5 ms·

It's really just math. You can't simulate a 3840 x 2160 screen with a 1920 x 1920 headset. So until the headsets get more resolution than monitors the monitor

by treis 3y ago

It's really just math. You can't simulate a 3840 x 2160 screen with a 1920 x 1920 headset. So until the headsets get more resolution than monitors the monitors will look better. Especially for text.

dharmab 3y ago
Is it _trying_ to simulate a 4k display? Or is it trying to provide something different- a large panorama of 1920x1920 windows?
- Tagbert 3y ago
  Neither really. The VP uses a pair of 4K displays to render a high dpi section where it sense your eyes focusing. This is out of a much wider virtual display space (potentially 360deg). As your eyes and head move it shifts the image through that high resolution area. the space outside that area is rendered in a lower resolution to match your peripheral vision. This technique is called foveated rendering. People who have tried the demos say that it is a seamless experience. Moving your eyes and head around, you see things rendered at a 4K resolution but it appears that the space around you is unbounded.
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    This is wrong. The eye tracking is only to reduce the computational demands, it doesn't change the DPI of the screen *at all". It's purely an optimization trick. I don't know why people keep repeating this myth. It's just not how it works. It's not moving around pixels in the physical display.
gcanyon 3y ago
You don't look at all of a 3840x2160 screen, with a need for pixel-precision all over it. Doing a test right now, I'm focusing on the 13-inch computer screen where I'm typing this and holding up a large container of cashews directly to the right of the display. It's literally less than 30 degrees to the right of my focus, and the word "cashews" is in half-inch-high letters, and I can't remotely read the word without moving my eyes over to it.
- mcphage 3y ago
  > I can't remotely read the word without moving my eyes over to it Plus the portion of your eye that sees in high resolution is ridiculously small—1% of your field of view. And your eye and brain just hide that fact by making your eye constantly jitter to see a larger area.
  - saltcured 3y ago
    But, they aren't doing fovea tracking and shifting the display around in response to eye movements, are they? If not, you would only get more screen space if you articulate your neck and cause the head-tracking to update your viewing perspective. I've monitored how I use 4K screens in the 28" size range. I would not normally move my head at all to look at different parts of the screen. I would only move my eyes. With two such screens side-by-side, I would turn my head just a little bit to focus on one screen or the other. Or, I found I would often hold one head position that is neutral between the two, and then use approximately 2/3 of each screen, with the far outer edges neglected or used to banish less relevant communications and status apps that I only check once in a while. And, these screens are not filling my field of view by any means. So, I'd really need a far higher resolution headset if it is going to give me a good immersive field of view and be a reasonable monitor-replacement. I fear that fovea-tracking will remain scifi dreams in my lifetime, so the reality is we need to render full resolution throughout the field of view to be prepared for where the eye gaze might go in the next frame.
    - jakemoshenko 3y ago
      > I fear that fovea-tracking will remain scifi dreams in my lifetime, so the reality is we need to render full resolution throughout the field of view to be prepared for where the eye gaze might go in the next frame. This is not at all true. All of the AVP, the Quest Pro, and the PSVR2 do eye tracking based foveated rending. They lower the clarity of the things you're not looking at. And reviewers say it works perfectly, like magic. They are unable to "catch" the screen adjusting for what they're looking at.
      - 3y ago
nerdjon 3y ago
I am pretty sure the Vision pro's resolution is higher than 1920x1920? Could be wrong through. Regardless, the question isn't if it's better or the same. The question is if its viable considering the author is saying the idea is "Ridiculous"
- treis 3y ago
  I haven't seen official numbers. My point is that it needs higher resolution than a monitor to match the experience.
  - cududa 3y ago
    3840 x 2160 resolution per eye. 23 million pixels per eye, or, nearly 3x the pixels of a 4k TV with the equivalent resolution. That's roughly 3 physical sub-pixels per 1x1 "virtual pixel"
    - MikusR 3y ago
      The Vision Pro has 23 million pixels total, or 11.5 million per eye, or 3,391 x 3,391 if square
    - Macha 3y ago
      > 3840 x 2160 resolution per eye. 23 million pixels per eye, or, nearly 3x the pixels of a 4k TV with the equivalent resolution So a 4k TV is 3840x2160. The equivalent resolution is... 3840x2160. The number of pixels in 3840x2160 is 1x the number of pixels in 3840x2160, not 3x.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- layer8 3y ago
  Yes it’s higher. From what we know (11.5 megapixels per eye), the width roughly corresponds to a 4K resolution. However, due to the 3D resampling, I would estimate that to simulate a virtual monitor of a given resolution in high quality, you need at least 3-4 times the resolution on the physical headset display. Which would mean that the AVP couldn’t simulate even just an FHD virtual monitor in high quality.

by treis 3y ago

It's really just math. You can't simulate a 3840 x 2160 screen with a 1920 x 1920 headset. So until the headsets get more resolution than monitors the monitors will look better. Especially for text.

dharmab 3y ago

Is it _trying_ to simulate a 4k display? Or is it trying to provide something different- a large panorama of 1920x1920 windows?

Tagbert 3y ago
Neither really. The VP uses a pair of 4K displays to render a high dpi section where it sense your eyes focusing. This is out of a much wider virtual display space (potentially 360deg). As your eyes and head move it shifts the image through that high resolution area. the space outside that area is rendered in a lower resolution to match your peripheral vision. This technique is called foveated rendering. People who have tried the demos say that it is a seamless experience. Moving your eyes and head around, you see things rendered at a 4K resolution but it appears that the space around you is unbounded.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  This is wrong. The eye tracking is only to reduce the computational demands, it doesn't change the DPI of the screen *at all". It's purely an optimization trick. I don't know why people keep repeating this myth. It's just not how it works. It's not moving around pixels in the physical display.

gcanyon 3y ago

You don't look at all of a 3840x2160 screen, with a need for pixel-precision all over it. Doing a test right now, I'm focusing on the 13-inch computer screen where I'm typing this and holding up a large container of cashews directly to the right of the display. It's literally less than 30 degrees to the right of my focus, and the word "cashews" is in half-inch-high letters, and I can't remotely read the word without moving my eyes over to it.

mcphage 3y ago
> I can't remotely read the word without moving my eyes over to it Plus the portion of your eye that sees in high resolution is ridiculously small—1% of your field of view. And your eye and brain just hide that fact by making your eye constantly jitter to see a larger area.
- saltcured 3y ago
  But, they aren't doing fovea tracking and shifting the display around in response to eye movements, are they? If not, you would only get more screen space if you articulate your neck and cause the head-tracking to update your viewing perspective. I've monitored how I use 4K screens in the 28" size range. I would not normally move my head at all to look at different parts of the screen. I would only move my eyes. With two such screens side-by-side, I would turn my head just a little bit to focus on one screen or the other. Or, I found I would often hold one head position that is neutral between the two, and then use approximately 2/3 of each screen, with the far outer edges neglected or used to banish less relevant communications and status apps that I only check once in a while. And, these screens are not filling my field of view by any means. So, I'd really need a far higher resolution headset if it is going to give me a good immersive field of view and be a reasonable monitor-replacement. I fear that fovea-tracking will remain scifi dreams in my lifetime, so the reality is we need to render full resolution throughout the field of view to be prepared for where the eye gaze might go in the next frame.
  - jakemoshenko 3y ago
    > I fear that fovea-tracking will remain scifi dreams in my lifetime, so the reality is we need to render full resolution throughout the field of view to be prepared for where the eye gaze might go in the next frame. This is not at all true. All of the AVP, the Quest Pro, and the PSVR2 do eye tracking based foveated rending. They lower the clarity of the things you're not looking at. And reviewers say it works perfectly, like magic. They are unable to "catch" the screen adjusting for what they're looking at.
    - 3y ago

nerdjon 3y ago

I am pretty sure the Vision pro's resolution is higher than 1920x1920? Could be wrong through. Regardless, the question isn't if it's better or the same. The question is if its viable considering the author is saying the idea is "Ridiculous"

treis 3y ago
I haven't seen official numbers. My point is that it needs higher resolution than a monitor to match the experience.
- cududa 3y ago
  3840 x 2160 resolution per eye. 23 million pixels per eye, or, nearly 3x the pixels of a 4k TV with the equivalent resolution. That's roughly 3 physical sub-pixels per 1x1 "virtual pixel"
  - MikusR 3y ago
    The Vision Pro has 23 million pixels total, or 11.5 million per eye, or 3,391 x 3,391 if square
  - Macha 3y ago
    > 3840 x 2160 resolution per eye. 23 million pixels per eye, or, nearly 3x the pixels of a 4k TV with the equivalent resolution So a 4k TV is 3840x2160. The equivalent resolution is... 3840x2160. The number of pixels in 3840x2160 is 1x the number of pixels in 3840x2160, not 3x.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
layer8 3y ago
Yes it’s higher. From what we know (11.5 megapixels per eye), the width roughly corresponds to a 4K resolution. However, due to the 3D resampling, I would estimate that to simulate a virtual monitor of a given resolution in high quality, you need at least 3-4 times the resolution on the physical headset display. Which would mean that the AVP couldn’t simulate even just an FHD virtual monitor in high quality.