|
It's the visual field not quite synchronised that causes the nausea. No problem if it doesn't change at all (Hold big magazine that fills field of view at reading distance) or if it's perfect.
Takes awesome computing and GPU to seamlessly vary view with head and eye movement. Some systems can sense eye focus to only have distance you are looking at sharp on a stereoscopic view.
However immersive VR is far more challenging than AR. With AR you see the real world view normally but it's like a car windscreen or fighter aircraft with a HUD (head up display). Basic AR needs only a fraction of computer resources, field of view and resolution of VR. It can use regular recorded video. True VR simulated 3D looks like 3D (because display POV is "instantly" changed according to eye and head movement. You also need equivalent to an 8K 45" panel at reading distance, but you only need full resolution at the centre of your view.
Non-AR, non-VR but immersive viewing is a 3rd category. You need a display about twice as big at least in effective viewing area as say an 16" page or ereader at normal viewing distance in portrait mode. Then you can have two pages side by side. If you wanted "immersive" and it was equivalent to an 8" 300 dpi view in the goggles you'd have have that only in about centre 1/3rd of the view, so one solution would be a static illuminated film or simply you'd have a blank area.
So really the idea of an immersive set of reading or video goggles is like as if you have a ski mask with cut outs only large enough to see the page or video screen. You can't read or watch video except in a the centre of your field of vision. You can try a couple sheets of card with square holes to view a print out about 5" x 5" with 256 x 256 pixels and only 100% black text with no aliasing to see what a stupid product this is.
VR is really either for examining objects by remote video (cameras need to move with your head), or 3D CAD/CAE visualisation or computer games. It's a useless technology for reading or viewing recorded video.
AR other than a simple HUD (like speed, altitude. pitch) is needing either a remote human text tagging objects (target to shoot at on a battle field) or massive pattern matching so-called AI. It doesn't need as much GPU as VR, but the amount of CPU depends on the application. Applications could be complex surgery (with additional humans adding content), production line rework (superimposing correct part), maintenance (taging parts). Any non-trivial AR is going to be domain specific and expensive subscription and computer power, but likely the users would be then "locked into" that supplier. That's why Facebook/Meta has abandoned Metaverse (it's an expensive toy) and the big companies are all promoting AR rather than VR as VR is really games only that are very expensive to develope. Also real VR needs more than sound and vision (which is challenging to do fast enough) but needs a haptic full bodysuit with full movement sensing, probably in a tank.
|