6 ms·

For reference, here are the per-eye screen resolutions for some VR headsets: - Apple Vision Pro: 3660 x 3200 pixels - Pimax 8K X: 3840 x 2160

by Tepix 2y ago

For reference, here are the per-eye screen resolutions for some VR headsets: - Apple Vision Pro: 3660 x 3200 pixels - Pimax 8K X: 3840 x 2160 - Pimax Crystal Light: 2880 x 2880 - HTC Vive Pro 2: 2448 x 2448 - HP Reverb G2: 2160 x 2160 - Meta Quest 3: 2064 x 2208 - Sony PS VR2: 2000 x 2040 - Pimax Crystal Super 3840 x 3840 (57 ppd, unreleased) The VR180 3D footage gets spread to 180° (horizontal) and inside your HMD you see around 70-90° (again horizontal²) or so at a time. You can see that below 8K per-eye image resolution, you will start noticing a decrease in visual fidelity. -- ² the Pimax has around 159° horizontal FoV.

crazygringo 2y ago
It gets even more complicated when you consider what geometric format it records in. If it records "naively" where the vertical pixel maps to the angle relative to the horizon, then you get the least amount of detail around the "equator", and you get the most at the "poles" above and below you. Which is not only totally imbalanced, but imbalanced in the worst possible way! Back in 2017 Google introduced a new format that YouTube VR uses: https://blog.google/products/google-ar-vr/bringing-pixels-front-and-center-vr-video/ https://blog.google/products/google-ar-vr/bringing-pixels-fr... It's called an Equi-Angular Cubemap, so each pixel represents the same amount of area in a VR projection. Unfortunately, outside of YouTube it still hasn't really taken off as far as I know, although some VR video players support it. I wonder if Blackmagic records in it? Or more generally, in what shape does the 180° image fall on the rectangular sensor -- and so how does actual resolution vary across the VR projection?
- matsemann 2y ago
  My Gopro MAX uses EAC for the 360 videos. But ironically I have to go through the hassle of converting it to equirectangular before uploading to Google Street View..
- quitit 2y ago
  This outlines how Apple approaches the immersive video format to put the most pixels on the horizon line: https://blog.mikeswanson.com/apples-mysterious-fisheye-projection/ https://blog.mikeswanson.com/apples-mysterious-fisheye-proje...
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    Wow, that is fascinating -- I had no idea, thanks. That definitely takes the cake for most bizarrely "optimized" method. But putting the horizon at a 45° angle is certainly a creative solution. Interesting that it's such a strange transformation, even the author of that article hasn't been able to decipher it exactly. The Google EAC seems so straightforward and "neutral", I'm surprised Apple created their own format (unless Google's format requires licensing, but I don't think it does).
    - esperent 2y ago
      > I'm surprised Apple created their own format There's nothing surprising here, it's been Apple's style for the entire time I've been working in tech - 15 years or so - to create formats that they control and preferably which only work on Apple devices. It's a big part of why their walled garden is so strong. > Additionally, the format is undocumented, they haven’t responded to an open question on the Apple Discussion Forums asking for more detail, and they didn’t cover it in their WWDC23 sessions Unfortunately, this is completely normal behavior from Apple and I've run up against it far too many times. When finally forced, by regulation or industry pressure, to answer questions, open their format up, or support other open formats, they pay lip service and drag their heels in every way possible.
      - withinboredom 2y ago
        I don't know why you are getting downvoted. What you say is true. They originally said facetime would be an open protocol based on jabber... didn't happen. Heck, they created their own cpu (undocumented) for some reason.
        hnaccount_rng 2y ago
        It's a bit more complicated than that right? There is definitely a corporate component there (FaceTime is one, iMessage is another) and they have a strong tendency to attempt to .. extort? .. others to pay for their standards. But they usually use standards that are available. If they do build something on their own, they have a reason. Most often technical. E.g. lightning is strictly better than any alternative that was available when they were introducing it (and that it didn't become the USB-C form factor is partially due to them wanting high licensing revenue). And really... you don't get why they created their own CPUs? Which hands down beat anything else out there on perf/watt and allow their systems to have incredible battery runtime on really tiny batteries?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
steelbrain 2y ago
Thank you for posting this! It's very helpful. Just want to add a caveat for the reader. While resolution is important, the display technology matters just as much if not more. Pimax Crystal Super, for example uses QLED tech, so its backlit and its color accuracy, contrast will not be in the same ballpark as Apple Vision Pro which uses micro-OLED panels. A pixel, is not always a pixel. There's more to the story.
yieldcrv 2y ago
remember when all the VR headsets were shitty and all the enthusiasts would say that resolution isnt the metric to use to judge VR headsets clowns
- dmix 2y ago
  They were probably talking about games not using one like a desktop or to watch movies
- andybak 2y ago
  You're confusing two different things and being obnoxious about it.
- Tepix 2y ago
  There are lots of important attributes when using a VR headset. Screen resolution isn't that important when playing a fast-paced game for example. Then there are countless other things like screen refresh rate, contrast, brightness, light bleeding, god rays, visible pixel grid, sub-pixel aliasing, eye tracking and foveated rendering, color spaces, tracking fidelity, weight, sweating, pressure sores, poor audio etc. Many things to get wrong indeed.
rajnathani 2y ago
The Pixmax 12K OLED also looks really cool on their website, thanks for sharing about Pixmax (TIL).
spookie 2y ago
Take a look at the company Varjo. They make a pretty good headset.
Tepix 2y ago
There are two upcoming headsets that i missed, both with the same high resolution and with Android XR: The Samsung headset ("Project Moohan”) and the just announced Pimax Dream Air. Both have Micro OLEDs with 3840 x 3552 pixels.

by Tepix 2y ago

crazygringo 2y ago

It gets even more complicated when you consider what geometric format it records in. If it records "naively" where the vertical pixel maps to the angle relative to the horizon, then you get the least amount of detail around the "equator", and you get the most at the "poles" above and below you. Which is not only totally imbalanced, but imbalanced in the worst possible way! Back in 2017 Google introduced a new format that YouTube VR uses: https://blog.google/products/google-ar-vr/bringing-pixels-front-and-center-vr-video/ https://blog.google/products/google-ar-vr/bringing-pixels-fr... It's called an Equi-Angular Cubemap, so each pixel represents the same amount of area in a VR projection. Unfortunately, outside of YouTube it still hasn't really taken off as far as I know, although some VR video players support it. I wonder if Blackmagic records in it? Or more generally, in what shape does the 180° image fall on the rectangular sensor -- and so how does actual resolution vary across the VR projection?

matsemann 2y ago
My Gopro MAX uses EAC for the 360 videos. But ironically I have to go through the hassle of converting it to equirectangular before uploading to Google Street View..
quitit 2y ago
This outlines how Apple approaches the immersive video format to put the most pixels on the horizon line: https://blog.mikeswanson.com/apples-mysterious-fisheye-projection/ https://blog.mikeswanson.com/apples-mysterious-fisheye-proje...
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Wow, that is fascinating -- I had no idea, thanks. That definitely takes the cake for most bizarrely "optimized" method. But putting the horizon at a 45° angle is certainly a creative solution. Interesting that it's such a strange transformation, even the author of that article hasn't been able to decipher it exactly. The Google EAC seems so straightforward and "neutral", I'm surprised Apple created their own format (unless Google's format requires licensing, but I don't think it does).
  - esperent 2y ago
    > I'm surprised Apple created their own format There's nothing surprising here, it's been Apple's style for the entire time I've been working in tech - 15 years or so - to create formats that they control and preferably which only work on Apple devices. It's a big part of why their walled garden is so strong. > Additionally, the format is undocumented, they haven’t responded to an open question on the Apple Discussion Forums asking for more detail, and they didn’t cover it in their WWDC23 sessions Unfortunately, this is completely normal behavior from Apple and I've run up against it far too many times. When finally forced, by regulation or industry pressure, to answer questions, open their format up, or support other open formats, they pay lip service and drag their heels in every way possible.
    - withinboredom 2y ago
      I don't know why you are getting downvoted. What you say is true. They originally said facetime would be an open protocol based on jabber... didn't happen. Heck, they created their own cpu (undocumented) for some reason.
      - hnaccount_rng 2y ago
        It's a bit more complicated than that right? There is definitely a corporate component there (FaceTime is one, iMessage is another) and they have a strong tendency to attempt to .. extort? .. others to pay for their standards. But they usually use standards that are available. If they do build something on their own, they have a reason. Most often technical. E.g. lightning is strictly better than any alternative that was available when they were introducing it (and that it didn't become the USB-C form factor is partially due to them wanting high licensing revenue). And really... you don't get why they created their own CPUs? Which hands down beat anything else out there on perf/watt and allow their systems to have incredible battery runtime on really tiny batteries?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

steelbrain 2y ago

Thank you for posting this! It's very helpful. Just want to add a caveat for the reader. While resolution is important, the display technology matters just as much if not more. Pimax Crystal Super, for example uses QLED tech, so its backlit and its color accuracy, contrast will not be in the same ballpark as Apple Vision Pro which uses micro-OLED panels. A pixel, is not always a pixel. There's more to the story.

yieldcrv 2y ago

remember when all the VR headsets were shitty and all the enthusiasts would say that resolution isnt the metric to use to judge VR headsets clowns

dmix 2y ago
They were probably talking about games not using one like a desktop or to watch movies
andybak 2y ago
You're confusing two different things and being obnoxious about it.
Tepix 2y ago
There are lots of important attributes when using a VR headset. Screen resolution isn't that important when playing a fast-paced game for example. Then there are countless other things like screen refresh rate, contrast, brightness, light bleeding, god rays, visible pixel grid, sub-pixel aliasing, eye tracking and foveated rendering, color spaces, tracking fidelity, weight, sweating, pressure sores, poor audio etc. Many things to get wrong indeed.

rajnathani 2y ago

The Pixmax 12K OLED also looks really cool on their website, thanks for sharing about Pixmax (TIL).

spookie 2y ago

Take a look at the company Varjo. They make a pretty good headset.

Tepix 2y ago

There are two upcoming headsets that i missed, both with the same high resolution and with Android XR: The Samsung headset ("Project Moohan”) and the just announced Pimax Dream Air. Both have Micro OLEDs with 3840 x 3552 pixels.