Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Kotaku)   8K VR? "The tester is using the prototype. If this makes it to retail, of course, the product version will look different"   (kotaku.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Virtual reality, Head-mounted display, Augmented reality, Image sensor, Display technology, VR headset, Mixed reality, final product  
•       •       •

911 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 07 Dec 2021 at 10:05 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



50 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-12-07 9:15:58 AM  
The prototype uses two small 4K displays, creating an 8K viewing experience.

The 8K display resolution is 7680 by 4320 pixels. A 4K panel is 3840 by 2160 pixels. Two 4k panels side by side gives you a 7680 by 2160, which is only half the vertical resolution of an 8K display.

/still a cool device
//only getting a bit pet peevish about poor quality journalism
 
2021-12-07 9:29:58 AM  

fragMasterFlash: The prototype uses two small 4K displays, creating an 8K viewing experience.

The 8K display resolution is 7680 by 4320 pixels. A 4K panel is 3840 by 2160 pixels. Two 4k panels side by side gives you a 7680 by 2160, which is only half the vertical resolution of an 8K display.

/still a cool device
//only getting a bit pet peevish about poor quality journalism


4K + 4K = 8K

Math
 
2021-12-07 9:38:00 AM  

kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: The prototype uses two small 4K displays, creating an 8K viewing experience.

The 8K display resolution is 7680 by 4320 pixels. A 4K panel is 3840 by 2160 pixels. Two 4k panels side by side gives you a 7680 by 2160, which is only half the vertical resolution of an 8K display.

/still a cool device
//only getting a bit pet peevish about poor quality journalism

4K + 4K = 8K

Math


Try again...

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-07 9:55:59 AM  

fragMasterFlash: kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: The prototype uses two small 4K displays, creating an 8K viewing experience.

The 8K display resolution is 7680 by 4320 pixels. A 4K panel is 3840 by 2160 pixels. Two 4k panels side by side gives you a 7680 by 2160, which is only half the vertical resolution of an 8K display.

/still a cool device
//only getting a bit pet peevish about poor quality journalism

4K + 4K = 8K

Math

Try again...

[Fark user image image 740x415]


4+4=8

I really cannot get much simpler without using apples instead of numbers

Math is math
 
2021-12-07 10:14:38 AM  

kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: The prototype uses two small 4K displays, creating an 8K viewing experience.

The 8K display resolution is 7680 by 4320 pixels. A 4K panel is 3840 by 2160 pixels. Two 4k panels side by side gives you a 7680 by 2160, which is only half the vertical resolution of an 8K display.

/still a cool device
//only getting a bit pet peevish about poor quality journalism

4K + 4K = 8K

Math

Try again...

[Fark user image image 740x415]

4+4=8

I really cannot get much simpler without using apples instead of numbers

Math is math


God help me, I'm gonna enter this fray...

I can see how you are both kinda right, but also remember that because both eyes are focusing on the same image, in this case: 4K + 4K = 4K, for all intents and purposes.
 
2021-12-07 10:18:26 AM  

kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: The prototype uses two small 4K displays, creating an 8K viewing experience.

The 8K display resolution is 7680 by 4320 pixels. A 4K panel is 3840 by 2160 pixels. Two 4k panels side by side gives you a 7680 by 2160, which is only half the vertical resolution of an 8K display.

/still a cool device
//only getting a bit pet peevish about poor quality journalism

4K + 4K = 8K

Math

Try again...

[Fark user image image 740x415]

4+4=8

I really cannot get much simpler without using apples instead of numbers

Math is math


X*Y=Display Resolution
X2*Y X2*Y2

Doubling the length of only one axis (X) does not double the total resolution, and it also completely changes the aspect ratio, which is kind of a really big deal.
 
2021-12-07 10:20:56 AM  
This thread is now math.
 
2021-12-07 10:23:30 AM  
I'm not much of a console gamer these days, but I've almost always been more fond of the Xbox brand over the Playstation one. That said, I do very much enjoy VR and it saddens me that Microsoft is not interested in expanding and improving on its WMR tech and bringing it to their consoles.
 
2021-12-07 10:25:08 AM  

fragMasterFlash: kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: The prototype uses two small 4K displays, creating an 8K viewing experience.

The 8K display resolution is 7680 by 4320 pixels. A 4K panel is 3840 by 2160 pixels. Two 4k panels side by side gives you a 7680 by 2160, which is only half the vertical resolution of an 8K display.

/still a cool device
//only getting a bit pet peevish about poor quality journalism

4K + 4K = 8K

Math

Try again...

[Fark user image image 740x415]

4+4=8

I really cannot get much simpler without using apples instead of numbers

Math is math

X*Y=Display Resolution
X2*Y X2*Y2

Doubling the length of only one axis (X) does not double the total resolution, and it also completely changes the aspect ratio, which is kind of a really big deal.


The [code] tag is broken. You need to square both X and Y dimensions as changing one independent of the other changes the aspect ratio. VESA is pretty damn clear in defining what a 8K display is, and it is the equivalent of four 4K displays, not two.
 
2021-12-07 10:34:55 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-07 10:54:08 AM  
I only see out of one eye, so I need a half-price monocular VR set.
 
2021-12-07 11:43:03 AM  
B-B-But I'm still ranting about my 4K screen!

'Why do all these shows look like cheap soap-operas? This screen is hurting my eyes! The damn dog barks at every animal that appears on it! And another thing-'

'STFU and go read a book in another room!'

'Um, okay...'
 
2021-12-07 11:47:18 AM  
 
2021-12-07 11:47:49 AM  
How are you not seeing that kkinnison is joking? Their Boobies was pretty clearly tongue-in-cheek, and doubling down on it with something even more purposely simple that intentionally ignores what 8k is was just reinforcing the joke.

Come on, Fark.
 
2021-12-07 12:24:36 PM  
Yeah but does it suck if you wear glasses?

Maybe it's changed, but when I had an Oculus it sucked if you had glasses.. there's no focus wheel thing on the headset like you would have on basically any other kind of thing you jam up to your eyes and use to see so you can't play it with glasses off either, lol
 
2021-12-07 12:28:13 PM  
As previously noted, not really 8K.

8K is 7680x4320 or about 33MP

Two 4K displays provide 3840x2160 times two (16.5MP)

However there is 'overlap' of the same content as perceived slightly differently from each eye. While the GPU running this thing is refreshing just over 16 megapixels, your 'effective viewable area' is really more like 5000x2160 which is around 11 megapixels.

11 megapixels isn't enough detail for true VR. Reproducing typical human vision is going to require more.

Human vision has about 200 degrees of horizontal (120 binocular with 40 degrees of peripheral on each side) and 130 degrees of vertical (60 central, 30 above, and 40 below). Some people may have slightly more than those figures, but I will use the standard. Each human eye has a roughly 160h x 130v field of view. Human vision can see detail to about half an arc-minute. Some eagle-eyed people might squeeze in a few extra arc-seconds, but let's just stick to half an arc-minute.

So creating an image for each individual eye will require a 19,200x15,600 image to imitate the maximum resolving detail of the human eye. That's a 300 megapixel image for each eye which means you need to put a panel over each eye that is about halfway between 16k and 32k. The GPU to power those two panels would need to be able to render a 1,000MP image at over 90hz with deep color. That is sooooooooo not going to happen, but THAT is what will be required for a true VR experience - one that looks the same as real life.
 
2021-12-07 12:33:13 PM  

fragMasterFlash: kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: The prototype uses two small 4K displays, creating an 8K viewing experience.

The 8K display resolution is 7680 by 4320 pixels. A 4K panel is 3840 by 2160 pixels. Two 4k panels side by side gives you a 7680 by 2160, which is only half the vertical resolution of an 8K display.

/still a cool device
//only getting a bit pet peevish about poor quality journalism

4K + 4K = 8K

Math

Try again...

[Fark user image 740x415]


So both 4K and 8K are outright lies.
 
2021-12-07 12:34:44 PM  
This will be an amazing game-changing product for using the Metaverse

media4.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2021-12-07 12:39:51 PM  

Marcos P: Pimax has had one for a while now, they already have a "12k"

https://pimax.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAqbyNBhC2ARIsALDwAsDNGRKE5BRKv5-AEkOhCfeCaj2nlV53yRLEdmn9Csh-AjYYsvcrGM8aAqbbEALw_wcB


Their product is full of crap too. Their '8K' model uses two 4K panels. Maybe they should label these with their panel resolution. Instead of 8K call it 2x4K.
 
2021-12-07 12:46:28 PM  

Marcos P: Pimax has had one for a while now, they already have a "12k"

https://pimax.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAqbyNBhC2ARIsALDwAsDNGRKE5BRKv5-AEkOhCfeCaj2nlV53yRLEdmn9Csh-AjYYsvcrGM8aAqbbEALw_wcB


It's a shame that the build quality and software of the Pimax headsets put it at the level of something you'd fully expect to find sitting on a shelf at the local Harbor Freight.

They're just horribly built headsets using bad optics and screens with clapped together buggy controller software.
 
2021-12-07 12:49:10 PM  

fragMasterFlash: The prototype uses two small 4K displays, creating an 8K viewing experience.

The 8K display resolution is 7680 by 4320 pixels. A 4K panel is 3840 by 2160 pixels. Two 4k panels side by side gives you a 7680 by 2160, which is only half the vertical resolution of an 8K display.

/still a cool device
//only getting a bit pet peevish about poor quality journalism


Also, each eye is viewing only 4k each. Like if you were watching a 4k display.

So, 4k.
 
2021-12-07 12:53:39 PM  

oldfarthenry: B-B-But I'm still ranting about my 4K screen!

'Why do all these shows look like cheap soap-operas? This screen is hurting my eyes! The damn dog barks at every animal that appears on it! And another thing-'

'STFU and go read a book in another room!'

'Um, okay...'


I'm still on a 1440P screen.

Anyways. movies use the 23:9 aspect ratio. So an UHD movie will still have border on a 4k screen.

The closest they make is an LG 21:10 panel, but the vertical height is less than my current 1440p, sigh.
 
2021-12-07 1:06:09 PM  

neongoats: Yeah but does it suck if you wear glasses?

Maybe it's changed, but when I had an Oculus it sucked if you had glasses.. there's no focus wheel thing on the headset like you would have on basically any other kind of thing you jam up to your eyes and use to see so you can't play it with glasses off either, lol


Depending upon the headset, you can get prescription lenses for not too much money.
 
2021-12-07 1:23:55 PM  
First problem, have you seen the price of GPUs lately?  VR needs roughly 90Hz.  Any idea how much GPU power you need to fill 17M pixels 90 times a second?


madgonad: As previously noted, not really 8K.

8K is 7680x4320 or about 33MP

Two 4K displays provide 3840x2160 times two (16.5MP)

However there is 'overlap' of the same content as perceived slightly differently from each eye. While the GPU running this thing is refreshing just over 16 megapixels, your 'effective viewable area' is really more like 5000x2160 which is around 11 megapixels.

11 megapixels isn't enough detail for true VR. Reproducing typical human vision is going to require more.

Human vision has about 200 degrees of horizontal (120 binocular with 40 degrees of peripheral on each side) and 130 degrees of vertical (60 central, 30 above, and 40 below). Some people may have slightly more than those figures, but I will use the standard. Each human eye has a roughly 160h x 130v field of view. Human vision can see detail to about half an arc-minute. Some eagle-eyed people might squeeze in a few extra arc-seconds, but let's just stick to half an arc-minute.

So creating an image for each individual eye will require a 19,200x15,600 image to imitate the maximum resolving detail of the human eye. That's a 300 megapixel image for each eye which means you need to put a panel over each eye that is about halfway between 16k and 32k. The GPU to power those two panels would need to be able to render a 1,000MP image at over 90hz with deep color. That is sooooooooo not going to happen, but THAT is what will be required for a true VR experience - one that looks the same as real life.


Except that you can mount cameras to view the eyes inside the headset (and you better believe Occulus does this to send data back to the Facebot).  You only get that level of resolution exactly where you are looking (although you also have to predict where the eye will be for the next 16ms).  By 10 degrees away, human resolution falls by a factor of 5 (hint, that's 1% of the human field of view).

So if your eyes are roughly holding steady, you need roughly
max visual field +/- 2o or 1000MP*.0001=1.1MP   (maximum human resolution is in 2 degrees)
half max visual field +/- 10o 1000MP*.5*.02=13MP  (you can see at roughly half maximum out to 10 degrees)
about 20% resolution +/- 25o 1000MP*.2*.14=29MP
about 10% resolution +/- 40o 1000MP*.1*.29=29MP
about 5% resoution +/- 60o 1000*.05*(100-.3)=35MP
total: 109MP

I'm reasonably sure I overexaguarted the resolution of peripheral vision, largely because the source graph isn't well scaled at those levels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity ), and you almost certainly won't need fancy shading and ray tracing (good old 3dFX level rendering will do).

At least one company is trying to sell this (FOVE) and I'm sure I've seen at least one demo/paper from nvidia about it (a classroom image, IRC).

From what I understand, most of the early attempts to do this type of thing centered around lenses for the display, which simply didn't work very well (especially if they were mechanical), but the GPU is likely the tricky bit, and allows for a lot of ways to cheat.
 
2021-12-07 2:03:29 PM  
yet_another_wumpus:
Except that you can mount cameras to view the eyes inside the headset (and you better believe Occulus does this to send data back to the Facebot).  You only get that level of resolution exactly where you are looking (although you also have to predict where the eye will be for the next 16ms).  By 10 degrees away, human resolution falls ...

FOVE hasn't done much lately, but it was an excellent Proof of Concept for the time, I played with their eye-tracking / FOVeated rendering implementation on their prototype quite a bit.

I played with the Varjo XR-3 at AWE this year. It's eye-tracking implentation and FOVeated rendering was spot on.  The 3D AR passthrough was next level.  I took this selfie looking at my phone through the passthrough. Over my shoulder you can see the control panel for the headset, with the pupil tracking views for each eye.

Fark user imageView Full Size


Dynamic FOVeated rendering really does help with GPU load.  Fixed FOVeated rendering is what the current Quest 2 headset uses to get a bit more out of the Snapdragon XR2 in the headset.

The optics and compound screen system in that headset is, (chef kiss). https://varjo.com/products/xr-3/
 
2021-12-07 2:20:41 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: Except that you can mount cameras to view the eyes inside the headset (and you better believe Occulus does this to send data back to the Facebot).


How do you mount cameras to view the eye when 100% of the eye's field of view is taken by a panel? Also, the eyes move pretty fast for the application to respond in time. I mean the little camera has to note the eye position, send data to the application, the application would downgrade 'part' of the image... Yeah, I have a hard time imagining how that works. A rendered environment  has textures on polygons. So are certain polygons identified to use a lower resolution texture and other aren't? There are million of polygons. I just don't see how the processing overhead for this would work and even if the latency would be able to keep up.
 
2021-12-07 2:35:30 PM  

madgonad: yet_another_wumpus: Except that you can mount cameras to view the eyes inside the headset (and you better believe Occulus does this to send data back to the Facebot).

How do you mount cameras to view the eye when 100% of the eye's field of view is taken by a panel? Also, the eyes move pretty fast for the application to respond in time. I mean the little camera has to note the eye position, send data to the application, the application would downgrade 'part' of the image... Yeah, I have a hard time imagining how that works. A rendered environment  has textures on polygons. So are certain polygons identified to use a lower resolution texture and other aren't? There are million of polygons. I just don't see how the processing overhead for this would work and even if the latency would be able to keep up.


Reference the image I posted above.

Dynamic FOVeated rendering has been operational in higher end VR headsets since 2016.  It's not as complex or as difficult as you're imagining it to be.  There's tons of information and videos out there that clearly demonstrate various implementations across several different brands of high-end VR/XR headsets.
 
2021-12-07 3:05:14 PM  

moike: Reference the image I posted above.

Dynamic FOVeated rendering has been operational in higher end VR headsets since 2016.  It's not as complex or as difficult as you're imagining it to be.  There's tons of information and videos out there that clearly demonstrate various implementations across several different brands of high-end VR/XR headsets.


Yeah, I'm looking at your picture. The image that the headset is sending to your eyes (shown on the screen) looks really narrow - maybe 60 degrees -  tops. You can only see from your left wrist to part of your right wrist. Try holding up your phone right now like you did then and see what percentage of your actual field of vision is being show, Because it is augmented reality there is no magnification which means the panel itself is very small. The vast majority of your eye's field of view is blocked by the headset. It isn't as obvious when using it because it is black. That also explains how they are imaging your eye. Two to four cameras off to the side of the panel are creating a 3D image of your eye which allows really good tracking I suppose.
 
2021-12-07 3:11:10 PM  

fragMasterFlash: kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: The prototype uses two small 4K displays, creating an 8K viewing experience.

The 8K display resolution is 7680 by 4320 pixels. A 4K panel is 3840 by 2160 pixels. Two 4k panels side by side gives you a 7680 by 2160, which is only half the vertical resolution of an 8K display.

/still a cool device
//only getting a bit pet peevish about poor quality journalism

4K + 4K = 8K

Math

Try again...

[Fark user image image 740x415]

4+4=8

I really cannot get much simpler without using apples instead of numbers

Math is math

X*Y=Display Resolution
X2*Y X2*Y2

Doubling the length of only one axis (X) does not double the total resolution, and it also completely changes the aspect ratio, which is kind of a really big deal.


Fark user imageView Full Size


There are 8 Ks!
 
2021-12-07 3:15:08 PM  

madgonad: moike: Reference the image I posted above.

Dynamic FOVeated rendering has been operational in higher end VR headsets since 2016.  It's not as complex or as difficult as you're imagining it to be.  There's tons of information and videos out there that clearly demonstrate various implementations across several different brands of high-end VR/XR headsets.

Yeah, I'm looking at your picture. The image that the headset is sending to your eyes (shown on the screen) looks really narrow - maybe 60 degrees -  top...


Ok...

That's a camera reference window on the HMD control app and not a true representation of what is seen inside the headset by the user.  The actual in-headset FOV on VR and AR passthrough is 115 degrees, or for a relatable example, slightly wider and taller than the FOV on the current Valve Index.

Because it is augmented reality there is no magnification which means the panel itself is very small. The vast majority of your eye's field of view is blocked by the headset. It isn't as obvious when using it because it is black. That also explains how they are imaging your eye. Two to four cameras off to the side of the panel are creating a 3D image of your eye which allows really good tracking I suppose.

As they like to say around here, you could use to study it out.  You're making a lot of assumptions from a position of ignorance and it shows.
 
2021-12-07 3:17:03 PM  
I just want to be able to try on on VR headset with my glasses on to make sutre it fits first.

This is apparently too hard for any store to do.
 
2021-12-07 3:22:56 PM  
Sweet now I can have even higher resolution and the 2 applications that use VR
 
2021-12-07 3:29:03 PM  
My nightmare: Watching a shaky cam movie in high res on VR. On my TV or monitor, I can just half pay attention to the G%#@%%^$# shaky cam movies. I still know the movie without my eyeballs being in a blender. In VR, my eyeballs would explode.
:(
 
2021-12-07 3:35:25 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: I just want to be able to try on on VR headset with my glasses on to make sutre it fits first.

This is apparently too hard for any store to do.


When it was time for me to buy new glasses I literally did the exact opposite of that.

Out of the 14 headsets currently in the studio the Quest 2 has the tightest inner dimensions on the facial interface in terms of clearance for glasses.  So I took it to the Optometrist and tried frames till I found a pair that fit comfortably in the headset.

Normally I work in contacts since I have to switch between multiple headsets most days for control input testing.  But it's nice to have the option for glasses when my eyes get dried out and irritated from having a hot plastic brick of electronics strapped to my face for hours on end.

Fark user imageView Full Size


If you can make it to a Best Buy you can see if your frames fit inside of one of their Quest 2 display models.  If your frames fit in a Quest 2 comfortably, they'll fit in the majority of consumer grade VR headsets currently available.
 
2021-12-07 3:37:52 PM  

kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: kkinnison: fragMasterFlash: The prototype uses two small 4K displays, creating an 8K viewing experience.

The 8K display resolution is 7680 by 4320 pixels. A 4K panel is 3840 by 2160 pixels. Two 4k panels side by side gives you a 7680 by 2160, which is only half the vertical resolution of an 8K display.

/still a cool device
//only getting a bit pet peevish about poor quality journalism

4K + 4K = 8K

Math

Try again...

[Fark user image image 740x415]

4+4=8

I really cannot get much simpler without using apples instead of numbers

Math is math

X*Y=Display Resolution
X2*Y X2*Y2

Doubling the length of only one axis (X) does not double the total resolution, and it also completely changes the aspect ratio, which is kind of a really big deal.

[Fark user image 400x260] [View Full Size image _x_]

There are 8 Ks!


I salute you sir.  You got a few good bites.  It's been a while since I've seen bait this subtle and effective.
 
2021-12-07 3:40:22 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: I just want to be able to try on on VR headset with my glasses on to make sutre it fits first.

This is apparently too hard for any store to do.


You can buy lenses for the headset with your prescription. Not too expensive. If you can afford the VR, you can afford the lenses.
 
2021-12-07 4:11:27 PM  

FarkingChas: Jim from Saint Paul: I just want to be able to try on on VR headset with my glasses on to make sutre it fits first.

This is apparently too hard for any store to do.

You can buy lenses for the headset with your prescription. Not too expensive. If you can afford the VR, you can afford the lenses.


I have an Oculus, and I discovered that since I'm nearsighted I didn't need my glasses while wearing it. It's actually really cool being able to be in these virtual worlds and see far distances without my glasses. I mean, I'm wearing something even more cumbersome, but it's still neat.

So to anyone nearsighted, if you can see things clearly when they are close to your face, you might not need glasses or prescription lenses for VR.
 
2021-12-07 4:18:08 PM  

moike: Jim from Saint Paul: I just want to be able to try on on VR headset with my glasses on to make sutre it fits first.

This is apparently too hard for any store to do.

When it was time for me to buy new glasses I literally did the exact opposite of that.

Out of the 14 headsets currently in the studio the Quest 2 has the tightest inner dimensions on the facial interface in terms of clearance for glasses.  So I took it to the Optometrist and tried frames till I found a pair that fit comfortably in the headset.

Normally I work in contacts since I have to switch between multiple headsets most days for control input testing.  But it's nice to have the option for glasses when my eyes get dried out and irritated from having a hot plastic brick of electronics strapped to my face for hours on end.

[Fark user image 640x526]

If you can make it to a Best Buy you can see if your frames fit inside of one of their Quest 2 display models.  If your frames fit in a Quest 2 comfortably, they'll fit in the majority of consumer grade VR headsets currently available.


I appreciate the idea. Personally, VR wouldn't be worth changing around my frames for. Still, it's an idea I can log away for the future.

FarkingChas: You can buy lenses for the headset with your prescription. Not too expensive. If you can afford the VR, you can afford the lenses.


This is a really good idea. The only challenge is that IU have 5 people in the house with glasses and at least 3 of us would actively play with it.

Is it a simple process to change out the lenses? Doesn't feel like it would be.
 
2021-12-07 4:24:07 PM  
soporific:
So to anyone nearsighted, if you can see things clearly when they are close to your face, you might not need glasses or prescription lenses for VR.

The optics of current consumer headsets fix focus to about 10 feet in front of you.  So if you can see/read clearly about 10 feet out, odds are you won't need glasses in the headset.

On the new Vive Flow ultra-compact headset HTC has incorporated individual mechanical focus adjustment into each lens because there's no room in the facial interface for glasses at all.  IPD adjustment is handled in software.  It's not a huge range of focus adjustment, but should work for most people.  Wish more headset mfgrs. would offer this.

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-07 4:33:41 PM  
Jim from Saint Paul:
Is it a simple process to change out the lenses? Doesn't feel like it would be.

Most are just molded to friction fit over the existing lens housings, installation / removal is fairly easy. And there are quite a few companies out there offering prescription lens inserts for most headsets: https://vroptician.com/https://widmovr.com/ - https://vr-lens-lab.com/ are the best known.
 
2021-12-07 6:35:43 PM  

moike: The actual in-headset FOV on VR and AR passthrough is 115 degrees,


115 degrees is barely over half what people can actually see. Binocular vision is 120 degrees, so the headset effectively has no peripheral vision.
 
2021-12-07 6:46:32 PM  

madgonad: moike: The actual in-headset FOV on VR and AR passthrough is 115 degrees,

115 degrees is barely over half what people can actually see. Binocular vision is 120 degrees, so the headset effectively has no peripheral vision.


(sigh) I give up.
 
2021-12-07 7:21:50 PM  

Ketchuponsteak: oldfarthenry: B-B-But I'm still ranting about my 4K screen!

'Why do all these shows look like cheap soap-operas? This screen is hurting my eyes! The damn dog barks at every animal that appears on it! And another thing-'

'STFU and go read a book in another room!'

'Um, okay...'

I'm still on a 1440P screen.

Anyways. movies use the 23:9 aspect ratio. So an UHD movie will still have border on a 4k screen.

The closest they make is an LG 21:10 panel, but the vertical height is less than my current 1440p, sigh.


Movies don't have a universal aspect ratio so it wouldn't make much sense to make a panel specifically for movies.


As for VR, the added resolution is always nice, but increased FOV is more important in my opinion.
 
2021-12-07 8:19:33 PM  

Electrify: I'm not much of a console gamer these days, but I've almost always been more fond of the Xbox brand over the Playstation one. That said, I do very much enjoy VR and it saddens me that Microsoft is not interested in expanding and improving on its WMR tech and bringing it to their consoles.


Can we farking NOT do that? I don't what has happened to streaming platforms where you end up getting a bunch of exclusive titles strewn between 20 platforms/devices and a whole lot of crap. I am currently enjoying having access to basically every game on one device. We don't need XBOX VR vs Playstation VR, vs PC VR, vs Nintendo VR, vs Amazon VR, etc. etc.
 
2021-12-07 9:52:29 PM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Ketchuponsteak: oldfarthenry: B-B-But I'm still ranting about my 4K screen!

'Why do all these shows look like cheap soap-operas? This screen is hurting my eyes! The damn dog barks at every animal that appears on it! And another thing-'

'STFU and go read a book in another room!'

'Um, okay...'

I'm still on a 1440P screen.

Anyways. movies use the 23:9 aspect ratio. So an UHD movie will still have border on a 4k screen.

The closest they make is an LG 21:10 panel, but the vertical height is less than my current 1440p, sigh.

Movies don't have a universal aspect ratio so it wouldn't make much sense to make a panel specifically for movies.


As for VR, the added resolution is always nice, but increased FOV is more important in my opinion.


23:9 seems common for the big titles.

If they could farming make one, I'd buy it. A decent one.
 
2021-12-07 10:11:12 PM  

Ketchuponsteak: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Ketchuponsteak: oldfarthenry: B-B-But I'm still ranting about my 4K screen!

'Why do all these shows look like cheap soap-operas? This screen is hurting my eyes! The damn dog barks at every animal that appears on it! And another thing-'

'STFU and go read a book in another room!'

'Um, okay...'

I'm still on a 1440P screen.

Anyways. movies use the 23:9 aspect ratio. So an UHD movie will still have border on a 4k screen.

The closest they make is an LG 21:10 panel, but the vertical height is less than my current 1440p, sigh.

Movies don't have a universal aspect ratio so it wouldn't make much sense to make a panel specifically for movies.


As for VR, the added resolution is always nice, but increased FOV is more important in my opinion.

23:9 seems common for the big titles.

If they could farming make one, I'd buy it. A decent one.


It's actually 21:9.  But yeah, if most of the stuff you're watching on it is in that aspect ratio then it's not a bad idea.  However, any 16:9 stuff would be pillarboxed, which is more annoying than letterboxing in my opinion.
 
2021-12-08 1:06:50 AM  

moike: Jim from Saint Paul: I just want to be able to try on on VR headset with my glasses on to make sutre it fits first.

This is apparently too hard for any store to do.

When it was time for me to buy new glasses I literally did the exact opposite of that.

Out of the 14 headsets currently in the studio the Quest 2 has the tightest inner dimensions on the facial interface in terms of clearance for glasses.  So I took it to the Optometrist and tried frames till I found a pair that fit comfortably in the headset.

Normally I work in contacts since I have to switch between multiple headsets most days for control input testing.  But it's nice to have the option for glasses when my eyes get dried out and irritated from having a hot plastic brick of electronics strapped to my face for hours on end.

[Fark user image 640x526]

If you can make it to a Best Buy you can see if your frames fit inside of one of their Quest 2 display models.  If your frames fit in a Quest 2 comfortably, they'll fit in the majority of consumer grade VR headsets currently available.


It took me about three days of using a quest 2 with glasses for the glasses lens and headset lens to rub together and scratch each other. Thankfully the one on the headset lens wasn't terrible, but the glasses were a loss. I then 3D printed some adapters and installed lenses into them for half the price of ordering the official prescription inserts, and I'd recommend the same thing to anyone else who wears glasses and wants to use VR. (You can of course buy the adapters online if you don't have your own 3D printer.)
 
2021-12-08 10:50:06 AM  

moike: it a simple process to change out the lenses? Doesn't feel like it would be.

Most are just molded to friction fit over the existing lens housings, installation / removal is fairly easy. And there are quite a few companies out there offering prescription lens inserts for most headsets: https://vroptician.com/ - https://widmovr.com/ - https://vr-lens-lab.com/ are the best known.


Thank you for this information!
 
2021-12-08 12:12:45 PM  

SirSigsegV: I'd recommend the same thing to anyone else who wears glasses and wants to use VR.


Because the panel is 3" from your eyes, why would nearsighted people need glasses?

Do only farsighted people and older adults with presbyopia need the inserts?
 
2021-12-08 1:44:56 PM  

madgonad: SirSigsegV: I'd recommend the same thing to anyone else who wears glasses and wants to use VR.

Because the panel is 3" from your eyes, why would nearsighted people need glasses?

Do only farsighted people and older adults with presbyopia need the inserts?


So I am to the point where, theoretically, I could get bifocals. I don't need them. THey wouldn't hurt though for reading small print up front.

The few times I have tried to play VR games I have to squint for things to not be overpoweringly blurry.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.