6 ms·

Bought an S7 on the cheap recently to see if its 2K screen (2560x1440, so possibly the same as this?) would be good enough to watch films on, was okay but nowhe

Bought an S7 on the cheap recently to see if its 2K screen (2560x1440, so possibly the same as this?) would be good enough to watch films on, was okay but nowhere near what I'd like. Unless that's severely misrepresentative, I'll be keeping away from deeper VR experiences until they're at a stronger level (please prove me wrong!)

Ancalagon 8y ago
I havent used any VR system, so take what Im about to say with a grain of salt, but Ive heard the actual VR headsets are much better in terms of immersiveness and quality than using phone headsets.
- drcode 8y ago
  This Oculus Go is very similar to a phone headset, since they aimed for a modest price point. It's a little better than the Samsung headsets, but only a modest improvement.
  - sayangel 8y ago
    Unless you've tried it, I think it's really unfair to say Go is a modest improvement. The optics for one are much better than even the rift - not to mention you don't get dust inside the headset to ruin the experience. Go also has a Snapdragon 821 for ONLY VR. The GearVR was sharing resources with a ton of other garbage background processes that Go doesn't need to worry about. And the thermal performance is also way better. Finally, you can get Oculus Go to run at 72Hz which is a way more comfortable experience than GearVR. So you get a lot more than your phone can give you for 25% of the cost.
    - drcode 8y ago
      I bought one this morning (heck, I actually bought two- got lucky at Best Buy) I agree it's better than the GearVR, but it still seems only modestly better to me- I agree the optics are definitely better. As you say, it's a good deal given the modest price point.
    - dave7 8y ago
      > Go also has a Snapdragon 821 for ONLY VR Sadly the Snapdragon is woefully underspecced in it's video decode capability - tops out at 4K which is less than ideal - 5K HEVC are already popular and a noticeable improvement for VR video.
      - ajsalminen 8y ago
        I don't think it's all that popular yet, most 360 content I see is 4K and anything better than that is fairly rare. I do agree it's needed but especially for mobile VR storage requirements are also an issue that keeps people from releasing at better quality.
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  They are, but that's not because of better resolution. 6-DOF tracking (tracking position, not just orientation) on the headset and controller makes a _huge_ difference. Not for 360-degree video (it's actually pretty much irrelevant for that) but for all the other applications of VR. (Games, 3D drawing and modeling, social experiences, etc.)
legitster 8y ago
The fun and immersiveness does not come from the screen quality, but from your ability to navigate and interact with a virtual space. If I could convince you that you are walking on the surface of Mars, you wouldn't complain that I gave you a smudged visor. Until the mobile experiences have a quality 6dof and motion controls, they have almost no appeal to me.
- JansjoFromIkea 8y ago
  To be clear, I was buying one primarily to see whether it would suffice as an alternative to a projector (hitting a nice balance between image quality and lack of eye strain) so I'm coming from a perspective of exclusively caring about resolution. I mightn't complain about a smudged visor on mars, but I absolutely would complain (and have complained) if a film was out of focus in a cinema to the point where reading the subtitles gave me a headache. As far as more immersive experience, I probably could afford to build a new computer and get a proper VR system rigged up but the cost involved vastly exceeds the level of appeal it has to me. The image quality is definitely at a level where it it probably already is pretty great, mind!
- zamalek 8y ago
  Luke from Linus Tech Tips indicated that 3dof "VR" might be damaging VR as a whole, as it gives people an unrealistically awful impression of what VR has to offer. This is in contrast to what I originally thought of Cardboard+co: low barrier of entry teasers. After repeatedly hearing that VR isn't special from people who have only used these low-end devices I've been forced to agree with Luke. These platforms should drop the VR moniker - they are 360 stereoscopic ten day wonders and little more.
  - ajsalminen 8y ago
    The assumption you make here is that they'd think otherwise if they had used a 6dof headset which doesn't really seem to ring true for me. There are lots of Rifts and Vives lying unused in people's homes and in general 6dof VR hasn't taken the world by storm either.
- sgarman 8y ago
driverdan 8y ago
Screen resolution isn't good enough yet for a passive experience like movies.

Ancalagon 8y ago

I havent used any VR system, so take what Im about to say with a grain of salt, but Ive heard the actual VR headsets are much better in terms of immersiveness and quality than using phone headsets.

drcode 8y ago
This Oculus Go is very similar to a phone headset, since they aimed for a modest price point. It's a little better than the Samsung headsets, but only a modest improvement.
- sayangel 8y ago
  Unless you've tried it, I think it's really unfair to say Go is a modest improvement. The optics for one are much better than even the rift - not to mention you don't get dust inside the headset to ruin the experience. Go also has a Snapdragon 821 for ONLY VR. The GearVR was sharing resources with a ton of other garbage background processes that Go doesn't need to worry about. And the thermal performance is also way better. Finally, you can get Oculus Go to run at 72Hz which is a way more comfortable experience than GearVR. So you get a lot more than your phone can give you for 25% of the cost.
  - drcode 8y ago
    I bought one this morning (heck, I actually bought two- got lucky at Best Buy) I agree it's better than the GearVR, but it still seems only modestly better to me- I agree the optics are definitely better. As you say, it's a good deal given the modest price point.
  - dave7 8y ago
    > Go also has a Snapdragon 821 for ONLY VR Sadly the Snapdragon is woefully underspecced in it's video decode capability - tops out at 4K which is less than ideal - 5K HEVC are already popular and a noticeable improvement for VR video.
    - ajsalminen 8y ago
      I don't think it's all that popular yet, most 360 content I see is 4K and anything better than that is fairly rare. I do agree it's needed but especially for mobile VR storage requirements are also an issue that keeps people from releasing at better quality.
Ajedi32 8y ago
They are, but that's not because of better resolution. 6-DOF tracking (tracking position, not just orientation) on the headset and controller makes a _huge_ difference. Not for 360-degree video (it's actually pretty much irrelevant for that) but for all the other applications of VR. (Games, 3D drawing and modeling, social experiences, etc.)

legitster 8y ago

The fun and immersiveness does not come from the screen quality, but from your ability to navigate and interact with a virtual space. If I could convince you that you are walking on the surface of Mars, you wouldn't complain that I gave you a smudged visor. Until the mobile experiences have a quality 6dof and motion controls, they have almost no appeal to me.

JansjoFromIkea 8y ago
To be clear, I was buying one primarily to see whether it would suffice as an alternative to a projector (hitting a nice balance between image quality and lack of eye strain) so I'm coming from a perspective of exclusively caring about resolution. I mightn't complain about a smudged visor on mars, but I absolutely would complain (and have complained) if a film was out of focus in a cinema to the point where reading the subtitles gave me a headache. As far as more immersive experience, I probably could afford to build a new computer and get a proper VR system rigged up but the cost involved vastly exceeds the level of appeal it has to me. The image quality is definitely at a level where it it probably already is pretty great, mind!
zamalek 8y ago
Luke from Linus Tech Tips indicated that 3dof "VR" might be damaging VR as a whole, as it gives people an unrealistically awful impression of what VR has to offer. This is in contrast to what I originally thought of Cardboard+co: low barrier of entry teasers. After repeatedly hearing that VR isn't special from people who have only used these low-end devices I've been forced to agree with Luke. These platforms should drop the VR moniker - they are 360 stereoscopic ten day wonders and little more.
- ajsalminen 8y ago
  The assumption you make here is that they'd think otherwise if they had used a 6dof headset which doesn't really seem to ring true for me. There are lots of Rifts and Vives lying unused in people's homes and in general 6dof VR hasn't taken the world by storm either.
sgarman 8y ago

driverdan 8y ago

Screen resolution isn't good enough yet for a passive experience like movies.