10 ms·

>It has glare and poor FoV. It gets hot and has a short battery life. FOV is the most unforgivable. I can't for the life of me imagine who is deciding that 110

>It has glare and poor FoV. It gets hot and has a short battery life. FOV is the most unforgivable. I can't for the life of me imagine who is deciding that 110 is sufficient. I would give up just about every single other specification in a headset for 180°+, and I have owned just about every consumer headset released since DK2.

crazygringo 3y ago
> I would give up just about every single other specification in a headset for 180+. I'm having a very difficult time imagining how that would be physically possible. I'm actually curious what the highest theoretically possible FOV is for a conveniently sized device strapped to your face, and how close we are to it already.
- two_handfuls 3y ago
  We can do curved screens. The theoretical limit is we can cover the whole visual field.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    How do you get the light into the inside edge when your nose is in the way, and the lenses for each eye would collide in the middle? How do you get the light into the outer edge without making the headset absurdly wide? Curved screens aren't the issue here. The issue is the lenses and light paths between the screens and eye. VR requires collimating lenses. Not just a screen, curved or not.
    - saltcured 3y ago
      Just for the sci-fi fun of it, I'm trying to imagine the mechanism of the laser projector featured in Snowcrash. How about a microscopic lenticular array in a close-fitting shell over each eye (kind of like swim goggles) or even in a special contact lens. The goal is to have appropriate lenses in front of the pupil. This lens array can then be targeted by extremely precise laser projectors, exploiting the lenses to illuminate parts of the retina that would not otherwise be visible from the same projector location through a naked eye.
    - two_handfuls 3y ago
      To avoid having the nose on the way: you make the assembly small enough that you can have one per eye. Curved lenses are not common now but there’s no theorerical reason they couldn’t exist.
- ramesh31 3y ago
  >I'm having a very difficult time imagining how that would be physically possible. Pimax 8k has 200°: https://pimax.com/product/vision-8k-x/ https://pimax.com/product/vision-8k-x/ Valve Index is 130°, which is right at the line of becoming acceptable and achieving presence. I seriously can't believe Apple released this thing with functionally no difference to the $500 Quest 3 beyond higher screen quality.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    The 200° advertised is a "diagonal" FOV: https://pimax.com/pimax-headsets-fov/ https://pimax.com/pimax-headsets-fov/ The horizontal FOV is only 159°: https://vr-compare.com/headset/pimaxvision8kx https://vr-compare.com/headset/pimaxvision8kx And it's only 103° FOV vertically. (For comparison, the Quest 2 is 93° vertical.) But I'm very happy to know 159° horizontal is possible. From more research online, it seems that the wider the FOV, the more distortion you get, so there's a tradeoff? Also it seems very clear that Apple prioritized resolution (sharpness) over FOV. For a given display panel, the more you spread it out, the blurrier it gets.
Yizahi 3y ago
> I can't for the life of me imagine who is deciding that 110 is sufficient. Heartless physics? :)

crazygringo 3y ago

> I would give up just about every single other specification in a headset for 180+. I'm having a very difficult time imagining how that would be physically possible. I'm actually curious what the highest theoretically possible FOV is for a conveniently sized device strapped to your face, and how close we are to it already.

two_handfuls 3y ago
We can do curved screens. The theoretical limit is we can cover the whole visual field.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  How do you get the light into the inside edge when your nose is in the way, and the lenses for each eye would collide in the middle? How do you get the light into the outer edge without making the headset absurdly wide? Curved screens aren't the issue here. The issue is the lenses and light paths between the screens and eye. VR requires collimating lenses. Not just a screen, curved or not.
  - saltcured 3y ago
    Just for the sci-fi fun of it, I'm trying to imagine the mechanism of the laser projector featured in Snowcrash. How about a microscopic lenticular array in a close-fitting shell over each eye (kind of like swim goggles) or even in a special contact lens. The goal is to have appropriate lenses in front of the pupil. This lens array can then be targeted by extremely precise laser projectors, exploiting the lenses to illuminate parts of the retina that would not otherwise be visible from the same projector location through a naked eye.
  - two_handfuls 3y ago
    To avoid having the nose on the way: you make the assembly small enough that you can have one per eye. Curved lenses are not common now but there’s no theorerical reason they couldn’t exist.
ramesh31 3y ago
>I'm having a very difficult time imagining how that would be physically possible. Pimax 8k has 200°: https://pimax.com/product/vision-8k-x/ https://pimax.com/product/vision-8k-x/ Valve Index is 130°, which is right at the line of becoming acceptable and achieving presence. I seriously can't believe Apple released this thing with functionally no difference to the $500 Quest 3 beyond higher screen quality.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  The 200° advertised is a "diagonal" FOV: https://pimax.com/pimax-headsets-fov/ https://pimax.com/pimax-headsets-fov/ The horizontal FOV is only 159°: https://vr-compare.com/headset/pimaxvision8kx https://vr-compare.com/headset/pimaxvision8kx And it's only 103° FOV vertically. (For comparison, the Quest 2 is 93° vertical.) But I'm very happy to know 159° horizontal is possible. From more research online, it seems that the wider the FOV, the more distortion you get, so there's a tradeoff? Also it seems very clear that Apple prioritized resolution (sharpness) over FOV. For a given display panel, the more you spread it out, the blurrier it gets.

Yizahi 3y ago

> I can't for the life of me imagine who is deciding that 110 is sufficient. Heartless physics? :)