Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 465 posts

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#101

Post by throwaway316943 »

garaetjjte wrote: post #24
hppb wrote: post #9

I could see this as a virtual office, as some of the comments speculate. If I had a set of AR glasses that projected what appeared to be an 8K monitor on top of my dining room table, and integrated with my MacBook Pro for input / output, and that had batteries to last a workday, I’d pay $2K/$3K. Even more if it worked well at brightness levels I’d have in my backyard. Never mind gaming, mobile high-quality virtual of…

I'm confused by people saying that they would use VR for work. My head hurts after one or maybe two hours of using it, and if I would work whole day in it?... ugh.

At least when I think of what could be done with a virtual work environment, I imagine it being used to go beyond the limitations of a workstation. We’ve been stuck with the same peripherals for 50+ years, the same GUIs for 25 and we’ve been trying to balance sedentary office work with health for as long as we’ve had swivel chairs. VR allows you to be on your feet moving around and literally putting your hands into the computer while engaging with a truly 3D environment, if we can’t revolutionize work with those gimmes then we deserve our RSI and back pain.

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#102

Post by outoftheabyss »

babyshake wrote: post #39
hppb wrote: post #9

I could see this as a virtual office, as some of the comments speculate. If I had a set of AR glasses that projected what appeared to be an 8K monitor on top of my dining room table, and integrated with my MacBook Pro for input / output, and that had batteries to last a workday, I’d pay $2K/$3K. Even more if it worked well at brightness levels I’d have in my backyard. Never mind gaming, mobile high-quality virtual of…

I'm wondering why Apple doesn't create a device that is much cheaper, has no augmented reality, and is just for consuming TV/movies with A/V quality matching that of the best cinemas. Pay off the device with a monthly subscription that includes Apple TV+. Something like $600-700 would get a lot of people interested.

Like a TV? I just don’t see wearables for consuming entertainment catching on and having mass market appeal

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#103

Post by davrosthedalek »

bigiain wrote: post #52
mycall wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, I would be willing to use 16-bit colors for higher resolution.

16 bit colours on a pair of 8K screens is the best part of half a gigabyte per frame... I assume sir will be wanting 60 or 120 FPS as well? :-)

7680x4320x2pixels x2 bytes/pixel ~ 127 MBytes/frame.

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#104

Post by shock-value »

jiggawatts wrote: post #46
Tomdarkness wrote: post #18

8k seems... optimistic. The PPI of such a display would be off the charts. Not to mention the kind of hardware required to run such a device. The NVIDIA RTX 3090 can barely run a 3D 8k game at 30fps, let alone in 3D for VR. What would you even connect such a device with? Displayport and HDMI wouldn't support two 8k streams.

a) Deep-learning super sampling (DLSS) allows upscaling to 8K at a low cost. b) VR uses variable rate shading because we have a lower visual acuity in our peripheral vision. c) VR rendering typically "shares" a significant amount of the work between the two viewports. E.g.: one set of "commands" are rendered simultaneously into two buffers with different view transforms. Textures and meshes are cached once and render…

Regarding (d), if you have a Quest / Quest 2, there is no need to merely imagine; this is how WiFi + Virtual Desktop works now for PCVR connectivity, and it’s excellent. (Not sure if it tops out at a gigabit but it’s much more than enough for a great experience at 4K of the Quest 2.)

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#105

Post by bigiain »

WalterSear wrote: post #91
bigiain wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

16 bit colours on a pair of 8K screens is the best part of half a gigabyte per frame... I assume sir will be wanting 60 or 120 FPS as well? :-)

Foveated rendering will cut that in half or more.

For some purposes.

There's still 72 raw megapixels in the two displays. Even if you "cheat" and run rendered output for the edges in 4K or 1080p, something still has to drive each RGD emitter for each of those pixels, even if you're painting blocks of 4 or 16 of them all the same colour...

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#107

Post by harikb »

p1necone wrote: post #87
jayd16 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laptop + magical AR/VR headset means you can always have your 3 monitor workspace, even at the coffee shop. Plus, you get fully private screens.

Why even have "monitors", just drag your windows around on a hemisphere in front of you that takes up your whole FOV.

When you share your screen in Zoom/Hangouts/whatever, the monitor boundary is nice to isolate stuff. This is of course because Zoom doesn’t let me “add” n app to existing share after having selected a single app - nothing that can’t be fixed

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#108

Post by enw »

samtimalsina wrote: post #40
jayd16 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem with foveation is its pretty noticeable and mildly annoying for not a huge gain.

Unnoticeable if done right .

Thankfully, if there's any large company on Earth that really cares about perfecting UX, it's Apple.

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#109

Post by darkstarsys »

ryanianian wrote: post #53
garaetjjte wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused by people saying that they would use VR for work. My head hurts after one or maybe two hours of using it, and if I would work whole day in it?... ugh.

The headaches are commonly a result of low resolution, low frame-rate, insufficient lighting, or bad hardware design (too tight or heavy or not adjustable for your head/face/glasses/etc). These are nontrivial problems to solve.

Yes. Not to mention position tracking latency, frame latency, jittery/slow controls, mismatched depth cues (parallax vs. lens focus), and on and on...

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#110

Post by sjg007 »

babyshake wrote: post #39
hppb wrote: post #9

I could see this as a virtual office, as some of the comments speculate. If I had a set of AR glasses that projected what appeared to be an 8K monitor on top of my dining room table, and integrated with my MacBook Pro for input / output, and that had batteries to last a workday, I’d pay $2K/$3K. Even more if it worked well at brightness levels I’d have in my backyard. Never mind gaming, mobile high-quality virtual of…

I'm wondering why Apple doesn't create a device that is much cheaper, has no augmented reality, and is just for consuming TV/movies with A/V quality matching that of the best cinemas. Pay off the device with a monthly subscription that includes Apple TV+. Something like $600-700 would get a lot of people interested.

I don't enjoy wearing glasses when I watch TV. I'm lucky that my vision isn't that bad that I need too.
Post reply on HN