3 ms·
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 q
by 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 agoI haven't seen official numbers. My point is that it needs higher resolution than a monitor to match the experience.
- cududa 3y ago3840 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 agoThe 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 agoYes 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.