# Patent: Eye-control focus in an EVF, this will appear in the Canon EOS R3



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 21, 2021)

> Canon News has uncovered a patent that shows how Canon plans to add eye control focus technology in the upcoming Canon EOS R3 EVF.
> From Japan Patent Application 2021-076832:
> … an object of the present invention is to propose an optimum arrangement of the EVF in the image pickup apparatus, which is provided with the EVF and can suppress the deterioration of the operability of the image pickup apparatus provided with the line-of-sight input function.
> Canon is using a small image sensor that is positioned on the side of the main display in the EVF and using a diving prism to direct light to this sensor. IR LEDs illuminate your eye for pupil...



Continue reading...


----------



## Mahk43 (May 21, 2021)

Interresting to see that they use the aspherical geometry of the cornea and it reflexion to deduce the alignement of the eye.
I think the IR led are the main inovation compared to the old EOS 3 mechanism. WIth the IR led they can illuminate more powerfully the eye without disturbing it, and then, maybe avoid false reflexions due to googles. It may works well with soft contact lens but not sure with old rigid ones


----------



## H. Jones (May 21, 2021)

Wouldn't this system also allow you to turn the viewfinder on and off with your pupils being detected by the viewfinder, instead of a simple proximity sensor?

That would be nice for limiting accidentally turning on the EVF when the camera is on your shoulder, etc.


----------



## juststeve (May 21, 2021)

Memory has it IR was used for eye control in film days.  I still have an EOS A2E around the house somehwhere which was the pinnacle of the tech at that time, the early '90s. There was also a lower priced Elan model which had the tech. Of course, memory had me initially remember the camera model as A5E.


----------



## PiezoSwitch (May 21, 2021)

juststeve said:


> Memory has it IR was used for eye control in film days. I still have an EOS A2E around the house somehwhere which was the pinnacle of the tech at that time, the early '90s. There was also a lower priced Elan model which had the tech. Of course, memory had me initially remember the camera model as A5E.


Hopefully it works better than it did on my old EOS3 which was a very capable camera but the eye control focus on it never really worked that well for me and I ended up trading it in for a 30D. Ironically I found the eye control focus was more realiable on my Elan 7E probably because there were far fewer focus points. I really enjoyed the Elan, it was nice and light.


----------



## slclick (May 21, 2021)

PiezoSwitch said:


> Hopefully it works better than it did on my old EOS3 which was a very capable camera but the eye control focus on it never really worked that well for me and I ended up trading it in for a 30D. Ironically I found the eye control focus was more realiable on my Elan 7E probably because there were far fewer focus points. I really enjoyed the Elan, it was nice and light.


I too had both and agree with your summation. The 3 was a far more robust and dependable camera yet I did not use the eye control due to it being unreliable but did on my Elan 7e. However the Elan had more mechanical issues and was nowhere as field worthy. To me, the EOS 3 was the precursor to the 5D line. Sturdy, dependable, sealed and ergonomically balanced.


----------



## macrunning (May 22, 2021)

Quite frankly I would rather they refine the eye/animal auto focus they already have in the R5. Not interested in all these bells and whistles they seem to be focused on.


----------



## Pixel (May 22, 2021)

Eye control AF will be the first feature I turn off.


----------



## degos (May 22, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Quite frankly I would rather they refine the eye/animal auto focus they already have in the R5. Not interested in all these bells and whistles they seem to be focused on.



Eye-controlled AF could well be more useful to a wider set of photographers than eye-identification AF. Many people shoot much more than just living creatures.

To me, for example, eye-ID AF is irrelevant for about 90% of shots. But being able to change the AF point quickly just by looking would benefit me in 100% of shots, as compared to having to take my thumb off the AF button to chug the AF point around with the control stick. _When does it reach the edge of the field ... oh crap it's wrapped around to the far edge now, push it back... can it go higher? No! Oh just take the shot... gah too late! _Quite often I just revert to central-point-and-recompose as it's faster than moving the focus point.


----------



## goldenhusky (May 22, 2021)

Isn't IR bad for eyes? Especially in this case it seems to be directly pointed at the photographer's eyes to detect where he/she is looking at?


----------



## goldenhusky (May 22, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Quite frankly I would rather they refine the eye/animal auto focus they already have in the R5. Not interested in all these bells and whistles they seem to be focused on.


I would say it really depends on how well it works. First time I heard of eye AF (obviously not from Canon), I thought it was a gimmick but quite frankly it is more useful as it becomes more reliable.


----------



## Peter Bergh (May 22, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> Isn't IR bad for eyes? Especially in this case it seems to be directly pointed at the photographer's eyes to detect where he/she is looking at?


IR radiation is heat radiation. Thus, it depends only on the intensity of the IR. Yes, your eyes will be damaged if you put a glowing piece of iron right in front of your eyes (criminals used, in some countries, to be blinded in this manner). I would be very surprised if the intensity of the IR in the eye-focus mechanism is high enough to damage your eyesight, even if you spend hours looking in an eye-focusing EVF.
(BTW, UV radiation is far more harmful to your eyes; that's why we wear sunglasses.)


----------



## goldenhusky (May 23, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> IR radiation is heat radiation. Thus, it depends only on the intensity of the IR. Yes, your eyes will be damaged if you put a glowing piece of iron right in front of your eyes (criminals used, in some countries, to be blinded in this manner). I would be very surprised if the intensity of the IR in the eye-focus mechanism is high enough to damage your eyesight, even if you spend hours looking in an eye-focusing EVF.
> (BTW, UV radiation is far more harmful to your eyes; that's why we wear sunglasses.)



Thank you!


----------



## hollybush (May 23, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> Isn't IR bad for eyes? Especially in this case it seems to be directly pointed at the photographer's eyes to detect where he/she is looking at?


As said above, like any light it depends on the intensity. The trouble with infrared is that, because we can't see it, the automatic system which closes the iris down doesn't work for it. Thats why it's considered dangerous despite the actual photons having less energy than visible light. (UV, which we also can't see, has more energy than visible light, which is why we hear so much about the risks.)

Do you trust Canon to build the electronics so some kind of failure doesn't result in a higher intensity than intended?

In my judgement, even a small risk is not justifiable for such an unnecessary function, especially since in my case it probably wouldn't work well anyway. So I would certainly turn it off, but given the decades of history of lousy firmware from Japanese camera makers, and the fact that the hardware could also fail on, I wouldn't trust it was actually off, and will never buy a camera with it.


----------



## GoldWing (May 23, 2021)

Worthless.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Worthless.


Thanks for your exhaustive and informative review. How long have you been working with the new eye controlled AF?


----------



## hollybush (May 23, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Really, this is about the strangest thought I've heard from a human in weeks. There are real things to worry about in this world, and you're busy worrying about _this? _


I'm not worrying about it, but simply writing the camera off as of no possible interest to me among the many possible cameras that might be. It may seem unfair, but people use seemingly minor things all the time to winnow selections down to a manageable number. It's the way the world works.

As for the rest of your post, you apparently did not read my description of the dangers of invisible light. To give another example: extended exposure to UV from walking around outside isn't good, but in contrast some of the sterilisation devices that emit concentrated UV out of proportion from what you'd find in sunlight are extremely dangerous.


----------



## slclick (May 23, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Worthless.


TLTR


----------



## mpmark (May 23, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Eye control AF will be the first feature I turn off.


Yup, Same for me.


----------



## dirtyvu (May 23, 2021)

hollybush said:


> As said above, like any light it depends on the intensity. The trouble with infrared is that, because we can't see it, the automatic system which closes the iris down doesn't work for it. Thats why it's considered dangerous despite the actual photons having less energy than visible light. (UV, which we also can't see, has more energy than visible light, which is why we hear so much about the risks.)
> 
> Do you trust Canon to build the electronics so some kind of failure doesn't result in a higher intensity than intended?
> 
> In my judgement, even a small risk is not justifiable for such an unnecessary function, especially since in my case it probably wouldn't work well anyway. So I would certainly turn it off, but given the decades of history of lousy firmware from Japanese camera makers, and the fact that the hardware could also fail on, I wouldn't trust it was actually off, and will never buy a camera with it.



Just so people know, IR means infra-red. which means it below the visible spectrum of light. which means it's lower energy than sunlight (longer wavelength, lower frequency, less energy). so if this scares you, you better stay indoors all the time and block out the windows and wear sunglasses 24/7. or better yet, never open your eyes to the dangerous visible light.


----------



## Ozarker (May 23, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Quite frankly I would rather they refine the eye/animal auto focus they already have in the R5. Not interested in all these bells and whistles they seem to be focused on.


While I love the bells and whistles of eye/animal eye auto focus, I'm happy that others are getting the bells and whistles they also want. I mean, eye detection for eye AF is a huge bell/whistle. So glad Canon is working on bells and whistles others also want.


----------



## dirtyvu (May 23, 2021)

hollybush said:


> I'm not worrying about it, but simply writing the camera off as of no possible interest to me among the many possible cameras that might be. It may seem unfair, but people use seemingly minor things all the time to winnow selections down to a manageable number. It's the way the world works.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, you apparently did not read my description of the dangers of invisible light. To give another example: extended exposure to UV from walking around outside isn't good, but in contrast some of the sterilisation devices that emit concentrated UV out of proportion from what you'd find in sunlight are extremely dangerous.


you really need to stop this line of thought because it's not correct.

IR is IR. if you change the energy level, it's no longer IR. it's like if you change blue, it's no longer blue but some other color. If you change either the wavelength or intensity or frequency, it's no longer IR. and IR is orders of magnitude less energy than UV so making an analogy to UV is false.

if you want to extend your pupil thought process, your pupils also don't close due to UV. but humans do not go walking around with their eyes never closing. we have a thing called eyelids. if you're worried you should never open your eyes period. visible daylight is far more dangerous than IR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2021)

hollybush said:


> The trouble with infrared is that, because we can't see it, the automatic system which closes the iris down doesn't work for it. Thats why it's considered dangerous despite the actual photons having less energy than visible light.


So _that’s_ why all my TV remotes have huge neon yellow warning labels on them. Oh, wait…they don’t.

No need to write off the R3, just get yourself some IR safety glasses. I have a few in the lab, for when the beamline of our 3.5 W Ti:sapphire IR laser is open. You know, something that can actually damage your retina (or light paper on fire, if that’s your thing).

Seriously, you can relax about low-power IR light on the eye. Medical/research/commercial eye movement tracking devices use IR to detect movement, have FDA approval, and have been used safely for years.

Or you can keep going with the FUD, you do you.


----------



## Del Paso (May 23, 2021)

AF eye-control: one more reason to buy the EOS R3.
Could be great for hand-held macro, easier to use than touch-control to define the focus area !
If it doesn't work perfectly, I'll just switch it off and keep enjoying a certainly great BIG camera.


----------



## Tremotino (May 24, 2021)

Seems to be quite little amount of rumors in the last weeks. Is the R3 so far away?
All the gear delayed? So much great gear has been rumored here... R5 high MP, R5 for video, R7, R3, all the great lenses...


----------



## hollybush (May 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So _that’s_ why all my TV remotes have huge neon yellow warning labels on them. Oh, wait…they don’t.
> 
> No need to write off the R3, just get yourself some IR safety glasses. I have a few in the lab, for when the beamline of our 3.5 W Ti:sapphire IR laser is open. You know, something that can actually damage your retina (or light paper on fire, if that’s your thing).
> 
> Seriously, you can relax about low-power IR light on the eye. Medical/research/commercial eye movement tracking devices use IR to detect movement, have FDA approval, and have been used safely for years.



Thank you for injecting some knowledgable sanity into this thread. I did think of the TV remote example, but of course it is not collimated the way the eye sensor presumably is (never mind your laser, which is also coherent). And Apple is also using it for their face/eye recognition on their latest phones.


----------



## hollybush (May 24, 2021)

dirtyvu said:


> IR is IR. if you change the energy level, it's no longer IR. it's like if you change blue, it's no longer blue but some other color. If you change either the wavelength or intensity or frequency, it's no longer IR.


All true, but you've forgotten about the *number* of photons. If you have more of them, you have more total energy. This is unlikely to be high enough to do damage with a camera, but the example given above by another poster of a red-hot piece of iron in front of the eye is another thing...


----------



## Joules (May 24, 2021)

I guess it is worth noting that you will be looking at a screen with bright control elements and likely also a bright scene on display when using the viewfinder anyway. So the pupil will not widen to crazy levels in the first place, so the usual risk from exposure to invisible light is already diminished.

Also worth noting is that Canon intends to sell this camera, and therefore has to go through a bunch of certification and legal steps to establish its safety for the consumer. If you don't trust those to properly protect you, you should probably closely examine all radiation emitting Consumer electronics you own.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2021)

hollybush said:


> Thank you for injecting some knowledgable sanity into this thread. I did think of the TV remote example, but of course it is not collimated the way the eye sensor presumably is (never mind your laser, which is also coherent). And Apple is also using it for their face/eye recognition on their latest phones.


Why do you presume the IR light is collimated? Although old trackers used on-axis, collimated light, modern eye trackers use off-axis, non-collimated light. The post mentions ‘several LEDs’ so I doubt the light is collimated.

The bottom line is that the eye-detecting AF system will not damage your eye.

You can choose to not buy the R3 because you falsely believe it will, just like people choose to not get vaccinated against COVID-19 because they falsely believe the vaccines contain nanotrackers or cause sterility or other such nonsense. At least your not buying the R3 won’t help prolong a pandemic.


----------



## Del Paso (May 24, 2021)

Since I got vaccinated, I just can't stop buying all kinds of Microsoft products, and have even started collecting Bill Gates pictures.
If I only knew why...
Murphy's law: "the sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant.The population keeps growing".


----------



## macrunning (May 24, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> While I love the bells and whistles of eye/animal eye auto focus, I'm happy that others are getting the bells and whistles they also want. I mean, eye detection for eye AF is a huge bell/whistle. So glad Canon is working on bells and whistles others also want.


Yup, not opposed to other enhancements that meet others needs. Just my R5 has not been the greatest at animal eye auto focus. I have spent the last few months refining technique based on what others have had to say from websites such as this and watching YouTube. I still have a 1 in 10 success shot! given what others claim it would seem something is wrong with my R5. It finally started freezing up using just the eye animal auto focus to track birds (hadn't even taken shots). It is now in VA getting looked at. So hopefully Canon get's it fixed and I can start enjoying a higher success rate on my shots like so many on here rave about.


----------



## Ozarker (May 24, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Yup, not opposed to other enhancements that meet others needs. Just my R5 has not been the greatest at animal eye auto focus. I have spent the last few months refining technique based on what others have had to say from websites such as this and watching YouTube. I still have a 1 in 10 success shot! given what others claim it would seem something is wrong with my R5. It finally started freezing up using just the eye animal auto focus to track birds (hadn't even taken shots). It is now in VA getting looked at. So hopefully Canon get's it fixed and I can start enjoying a higher success rate on my shots like so many on here rave about.


I sure do hope it gets fixed for you.


----------



## dirtyvu (May 24, 2021)

hollybush said:


> All true, but you've forgotten about the *number* of photons. If you have more of them, you have more total energy. This is unlikely to be high enough to do damage with a camera, but the example given above by another poster of a red-hot piece of iron in front of the eye is another thing...


you keep pushing a narrative even though you know you're wrong. he even gave you an out but you refuse to take it. 

he shifted the conversation by bringing up a LASER. if you can't tell the difference between a laser and an LED, I don't know what to say. I know you're trying really hard to sound smart by googling some articles but you are wrong about what this eye-controlled focus can do to the eye.


----------



## Ozarker (May 24, 2021)

hollybush said:


> All true, but you've forgotten about the *number* of photons. If you have more of them, you have more total energy. This is unlikely to be high enough to do damage with a camera, but the example given above by another poster of a red-hot piece of iron in front of the eye is another thing...


Dang! Walk outdoors. Your eyes are constantly bombarded with infrared and UV light... neither of which are laser. Just stop it. Not even closely related to WalMart laser price scanners or military weaponry. You have a bigger chance at carpel tunnel syndrome or a broken hip. Stop.


----------



## Ruined (May 25, 2021)

macrunning said:


> Quite frankly I would rather they refine the eye/animal auto focus they already have in the R5. Not interested in all these bells and whistles they seem to be focused on.


Seems like bells and whistles is what sells cameras these days


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 26, 2021)

PiezoSwitch said:


> Hopefully it works better than it did on my old EOS3 which was a very capable camera but the eye control focus on it never really worked that well for me and I ended up trading it in for a 30D. Ironically I found the eye control focus was more realiable on my Elan 7E probably because there were far fewer focus points. I really enjoyed the Elan, it was nice and light.


Have the same problem with my EOS 3 (still used), I guess it is a particular problem if a user wears glasses (like me).


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 26, 2021)

Ruined said:


> Seems like bells and whistles is what sells cameras these days


It is old tech marketing trick for guys, see EOS 3, Elans etc. of the 1990s. Male geeks love long spec lists and absurd feature packages, the quality of photography itself is less important.


----------



## Ruined (May 26, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> It is old tech marketing trick for guys, see EOS 3, Elans etc. of the 1990s. Male geeks love long spec lists and absurd feature packages, the quality of photography itself is less important.


I have seen some fantastic pictures taken with APS-C kit lenses


----------

