it’s certainly of interest to me :)

It is clearly cheaper and easier to project on one lens than on two. I imagine avoiding the complexities of eye tracking and convergent stereoscopy.

I wonder about “a discrepancy between where your eyes actually focus and where your brain thinks it has to focus.” I offered an example of projection for eye focus at two meters because of the tremendous depth-of-field of the eye… viewing objects further than reading and nearer than, say, 50 meters might very well be augmented by text projected as though at two meters. Further, the “toe-in” movement of both eyes to converge where “your brain thinks it needs to focus” might occur unchanged given monocular overlay, reducing or eliminating oculomotor disparity.

I am a novice, however, and hoping for insight shared by experts.

My background is in software engineering, visual media, and entrepreneurship and I am in the process of proposing a book on mobile AR on Android.

if this of general interest maybe I start a discussion on it soon?

@Brooker: more text and less questions marks would be helpful. I’m sure there will be glasses out before that date and I want and will use those. but it will only be a HUD: additional information, that are location-aware. but we will not have a full AR-impression, where we can’t tell the difference between CG and REAL.

Do you know the state of the practice in regard to projecting, on the inside of glasses, imagery that is mathematically transformed into the shape that it would have at the distance of the glasses from your eye, were the imaged object actually existing, say, two meters away?

That is… place a real object at two meters and look straight at it, wearing glasses. Now, raytrace from the object to the lens of the eye, and capture the traces at the surface of the glass in front of that eye. Remove the object, and project the captured image on the glass. Does that resolve this issue: “the projection plane (the screen) is not the actual focus plane of our eyes”?

Danke, Dave