> This implies to me that once they cleverly figure out how to embed this tech in something like a contact lens, it wouldn't have to "fill in the gaps" and would grant perfect vision in the full vision field.
Maybe. I have my doubts, though. The abstract to Zalevsky's paper (see my comment on this HN post) ends as follows:
> This is achieved by exploiting the capacity of the visual system for adaptation to contrast as well as its capability of creating a coherent continuous visual field out of discrete lines of sight.
So simply focusing light on the retina is apparently not the goal. Rather, it appears that the brain is being sent unusual signals, which it is nonetheless capable of interpreting. In other words, there isn't just optics going on here; there is also some interesting neurology.
Maybe. I have my doubts, though. The abstract to Zalevsky's paper (see my comment on this HN post) ends as follows:
> This is achieved by exploiting the capacity of the visual system for adaptation to contrast as well as its capability of creating a coherent continuous visual field out of discrete lines of sight.
So simply focusing light on the retina is apparently not the goal. Rather, it appears that the brain is being sent unusual signals, which it is nonetheless capable of interpreting. In other words, there isn't just optics going on here; there is also some interesting neurology.
> Wild.
Indeed.