The future is nearly here

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by neil_swann80

Being able to explores the locations and meet the characters in your favourite books...

No thank you. They would not look like I imagined them and would spoil my reading experience.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by andyh2000

As comfortable as wearing a Meta Quest headset gets - not bad once you get it adjusted and get used to it. And no motion sickness - I've been using the Quest since version 1 came out so I'm pretty used to it now, although flight sims still make me queasy.

The problem is the resolution still isn't quite high enough so you have to bring the comic 'nearer' to you than is ideal.

It really is a glimpse of the virtual future though.

Andrew

It could be the Apple Vision Pro is the future as it seems to have better specs then any other VR headset.

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It could be the Apple Vision Pro is the future as it seems to have better specs then any other VR headset.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The future will never come. It's always in the future. Tomorrow also never comes.

[neil_swann80]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

No thank you. They would not look like I imagined them and would spoil my reading experience.

But perhaps with the combination of AI and Neuralink they would!

[John F]

Originally Posted by Quoth

AR & VR headsets will only be as good as an external screen when as light and as unobtrusive as glasses (spectacles) and about 8K to 16K resolution per eye, 300 fps so 25, 30, 50 or 60 video can be in a window and having about 1ms response time to eye or head movement. The Z-axis on any interactive application needs to track how far away you are looking or even Stereoscopic video will be tiring and somewhat flat. Close one eye and move your head and alternately your eyes and both. What you see is still 3D.

We are nowhere near that. Just the processing needs about x10 to x100 of existing top of the range Xbox/PS/Gamer PC.

Many of the Apple VR sets are being returned. It's a flop.

What are you referring to with resolution? A pixel count, a mathematical sense, an optical sense, ...?

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by John F

What are you referring to with resolution? A pixel count, a mathematical sense, an optical sense, ...?

Pixel count for display so as there is sufficient sharpness for a decent field of view. Though if the phiscal display units could move as fast as the eyes (and content on them) less FOV is needed and resolution doesn't need to be as good at the edges. We can't easily do that right now.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by neil_swann80

But perhaps with the combination of AI and Neuralink they would!

Not if Disney is producing it.

[neil_swann80]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Not if Disney is producing it.

Or if they use Google's Gemini AI.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Pixel count for display so as there is sufficient sharpness for a decent field of view. Though if the phiscal display units could move as fast as the eyes (and content on them) less FOV is needed and resolution doesn't need to be as good at the edges. We can't easily do that right now.

So when you say "8k to 16k resolution per eye", you are saying 8k to 16k dpi?

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by John F

So when you say "8k to 16k resolution per eye", you are saying 8k to 16k dpi?

No. The dpi is not simple on headsets. It depends on the optics / FOV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_resolution

HD (about 2K), QHD, UHD/4K etc say nothing about dpi. That depends on the physical size of a screen. But a head set has lenses between your eyes and the display panels. The actual physical DPI isn't important, but what counts is what percentage of FOV (Field of view) a display takes up. This is a similar issue to how far away you are sitting from a 55″ 4K TV, and normally that doesn't at all fill your field of view. A 72″ screen in an average living room might fill your FOV.

There are multiple challenges with a headset:
1) FOV
2) high enough resolution that you don't see the pixels at a nearly complete FOV.
3) How far away the image seems to be (what distance is your eye focusing at).
4) What happens when you move your head?
5) What happens when you move your eyes?

How it's managed is very different for

1) Simple display. The image can be simply mono and as if you had a physical display suspended in front of you that moved with your head. This can use a direct mirror/video input. A dumb display. A stereoscopic version is simply using two video feeds or a so called "3D" video (useually alternate frames are left & right eye). The fad has passed so there is little content. Some BD players can play it. There is no issue with lag.

2) Augmented reality where real things you see are tagged or overlaid and that has to move on the display as you move your eyes and head. Also the optics need to adjust so that when whatever you are looking at is a different distance the tag/overlay changes it's apparent distance to remain sharp.Lag is a problem but not sickening as main view is not electronic. Cheap and nasty AR has the text / video overlay at a fixed viewing distance, though might have a manual adjusting range.


3) Simple VR, like a video game. The head movement is simply mapped to the game Up-Down-Left-Right FPV controls. Most existing games will work, even many DOS ones. The video is usually not stereoscopic, both eyes get the same image. Lag will make you nauseous. Can't work with fixed video. A remote live camera with fast enough pan & tilt can work (needs mirrors).

4) intermediate VR. Eye tracking is added to the head movement to mapped to the game Up-Down-Left-Right FPV controls. Lag will make you nauseous. The HW is much more expensive and more host CPU is needed. Needs stereoscopic game for 2D effect. Regular non-VR games work in 2D. A remote live camera with fast enough pan & tilt can work (needs mirrors). Two cameras will give live 3D effect. Lag will make you nauseous even more quickly.

5) Full VR. Currently needs laser projection as physical lenses as used with good AR can't move fast enough. Currently only theoretical and some lab demos. The Z axis point of sharpness varies with eye focus. A laser projection has the property that it's sharp at any distance, hence lasers. Two cameras with ultra fast focus and mirror based pan & tilt will give true 3D live remote vision, even if you close one eye! Lag will make you nauseous very quickly and destroys the illusion of "being there", either in a game or remote cameras.

[Quoth]

Short version.

Current AR headsets can barely do AR. Headsets where you also have a real life view and video is superimposed.

Currrent VR headsets only just beat a Simple Display. Headsets that have no real life view without a camera. Lag is a big issue. All have a simple display mode that's just as if you have a (pair of) phone(s) in a box with lenses on your head for non-VR content.
Some can do a sort of AR mode by also having a camera(s) on the headset.

The sector suffers from hype and fake simulation videos. Quantum Leap used cinema CGI off-line to generate fake demos. I've seen video last week of Apple's system. It's a simulation / video edit, not a recording of what your eye(s) see. The resolution of the panels used is good, but otherwise it's nowhere near any sort of true AR or VR system. The only compelling use case seems to be to watch video or read stuff or play games very privately. Porn on bus / train / ship / aircraft? Hence many are being returned. There are solutions at 1/4 the price that let you do that. $3500 ex shipping, taxes etc!

[Quoth]

Oh, and a headset on it's own doesn't cut it for real VR. You need a suit that senses your movement and gives physical feedback. Probably a sensory deprivation tank, some drugs and mounting it all on a fair ground/NASA moving/jerking thing to simulate acceleration/deceleration/falling etc. Smells and breeze/wind/rain/snow etc a challenge.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Quoth

No. ...

You seem to have a humpty dumpy definition of "resolution".

From a previous discussion:

Originally Posted by Quoth

The 300 dpi is the resolution. The 1860 x 2480 is pixels. ...

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by John F

You seem to have a humpty dumpy definition of "resolution".

No, Resolution means different things in different contexts.
I did not define them.
HD, QHD, UHD, 4K and 8K are common terms for overall resolution. They tell you little without knowing screen size, distance and application, except that for the same screen size at the same distance the bigger values have higher dpi.

However 96 dpi, HiDPI, Retina, 300 dpi are also common terms for resolution, independent of distance, screen size and pixels.


You are nit-picking and you must live under a bridge if you can't see the differences in context. We had this conversation before so unless you have forgotten it was perfectly explained that for displays resolution has two meanings.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Quoth

No, Resolution means different things in different contexts.
I did not define them.
HD, QHD, UHD, 4K and 8K are common terms for overall resolution. They tell you little without knowing screen size, distance and application, except that for the same screen size at the same distance the bigger values have higher dpi.

However 96 dpi, HiDPI, Retina, 300 dpi are also common terms for resolution, independent of distance, screen size and pixels.


You are nit-picking and you must live under a bridge if you can't see the differences in context. We had this conversation before so unless you have forgotten it was perfectly explained that for displays resolution has two meanings.

Go back to My quote. You are nit picking. Just about everyone would recognize X x Y as a definition/specification of resolution.