8 ms·

Yeah these have been around for almost a decade as cheap VR knockoffs for the unsuspecting, albeit I haven't seen the direct USB c output option before. Not unt

by kfarr 4y ago

Yeah these have been around for almost a decade as cheap VR knockoffs for the unsuspecting, albeit I haven't seen the direct USB c output option before. Not until you take it home and turn it on do you realize the resolution of 1080p strapped to your eyes is a pixelated mess and the lack of even basic 3DOF makes these things uncomfortable for most people.

Maursault 4y ago
> Not until you take it home and turn it on do you realize the resolution of 1080p strapped to your eyes is a pixelated mess Well, that sucks. Thanks for the clue to never purchase without a personal demonstration. I figured SD would be like that, but really hoped that 1080p would be satisfactory. But doesn't this depend on pixel density? If the displays approach the pixel density of displays of high end smartphones, I'd probably be satisfied with that. Even though those pixels can be seen (at 10x magnification), at high enough pixel density, pixels can be ignored when focusing on the video content. I used to sit really close to CRT televisions, which have huge pixels, so there is bound to be some improvement from the way it was in the dark ages.
- extrapickles 4y ago
  The Valve Index does 1440×1600 per eye and it probably needs to be at least double that before artifacts become hard to notice.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    I am starting to see resolution doesn't matter. According to the specs, Valve Index has a very low average pixel density of about 13-15ppi. Criminal. Compare that to the high end iPhone display's pixel density of 128ppi. So if we could have ocular displays around 100ppi @720p, that would look a lot better than that of Valve Index displays at its seemingly impressive 1440x1600.
    - rowanG077 4y ago
      Valve index has a PPI of 598. What I assume you are talking about is PPD, or Pixel per Degree. Iphone doesn't have a fixed PPD since the distance to your eyes is not fixed. An ocular 720p display at 100ppd would be be about an inch diagonally at 10cm from you eye balls. That's basically unuseable
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      Firstly a definition PPI: pixels in a single dimension / size in that dimension in inches. A nice high end phones screen is like 300 PPI a 20 year old laptop screen is around 100. A nice desktop monitor is 160-240. A calculator https://www.sven.de/dpi/ https://www.sven.de/dpi/ It's hard to discuss a monitor being 100ppi@720p because those 2 variables are related via a third variable size. A 720p screen would be 100dpi at about 14" and indeed that is a common size for crappy laptops. A tiny screen with that PPI strapped to your face would look like shit. For instance a 2" square screen would be 200px x 200px. Resolution matters a lot.
    - numpad0 4y ago
      A 20/20 or 1.0 visual acuity equals 1MOA(1/60deg). A 20/20 equivalent 360 degrees panorama image is has a size of 21600x10800px minimum. For a VR headset with 120x120 degrees H/VFOV(178deg diagonally), you need a 7200x7200px panel. 2 x 7200px x 7200px x 24bpp x 144Hz = 360Gbps, or worth 4x 100GE LAG’d, or one PCIe 4.0 x23 link, or one DDR5 channel. That’s a bit hard to put onto a face cheaply…
      - Gravityloss 4y ago
        Could be done with fiber. I wonder if fixed pipeline optical processing could be used to transform the signal straight to display.
      - robocat 4y ago
        Our retina only needs ~8 megapixels - the same number of pixels as 4K/UHD (3840x2160 is 8,294,400 pixels). High pixel density is only required at the middle of where our gaze is - the surrounding can be highly compressed because our eyes are not very sensitive. No pixels are required where our blind spot is, and our colour and light level sensitivities varies from fovea outwards, so there are other compression possibilities too. If the display can "move" with your eyes (high pixel density only for fovea e.g. contact lens) then the display also only needs a limited number of pixels. https://www.picturecorrect.com/what-is-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/ https://www.picturecorrect.com/what-is-the-resolution-of-the...
- trafficante 4y ago
  I’ve repeatedly tried to get into virtual dev work on my Quest 2 (1920x1832 per eye) but the screen density still isn’t there yet. Feels similar to trying to code on a classroom projector screen if that analogy makes any sense. Quest Pro is hitting in October (supposedly) with 2160x2160 per eye but I still don’t think that gets density to where it needs to be for doing desktop work. I think Apple has realized this, which is why every screen resolution leak I’ve read has it pegged at 4K per eye or more. But who knows when that thing will even get announced?
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Regarding the Apple headset, I'll only believe it's real when Apple officially announces it — it's been bouncing around the rumour mills as "6-12 months away" for at least half a decade, with whatever specs sounded good that year. (Also, I remember the initial rumours for the iPad; everyone I saw was saying it would run normal Mac OS X).
    - trafficante 4y ago
      Yep, that’s why I personally don’t think the recent news about Apple trademarking “Reality” names has any bearing on the device’s imminent release. That said, I do think we’re approaching an announcement since it was apparently demo’ed to the board earlier this year. I just want it to happen so I can get excited at a keynote only to go “holy moly, I’m not buying a first-gen Apple peripheral for $3000, Mister Tim Apple”.
  - ajconway 4y ago
    HP Reverb G2 has a 2160x2160 full-matrix LCD. I would say it comes very close to being usable as a virtual monitor, but the virtual screen still needs to be quite large. Extrapolating from this and older generation headsets, I would guess 4K per eye should be enough for a true office experience. On top of that, the headset itself must be comfortable to wear for sessions longer than 30 minutes. None of the current models are that comfortable.
    - overtonwhy 4y ago
- stavros 4y ago
  The difference is that VR headsets have 120 or so degrees of viewing angle, whereas this is much narrower. This will look as sharp as an HD TV, probably.

by kfarr 4y ago

Maursault 4y ago

> Not until you take it home and turn it on do you realize the resolution of 1080p strapped to your eyes is a pixelated mess Well, that sucks. Thanks for the clue to never purchase without a personal demonstration. I figured SD would be like that, but really hoped that 1080p would be satisfactory. But doesn't this depend on pixel density? If the displays approach the pixel density of displays of high end smartphones, I'd probably be satisfied with that. Even though those pixels can be seen (at 10x magnification), at high enough pixel density, pixels can be ignored when focusing on the video content. I used to sit really close to CRT televisions, which have huge pixels, so there is bound to be some improvement from the way it was in the dark ages.

extrapickles 4y ago
The Valve Index does 1440×1600 per eye and it probably needs to be at least double that before artifacts become hard to notice.
- Maursault 4y ago
  I am starting to see resolution doesn't matter. According to the specs, Valve Index has a very low average pixel density of about 13-15ppi. Criminal. Compare that to the high end iPhone display's pixel density of 128ppi. So if we could have ocular displays around 100ppi @720p, that would look a lot better than that of Valve Index displays at its seemingly impressive 1440x1600.
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    Valve index has a PPI of 598. What I assume you are talking about is PPD, or Pixel per Degree. Iphone doesn't have a fixed PPD since the distance to your eyes is not fixed. An ocular 720p display at 100ppd would be be about an inch diagonally at 10cm from you eye balls. That's basically unuseable
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    Firstly a definition PPI: pixels in a single dimension / size in that dimension in inches. A nice high end phones screen is like 300 PPI a 20 year old laptop screen is around 100. A nice desktop monitor is 160-240. A calculator https://www.sven.de/dpi/ https://www.sven.de/dpi/ It's hard to discuss a monitor being 100ppi@720p because those 2 variables are related via a third variable size. A 720p screen would be 100dpi at about 14" and indeed that is a common size for crappy laptops. A tiny screen with that PPI strapped to your face would look like shit. For instance a 2" square screen would be 200px x 200px. Resolution matters a lot.
  - numpad0 4y ago
    A 20/20 or 1.0 visual acuity equals 1MOA(1/60deg). A 20/20 equivalent 360 degrees panorama image is has a size of 21600x10800px minimum. For a VR headset with 120x120 degrees H/VFOV(178deg diagonally), you need a 7200x7200px panel. 2 x 7200px x 7200px x 24bpp x 144Hz = 360Gbps, or worth 4x 100GE LAG’d, or one PCIe 4.0 x23 link, or one DDR5 channel. That’s a bit hard to put onto a face cheaply…
    - Gravityloss 4y ago
      Could be done with fiber. I wonder if fixed pipeline optical processing could be used to transform the signal straight to display.
    - robocat 4y ago
      Our retina only needs ~8 megapixels - the same number of pixels as 4K/UHD (3840x2160 is 8,294,400 pixels). High pixel density is only required at the middle of where our gaze is - the surrounding can be highly compressed because our eyes are not very sensitive. No pixels are required where our blind spot is, and our colour and light level sensitivities varies from fovea outwards, so there are other compression possibilities too. If the display can "move" with your eyes (high pixel density only for fovea e.g. contact lens) then the display also only needs a limited number of pixels. https://www.picturecorrect.com/what-is-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/ https://www.picturecorrect.com/what-is-the-resolution-of-the...
trafficante 4y ago
I’ve repeatedly tried to get into virtual dev work on my Quest 2 (1920x1832 per eye) but the screen density still isn’t there yet. Feels similar to trying to code on a classroom projector screen if that analogy makes any sense. Quest Pro is hitting in October (supposedly) with 2160x2160 per eye but I still don’t think that gets density to where it needs to be for doing desktop work. I think Apple has realized this, which is why every screen resolution leak I’ve read has it pegged at 4K per eye or more. But who knows when that thing will even get announced?
- ben_w 4y ago
  Regarding the Apple headset, I'll only believe it's real when Apple officially announces it — it's been bouncing around the rumour mills as "6-12 months away" for at least half a decade, with whatever specs sounded good that year. (Also, I remember the initial rumours for the iPad; everyone I saw was saying it would run normal Mac OS X).
  - trafficante 4y ago
    Yep, that’s why I personally don’t think the recent news about Apple trademarking “Reality” names has any bearing on the device’s imminent release. That said, I do think we’re approaching an announcement since it was apparently demo’ed to the board earlier this year. I just want it to happen so I can get excited at a keynote only to go “holy moly, I’m not buying a first-gen Apple peripheral for $3000, Mister Tim Apple”.
- ajconway 4y ago
  HP Reverb G2 has a 2160x2160 full-matrix LCD. I would say it comes very close to being usable as a virtual monitor, but the virtual screen still needs to be quite large. Extrapolating from this and older generation headsets, I would guess 4K per eye should be enough for a true office experience. On top of that, the headset itself must be comfortable to wear for sessions longer than 30 minutes. None of the current models are that comfortable.
  - overtonwhy 4y ago
stavros 4y ago
The difference is that VR headsets have 120 or so degrees of viewing angle, whereas this is much narrower. This will look as sharp as an HD TV, probably.