5 ms·
I read somewhere that the FOV is only 100-110, as opposed to full immersion as seen on their marketing material.
by atbpaca 3y ago
I read somewhere that the FOV is only 100-110, as opposed to full immersion as seen on their marketing material.
- wombat-man 3y agoThat's what I'm reading too. But reviewers still say it's good for movie viewing.
- Someone 3y agoYou don’t need a large FOV for movie viewing. Even if it were only 60°, you’d be able see a 2 meter wide screen at a distance of 2 meters (and that’s measuring that distance to the edges of that screen; its center would be about 15% closer)
- wombat-man 3y agoYeah that makes sense.
- Kirby64 3y agoI've got an HTC Vive which is also ~110degrees. Although you do initially get the 'looking through ski goggles' feeling when you first put it on, that feeling VERY quickly goes away when you start doing anything inside. It's plenty immersive. Sure, more FoV would be nicer, but it's not like looking through a telescope or something.
- mrguyorama 3y agoRight, your brain really does not give a crap about the very edge of your vision. Instead of spending thousands on way more screen and optics real estate that you will barely notice because you barely notice ANYTHING outside of your focal point, we'd probably be just fine with a couple RGB LEDs shining just colors at your periphery.
- mmis1000 3y ago> RGB LEDs shining just colors at your periphery. That sounds like a way that may actually work (and don't cost too many penny). Just put dozens of programmable LEDS at the edge of your view. And shining correspond colored light when someone actually use a flashlight to point at you. That might even be used as a safety measure without block your view.
- pavlov 3y agoThe Verge's review says the FOV feels noticeably smaller than the Quest 3 which is 110°: "The displays have other limitations: the field of view isn’t huge, and the essential nature of looking at tiny displays through lenses makes that field of view feel even smaller. Apple won’t tell me the exact number, but the Vision Pro’s field of view is certainly smaller than the Quest 3’s 110 horizontal degrees. That means there are fairly large black borders around what you’re seeing, a bit like you’re looking through binoculars." https://www.theverge.com/24054862/apple-vision-pro-review-vr-ar-headset-features-price https://www.theverge.com/24054862/apple-vision-pro-review-vr...
- jsheard 3y agoI don't think it's even possible to get a fully immersive FOV in that form factor with the current SOTA optics, the few headsets which do have ultra-wide FOVs are enormous bricks. The widest FOV headset you can currently buy is the XTAL 3 at 180 degrees, and it's huge, despite being a PC-tethered design that doesn't need to make space for a SoC or battery. https://www.xtal.pro/product/xtal-3-mr https://www.xtal.pro/product/xtal-3-mr We're a few breakthroughs away from having full immersion and a reasonable form factor at the same time.
- dylan604 3y agoI always think back to the Nikkor 6mm fisheye lens[0] for example of what it takes to have 180° FOV. It's a lot of glass. [0]https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=nikkor+6mm+f2.8+fisheye&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=nikkor+6mm+f2.8+fisheye&iax=i...
- jsheard 3y agoAmusingly the XTAL 3 MR is only slightly heavier than the Vision Pro despite all the glass it must have inside to produce that FOV.
- filoleg 3y agoYeah, but XTAL 3 MR has zero standalone capabilities and requires being tethered to a rather beefy PC to function at all. From their own page, the very minimum requirements for the PC are 32GB RAM and an RTX2060 GPU. And that’s a minimum, so I am not sure how well it functions with those specs.