirements
of the small lens aperture would be easy to meet as its not likely that
you\'re going to be troubleshooting a prototype in the dark!)

I took some dramatic ski pictures and movies last week, and half of
them turned out to be screen shots (Samsung android phone.)

I couldn\'t find out how to make screen shots if I wanted them. Which I
don\'t.

Some day we will have tiny cams and microphones all over our clothes
and bodies and cars and record every second of our lives in all
directions. Well, some of us will.

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 4/24/2023 17:08, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 04:55:31 -0700, Don Y
blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

I have a remarkable (or, so say my colleagues!) ability to find bugs
in products (often to their dismay).

Fortunately, I can usually recall what I was doing to trigger a
particular bug -- especially if this is in a device that is
\"new\" to me.

But, my colleagues all complain that they can cause failures -- yet
are rarely ever able to reproduce their actions leading to the
failure!

ISTR Google Glass had the ability to record video as well as having
a HUD. For my purpose, the HUD is useless. But, the eye-mounted
*camera*. This seems like it would be ideal (and unobrusive -- not
like a bulky gopro) for making a record of your actions that you
could later review (on a monitor, e.g.) to see what you had done
up to the point of the induced failure.

Ideally, something small that could clip on existing glasses (so
those of us bespectacled folks don\'t have to find alternate
accommodations).

As I think everything of interest would likely be in your immediate
field of view (i.e., not \"off to the side\"), a relatively narrow
field of view could be tolerated. And, stopped way down to give
maximum depth of field.

Could one of the little COTS \"spy (pinhole) cameras\" be used to such
results? Fashion a clip to secure it to an eyeglass frame and
a lightweight wiring harness off to a little \"recorder\" (body worn
or desktop)

What other issues might come up? (I\'d imagine the lighting requirements
of the small lens aperture would be easy to meet as its not likely that
you\'re going to be troubleshooting a prototype in the dark!)

I took some dramatic ski pictures and movies last week, and half of
them turned out to be screen shots (Samsung android phone.)

I couldn\'t find out how to make screen shots if I wanted them. Which I
don\'t.

A couple of days ago I thought I was filming how a kitty waiting
for me on my usual path (I bring some food) was engaging with a
snake which was there - google lens said either viper or something
else, non-poisonous. Anyway, kitty (small, pregnant kitty) kept
on hitting the snake\'s head with a paw and bounced back when the
snake tried to bite. Kitty was fast enough.
And the stupid phone had not heard me pressing the \"record\" button,
it heard it when I pressed wanting to stop recording... so I got just
2-3 seconds with the disappointed kitty looking at the hole
where the snake hid.

And I *do* know how to take android screenshots (it is on the right
pulldown menu for me, a scissors hieroglyph; there used to be also
some button combination which I no longer remember).

Mind you, it would have been a nearly 5 minute video... I almost
never take videos so I did not look had enough to verify it had
started recording.

I was furious; I imagine Don once he gets his camera falling into
that sort of situation - with a record he might actually need...

Would the glasses survive that, Don? My phone survived, but
it was close.

 

[Don Y]

On 4/24/2023 7:56 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

I was furious; I imagine Don once he gets his camera falling into
that sort of situation - with a record he might actually need...

*I* haven\'t needed such a tool as my memory tends to be
pretty good; I\'m *thinking* about what I want to do/try.
But, others, I think, just kind-of screw around and
stumble on things -- then don\'t recall how they got there.

Would the glasses survive that, Don? My phone survived, but
it was close.

What\'s the alternative? If you have no chance of getting a record
of your actions then the fact that the \"camera\" didn\'t capture
it wouldn\'t be a \"loss\".

You\'d not be trying to capture some particular event but,
rather, capturing *everything* (and likely discarding imagery
that doesn\'t show anything \"interesting\")

I\'ve often seen things that I would have liked to capture a photo
of -- but, without a camera, it\'s not possible. So, would I
be disappointed if a camera that I happened to have on hand
didn\'t take a *good* photo?

A large water main broke about a mile up the road from here.
It was shooting a jet of water in a high arc crossing 4 lanes
of traffic *plus* a median strip! So, all four lanes of
traffic were passing under this \"water arch\".

I happened to have a cell phone handy and took the photo.
Several shots as I approached it and passed through it.

But, it was nowhere as visually impressive as the actual
event. So, it served as proof that the event had happened
but the image was a big yawn... (\"Yeah, I heard about it
on the news...\")

It\'s kind of like *going* to the Grand Canyon vs. trying to
capture the experience on film.

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 4/24/2023 19:08, Don Y wrote:

On 4/24/2023 7:56 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
I was furious; I imagine Don once he gets his camera falling into
that sort of situation - with a record he might actually need...

*I* haven\'t needed such a tool as my memory tends to be
pretty good; I\'m *thinking* about what I want to do/try.
But, others, I think, just kind-of screw around and
stumble on things -- then don\'t recall how they got there.

I know, I just hypothesized .

Would the glasses survive that, Don? My phone survived, but
it was close.

What\'s the alternative?

The alternative obviously would be some some shredded glass-cameara
because of being stamped upon . My phone was close to that the other
day with the snake video... Good thing I rely on it for some everyday
things and did not think I had the old one at home, still working...

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:08:57 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 4/24/2023 7:56 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
I was furious; I imagine Don once he gets his camera falling into
that sort of situation - with a record he might actually need...

*I* haven\'t needed such a tool as my memory tends to be
pretty good; I\'m *thinking* about what I want to do/try.
But, others, I think, just kind-of screw around and
stumble on things -- then don\'t recall how they got there.

Would the glasses survive that, Don? My phone survived, but
it was close.

What\'s the alternative? If you have no chance of getting a record
of your actions then the fact that the \"camera\" didn\'t capture
it wouldn\'t be a \"loss\".

You\'d not be trying to capture some particular event but,
rather, capturing *everything* (and likely discarding imagery
that doesn\'t show anything \"interesting\")

I\'ve often seen things that I would have liked to capture a photo
of -- but, without a camera, it\'s not possible. So, would I
be disappointed if a camera that I happened to have on hand
didn\'t take a *good* photo?

A large water main broke about a mile up the road from here.
It was shooting a jet of water in a high arc crossing 4 lanes
of traffic *plus* a median strip! So, all four lanes of
traffic were passing under this \"water arch\".

I happened to have a cell phone handy and took the photo.
Several shots as I approached it and passed through it.

But, it was nowhere as visually impressive as the actual
event. So, it served as proof that the event had happened
but the image was a big yawn... (\"Yeah, I heard about it
on the news...\")

It\'s kind of like *going* to the Grand Canyon vs. trying to
capture the experience on film.

Your brain is the best camera.

 

[Don Y]

On 4/24/2023 9:42 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

Would the glasses survive that, Don? My phone survived, but
it was close.

What\'s the alternative?

The alternative obviously would be some some shredded glass-cameara
because of being stamped upon . My phone was close to that the other
day with the snake video... Good thing I rely on it for some everyday
things and did not think I had the old one at home, still working...

Such a \"glass camera\" would likely not be \"surprising\"; you\'d turn it
on before tinkering (and could verify functionality as there\'s no
time critical activity involved). If the focus (depth of field) was
insufficient, then that might be a problem. Or, if not \"pointed\"
in the same direction as your gaze. But, again, you could test these
things with a live display.

I have no problem /RANTING/ about other folks\' bad design decisions!
(if they were *my* bad decisions, then I\'d FIX them!)

E.g., I have some \"reading glasses\" with LED lights on each temple.
The purpose being to illuminate items on which your attention (vision)
is focused. But, the front of the glasses is heavy because of the
light assemblies (and CR2032\'s that power them). So, unless your
head (gaze) is level, the glasses want to pull themselves off of
your face!

As a result, instead of having two hands free (no need to hold
a flashlight!), one hand is constantly pushing the glasses
back onto your face. This is really annoying. And, I can\'t see
an \"excuse\" as to why this sort of operation (head orientation)
would not have been anticipated and accommodated (e.g., with
cable temples).

[The better solution is a \"head lamp\" -- but, in close quarters,
even that has aiming issues]

OTOH, if I repurpose something in a way that might not have
been originally anticipated by the designer(s), then its
hard to assign blame to them -- for *my* misuse!

E.g., I have a device intended for \"low vision\" readers that
consists of an autofocus camera and a pair of eyeglass frames
that house a pair of LCD displays (one for each eye). So,
while wearing the glasses, your forward vision is completely
obstructed -- fed by the (live) camera imagery.

I\'ve repurposed these to gain access to the rear panels of
the various bits of kit located under my workbenches. E.g.,
if I want to figure out which video cable to unplug for
monitor #3, I need to be able to *see* the backside of
that workstation to identify the appropriate cable (marked
with a tag as well as can be deduced by the GPU to which
it is connected).

Can\'t move the kit (too heavy, cables too short, too many
other connections). Can\'t get my head in the 5\" gap between
the rear of the device and the wall.

But, I can thread an arm -- holding said camera -- in there
and aim it at the rear of the device to \"see\" what\'s there!

Neato!

However, your natural inclination to alter your gaze \"a little
to the left\" (etc) is to move your eyes or *head*. But, the
displays fill your field of vision AND move *with* your head
so your gaze remains unchanged. (this is REALLY hard to get
used to!)

When you finally manage to discipline yourself to move your HAND
instead of your HEAD, the motion of the camera as you try to
position it for the view of interest tends to cause headaches
(sort of \"motion sickness\") in short order!

Obviously, this isn\'t the designers\' fault; the camera is
intended to be rolled along a flat surface to sequentially
scan a printed page LYING there. (I contend this would still
be difficult to get used to). A better solution (for reading)
would probably be a larger field of view AND a display on
a monitor (there are such devices -- but, the display isn\'t
PORTABLE!).

[Of course, THAT approach wouldn\'t work in my repurposing
as I\'d have to be able to view the display while crammed
under the work table!]

So, learn to (ab)use the device as designed instead of
complaining that it doesn\'t address *my* needs \"properly\".