5 ms·

Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

59 points by olliepop 3y ago

zitterbewegung 3y ago
When does Apple even make this claim that this should be is better / worse at the task? I get the idea of testing this for the purpose of testing this outcome but when I’m using safari or a movie this doesn’t come up as much but if you use pass through it is apparent. This is an intentional engineering choice and keeps on getting reposted…
- tycho-newman 3y ago
  For the money they charge, it sure is an interesting choice.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >When does Apple even make this claim that this should be is better / worse at the task? But then at what kind of tasks is the AVP better at in order to justify its existence/purchase?
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    It integrates far better into the entire Apple ecosystem of products. Given the current state of the software - both visionOS itself and available apps - it’s simply not a mass-market device. I believe it will be in 1-2 iterations, but we’re not there yet. For what it’s worth, I say that as someone who loves their AVP and owns several other headsets including the Quest 3 an Pimax Crystal. I’ve had my AVP for jsut over two weeks and would comfortably estimate that I’ve spent over 100 hours with it on.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >It integrates far better into the entire Apple ecosystem of products. That's not a task you can use it for. It's just a feature. >it’s simply not a mass-market device. I believe it will be in 1-2 iterations, but we’re not there yet. My point exaxtly. I was only talking about the present device and what it doe. Not what it can do in the future iterations.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Also the FoV is narrower on the AVP than the Quest. Granted, all current headsets suck at this, as in it's less AR/VR and more like looking through a pair of binoculars which absolutely sucks for immersion, but it's crazy the AVP has a worse Fov than a Quest that's 7 times cheaper. Only Apple can get people to pay 3.5K to be beta testers of a devkit/prototype. > The AVP image is much worse than a cheap monitor displaying high-resolution, high-contrast content. Effectively, what the AVP supports is multiple low angular resolution monitors. Waiting for the early adopters and apologists to say again how the AVP is so magic and revolutionary it's gonna replace their 5k monitors for daily work. Maybe that "daily work" they were talking about is reading emails for 15 minutes/day and watching a 30 minute episode on Netflix on the couch after wich the headset gathers dust.
- audunw 3y ago
  Arguably, if they have a limited production rate on this “prototype” - which it seems they do - pricing it so only the ones who are extremely enthusiastic, or ones that will actually develop apps for it and thus consider it an investment, is absolutely the right thing to do. Meanwhile they also get that halo effect where they establish it as a premium product. If they later drop the price or let inflation slowly reduce the difference, that effect will remain.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    But why would you release a "limited production prototype" to the public for purchase as a finished product? It's very non-Apple. The iPod, iPhone, iPad etc were not released as limited edition prototypes. I don't think Steve Jobs, had he still be alive and in charge, would have released the AVP yet in this state. Same how Appel hasn't yet released a folding phone even though Android OEMs have been doing it for 5 years already. The tech is just not yet mature for a flawless implementation that Apple is know to deliver even if it arrives later to the market than the competition.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      Once again revisionist history in effect. The Vision Pro is on par with the level of quality as the original iPhone or Apple Watch. And has sold better than both.
threeseed 3y ago
It seems strange to me to be comparing images from streamed sources. We know that a 5K MacBook Pro feed is being aggressively downsampled to 4K. Why wouldn't you just open browsers on both devices with a test image.
xnx 3y ago
From John Carmack on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1764016979101286756 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1764016979101286756 "Meta’s optics and contrast may indeed actually be better, but this is almost certainly not a definitive comparison — too many variables around casting compression and window buffer resolution. Does Immersed use the supersampled layer option with a window above the display resolution? (with an sRGB texture for gamma correct filtering, of course)"
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  The author received both devices from tear downs by iFixIt and was able to see the image without the lens (without the blurring) as explained in Part 1. Though it seems the AVP tends to do some post processing no matter how they image is displayed > I see different processing and artifacts happening when natively rendering on the AVP (such as when running Excel), displaying a saved bitmap from a file on the AVP, displaying a bitmap image on a web page, and mirroring the content of a MacBook. With each test image, seeing how it will display differently with each display mode is an adventure. https://kguttag.com/2024/02/16/apple-vision-pros-avp-image-quality-issues-first-impressions/ https://kguttag.com/2024/02/16/apple-vision-pros-avp-image-q...
htk 3y ago
It reads like this guy has an axe to grind with the AVP or with reviewers. He really wants to convince the reader that the product is not good and it doesn't matter what people feel about it. I'm all for objective analysis, but what if the slight blurriness helps with the immersion? And what's the problem with the displays not being as precise as 1080p monitors if the immersion is good and people are satisfied with the image? I decided against buying the Vision Pro but for other reasons, mainly the OS being a fork of iPadOS instead of MacOS, the impossibility to use it as a monitor like the XReal and many others, and the weight.
- slashink 3y ago
  The author ends the review by saying “AVP is the superior product” so I find it hard to agree with your take. The information presented clearly shows the tradeoffs that Apple has chosen with their displays. It’s left up to the reader to decide if that’s a subjectively more enjoyable experience but from the objective viewpoint, the article does a good job at showcasing the drawbacks.
- quitit 3y ago
  It is needlessly smug and overconfident. The core problem is that taking a photo with a camera isn't a valid comparison to the optics of the human eye. Unlike digital cameras which are designed to bring colour into focus on a single plane (the sensor), the natural human eye produces a mixture of focal points dependent on wavelength of light, falling before and after the macula. The display+lens proximity to the cornea and natural crystalline lens needs to be accounted for; it's not going to be perfectly planar to the eye, and that is going to cause blurring which will change dependent on how the digital camera rig is arranged as well as lens selection. Analysis based on photos taken through the viewport is an insufficient approach to draw conclusions as they don't account for phenomena present in the human eye. A secondary factor is that certain types of blurring may be intentional to offset the development of myopia. (It could even be to help prevent the appearance of aliasing.) One can take "thousands" of photos of VR goggles, it doesn't make them an ophthalmologist. It makes them good at taking photos of VR goggles.
  - 3y ago
freitzkriesler2 3y ago
Am I the only one sick of this cyberpunk dystopian tech? VR tech was a fun niche toy and this isn't that much different. Walking around all of the time with one is a level of cringe I can't even fathom. Might as well call them iSores.
- al_borland 3y ago
  To be fair, they weren't designed to be used while walking around all day. In that case, it's the people who are the problem, not the product.
- xetplan 3y ago
  [flagged]
- hackeraccount 3y ago
  Think of them as a monitor replacement not a phone replacement. At least that's what they are now...
endisneigh 3y ago
I encourage anyone who believes this to check out both

59 points by olliepop 3y ago

When does Apple even make this claim that this should be is better / worse at the task? I get the idea of testing this for the purpose of testing this outcome but when I’m using safari or a movie this doesn’t come up as much but if you use pass through it is apparent. This is an intentional engineering choice and keeps on getting reposted…

tycho-newman 3y ago
For the money they charge, it sure is an interesting choice.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>When does Apple even make this claim that this should be is better / worse at the task? But then at what kind of tasks is the AVP better at in order to justify its existence/purchase?
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  It integrates far better into the entire Apple ecosystem of products. Given the current state of the software - both visionOS itself and available apps - it’s simply not a mass-market device. I believe it will be in 1-2 iterations, but we’re not there yet. For what it’s worth, I say that as someone who loves their AVP and owns several other headsets including the Quest 3 an Pimax Crystal. I’ve had my AVP for jsut over two weeks and would comfortably estimate that I’ve spent over 100 hours with it on.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >It integrates far better into the entire Apple ecosystem of products. That's not a task you can use it for. It's just a feature. >it’s simply not a mass-market device. I believe it will be in 1-2 iterations, but we’re not there yet. My point exaxtly. I was only talking about the present device and what it doe. Not what it can do in the future iterations.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

Also the FoV is narrower on the AVP than the Quest. Granted, all current headsets suck at this, as in it's less AR/VR and more like looking through a pair of binoculars which absolutely sucks for immersion, but it's crazy the AVP has a worse Fov than a Quest that's 7 times cheaper. Only Apple can get people to pay 3.5K to be beta testers of a devkit/prototype. > The AVP image is much worse than a cheap monitor displaying high-resolution, high-contrast content. Effectively, what the AVP supports is multiple low angular resolution monitors. Waiting for the early adopters and apologists to say again how the AVP is so magic and revolutionary it's gonna replace their 5k monitors for daily work. Maybe that "daily work" they were talking about is reading emails for 15 minutes/day and watching a 30 minute episode on Netflix on the couch after wich the headset gathers dust.

audunw 3y ago
Arguably, if they have a limited production rate on this “prototype” - which it seems they do - pricing it so only the ones who are extremely enthusiastic, or ones that will actually develop apps for it and thus consider it an investment, is absolutely the right thing to do. Meanwhile they also get that halo effect where they establish it as a premium product. If they later drop the price or let inflation slowly reduce the difference, that effect will remain.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  But why would you release a "limited production prototype" to the public for purchase as a finished product? It's very non-Apple. The iPod, iPhone, iPad etc were not released as limited edition prototypes. I don't think Steve Jobs, had he still be alive and in charge, would have released the AVP yet in this state. Same how Appel hasn't yet released a folding phone even though Android OEMs have been doing it for 5 years already. The tech is just not yet mature for a flawless implementation that Apple is know to deliver even if it arrives later to the market than the competition.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Once again revisionist history in effect. The Vision Pro is on par with the level of quality as the original iPhone or Apple Watch. And has sold better than both.

threeseed 3y ago

It seems strange to me to be comparing images from streamed sources. We know that a 5K MacBook Pro feed is being aggressively downsampled to 4K. Why wouldn't you just open browsers on both devices with a test image.

xnx 3y ago

From John Carmack on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1764016979101286756 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1764016979101286756 "Meta’s optics and contrast may indeed actually be better, but this is almost certainly not a definitive comparison — too many variables around casting compression and window buffer resolution. Does Immersed use the supersampled layer option with a window above the display resolution? (with an sRGB texture for gamma correct filtering, of course)"

h0l0cube 3y ago
The author received both devices from tear downs by iFixIt and was able to see the image without the lens (without the blurring) as explained in Part 1. Though it seems the AVP tends to do some post processing no matter how they image is displayed > I see different processing and artifacts happening when natively rendering on the AVP (such as when running Excel), displaying a saved bitmap from a file on the AVP, displaying a bitmap image on a web page, and mirroring the content of a MacBook. With each test image, seeing how it will display differently with each display mode is an adventure. https://kguttag.com/2024/02/16/apple-vision-pros-avp-image-quality-issues-first-impressions/ https://kguttag.com/2024/02/16/apple-vision-pros-avp-image-q...

htk 3y ago

It reads like this guy has an axe to grind with the AVP or with reviewers. He really wants to convince the reader that the product is not good and it doesn't matter what people feel about it. I'm all for objective analysis, but what if the slight blurriness helps with the immersion? And what's the problem with the displays not being as precise as 1080p monitors if the immersion is good and people are satisfied with the image? I decided against buying the Vision Pro but for other reasons, mainly the OS being a fork of iPadOS instead of MacOS, the impossibility to use it as a monitor like the XReal and many others, and the weight.

slashink 3y ago
The author ends the review by saying “AVP is the superior product” so I find it hard to agree with your take. The information presented clearly shows the tradeoffs that Apple has chosen with their displays. It’s left up to the reader to decide if that’s a subjectively more enjoyable experience but from the objective viewpoint, the article does a good job at showcasing the drawbacks.
quitit 3y ago
It is needlessly smug and overconfident. The core problem is that taking a photo with a camera isn't a valid comparison to the optics of the human eye. Unlike digital cameras which are designed to bring colour into focus on a single plane (the sensor), the natural human eye produces a mixture of focal points dependent on wavelength of light, falling before and after the macula. The display+lens proximity to the cornea and natural crystalline lens needs to be accounted for; it's not going to be perfectly planar to the eye, and that is going to cause blurring which will change dependent on how the digital camera rig is arranged as well as lens selection. Analysis based on photos taken through the viewport is an insufficient approach to draw conclusions as they don't account for phenomena present in the human eye. A secondary factor is that certain types of blurring may be intentional to offset the development of myopia. (It could even be to help prevent the appearance of aliasing.) One can take "thousands" of photos of VR goggles, it doesn't make them an ophthalmologist. It makes them good at taking photos of VR goggles.
- 3y ago

freitzkriesler2 3y ago

Am I the only one sick of this cyberpunk dystopian tech? VR tech was a fun niche toy and this isn't that much different. Walking around all of the time with one is a level of cringe I can't even fathom. Might as well call them iSores.

al_borland 3y ago
To be fair, they weren't designed to be used while walking around all day. In that case, it's the people who are the problem, not the product.
xetplan 3y ago
[flagged]
hackeraccount 3y ago
Think of them as a monitor replacement not a phone replacement. At least that's what they are now...

endisneigh 3y ago

I encourage anyone who believes this to check out both