3 ms·

You mean like the pancake lenses in the Quest Pro? Those are still what I'd consider garbage tier old tech. Probably the best we are going to get down the path

You mean like the pancake lenses in the Quest Pro? Those are still what I'd consider garbage tier old tech. Probably the best we are going to get down the path of fixed focal point acrylic lenses, but definitely not what I'd call sharp edge to edge. The edges might qualify as "very soft" instead of "totally out of focus" but that's about the best you can say.

zmmmmm 3y ago
Quest Pro is probably the leading example yes. If you're calling that garbage, then I think you're (a) setting impossibly high standards and (b) out of sync with most people's perception, as most people perceive these has having "edge to edge clarity".
- themagician 3y ago
  Oddly enough, the reason I have so many VR headsets is because I mostly give demos to non-tech people. Quest Pro still gets the, "Pretty cool, but why is it so blurry," comments. Not as much as other headsets, but still enough that it will never fly for general use. Meta, to their credit, does a good job of masking the poor optics by keeping texture detail to a minimum in their own software and encouraging developers to do the same. I think people really into VR get so used to looking around with their head and having low expectations that they don't notice just how poor it is. By comparison it's good. In isolation, not so much.
  - zmmmmm 3y ago
    One of the perplexing things about Quest Pro is that Meta keeps the default UI rendering at the same scale for the Pro as for the Quest 2. The result is that all the home environments look blurry and poorly antialiased. It's hard to judge the lenses themselves properly actually without connecting it to PCVR mode and looking at some ultra high resolution content there. It really is very impressive when you do that.
    - themagician 3y ago
      It’s not. That’s the fanboy “Maybe you got a bad sample,” or “You’re just using it wrong,” angle. Every VR headset has one. Apple will no doubt adopt this strategy if their headset is garbage. I mean, they’ve done it before.
  - nvarsj 3y ago
    What do you mean by blurry? Like screen door effect? If it's actually blurry, likely the IPD is wrong or you haven't positioned the headset correctly. Although, I suppose it would be great for the lenses to auto position themselves based on pupil location.
    - themagician 3y ago
      Center sharpness is decent. I’d even call it “good”. The edges are very soft.
  - jimmySixDOF 3y ago
    It is easy to miss the forrest for the trees, which I think is what is happening if your users can't get into immersion because it's not instant Retina focus. Good enough does not need to be perfect once the experience kicks in and you are actively engaged in doing something you otherwise could not do in the real world. If I'm at the theater; yes, if asked, I might tell you the seat could be more comfortable this way or that way, but it should not matter so much once the show starts.
    - themagician 3y ago
      If 50% of the screen at the theater was out of focus it would probably give people headaches and they'd walk out. But with VR some people expect users to just "deal with it" and then wonder why VR isn't taking off.
- Schiendelman 3y ago
  "Setting impossibly high standards" in very particular areas is something Apple excels at. When Jobs first announced the iphone, engineers at other phone companies thought the smooth scrolling / touch responsiveness was impossible. They actually thought Apple was faking it.
  - zmmmmm 3y ago
    they are also extremely good at marketing it. The "retina" display was a great example of that. People argued about whether it was true and whether Apple was really the first, but it didn't matter in the end. I expect the same here.
- trefoiled 3y ago
  It’s interesting to dismiss this criticism as “impossibly high standards” when VR as a market is clearly a disaster. The person you replied to is of the same opinion as the vast majority of consumers, who have either not purchased a headset or did, but now leave it in a closet gathering dust. VR clearly will not be viable on a massive scale until it takes a major leap forward.
  - intrasight 3y ago
    When those major leaps occur, Apple should be well-positioned. Remember they play the long game. My office mate had Apple's first tablet 30 years ago - the Newton. And even further back - 40 years ago - Jobs said he didn't want the Mac to have a keyboard and mouse. He rightfully considered those to be a very artificial means of human-machine interface. His engineers made him understand that current tech didn't yet fulfill his dream. But that dream was eventually realized. Those major leaps will occur. Apple has the wherewithal the stay the course. I'll look at the first generation VR headset the way I looked at their first tablet 30 years ago. Or their first computer 40 years ago.
    - 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
      What dream was eventually realized? We still use kb and mouse
      - arc-in-space 3y ago
        I suppose he must mean touchscreens? Which are about as inhuman as it gets.
        intrasight 3y ago
        Yes and no. Certainly the market thinks it's the best option at the moment.But certainly it won't be the interface we use in 20 years.
- fouc 3y ago
  What if it only seems like impossibly high standards? Many companies might not be directly tackling that because they're prioritizing other problems too highly. It sometimes takes courage to challenge the status quo, to take the risk to establish a new standard. To identify and pursue the "right" standards.

zmmmmm 3y ago

Quest Pro is probably the leading example yes. If you're calling that garbage, then I think you're (a) setting impossibly high standards and (b) out of sync with most people's perception, as most people perceive these has having "edge to edge clarity".

themagician 3y ago
Oddly enough, the reason I have so many VR headsets is because I mostly give demos to non-tech people. Quest Pro still gets the, "Pretty cool, but why is it so blurry," comments. Not as much as other headsets, but still enough that it will never fly for general use. Meta, to their credit, does a good job of masking the poor optics by keeping texture detail to a minimum in their own software and encouraging developers to do the same. I think people really into VR get so used to looking around with their head and having low expectations that they don't notice just how poor it is. By comparison it's good. In isolation, not so much.
- zmmmmm 3y ago
  One of the perplexing things about Quest Pro is that Meta keeps the default UI rendering at the same scale for the Pro as for the Quest 2. The result is that all the home environments look blurry and poorly antialiased. It's hard to judge the lenses themselves properly actually without connecting it to PCVR mode and looking at some ultra high resolution content there. It really is very impressive when you do that.
  - themagician 3y ago
    It’s not. That’s the fanboy “Maybe you got a bad sample,” or “You’re just using it wrong,” angle. Every VR headset has one. Apple will no doubt adopt this strategy if their headset is garbage. I mean, they’ve done it before.
- nvarsj 3y ago
  What do you mean by blurry? Like screen door effect? If it's actually blurry, likely the IPD is wrong or you haven't positioned the headset correctly. Although, I suppose it would be great for the lenses to auto position themselves based on pupil location.
  - themagician 3y ago
    Center sharpness is decent. I’d even call it “good”. The edges are very soft.
- jimmySixDOF 3y ago
  It is easy to miss the forrest for the trees, which I think is what is happening if your users can't get into immersion because it's not instant Retina focus. Good enough does not need to be perfect once the experience kicks in and you are actively engaged in doing something you otherwise could not do in the real world. If I'm at the theater; yes, if asked, I might tell you the seat could be more comfortable this way or that way, but it should not matter so much once the show starts.
  - themagician 3y ago
    If 50% of the screen at the theater was out of focus it would probably give people headaches and they'd walk out. But with VR some people expect users to just "deal with it" and then wonder why VR isn't taking off.
Schiendelman 3y ago
"Setting impossibly high standards" in very particular areas is something Apple excels at. When Jobs first announced the iphone, engineers at other phone companies thought the smooth scrolling / touch responsiveness was impossible. They actually thought Apple was faking it.
- zmmmmm 3y ago
  they are also extremely good at marketing it. The "retina" display was a great example of that. People argued about whether it was true and whether Apple was really the first, but it didn't matter in the end. I expect the same here.
trefoiled 3y ago
It’s interesting to dismiss this criticism as “impossibly high standards” when VR as a market is clearly a disaster. The person you replied to is of the same opinion as the vast majority of consumers, who have either not purchased a headset or did, but now leave it in a closet gathering dust. VR clearly will not be viable on a massive scale until it takes a major leap forward.
- intrasight 3y ago
  When those major leaps occur, Apple should be well-positioned. Remember they play the long game. My office mate had Apple's first tablet 30 years ago - the Newton. And even further back - 40 years ago - Jobs said he didn't want the Mac to have a keyboard and mouse. He rightfully considered those to be a very artificial means of human-machine interface. His engineers made him understand that current tech didn't yet fulfill his dream. But that dream was eventually realized. Those major leaps will occur. Apple has the wherewithal the stay the course. I'll look at the first generation VR headset the way I looked at their first tablet 30 years ago. Or their first computer 40 years ago.
  - 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
    What dream was eventually realized? We still use kb and mouse
    - arc-in-space 3y ago
      I suppose he must mean touchscreens? Which are about as inhuman as it gets.
      - intrasight 3y ago
        Yes and no. Certainly the market thinks it's the best option at the moment.But certainly it won't be the interface we use in 20 years.
fouc 3y ago
What if it only seems like impossibly high standards? Many companies might not be directly tackling that because they're prioritizing other problems too highly. It sometimes takes courage to challenge the status quo, to take the risk to establish a new standard. To identify and pursue the "right" standards.