[deleted]
New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
141–150 of 465 posts
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#142Thank God, with oculus being hostile towards consumers this provides a much-needed option,. I strongly suspect this will be the first year pro model, and next year so we'll see a consumer model. Assuming it runs on an a12 or an a14 chip existing iOS apps, I.e Unity projects will run out of the box. So I could imagine developers being able to get games out within a month or so. I do wonder if Unity has some type of to…
Agreed, I’ll pay $3000 just to keep Facebook from invading my (VR) life.
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe this to be true - don't you need a light field for this to be possible? i.e. what magic leap was doing?
It is obviously saliently true just via direct experience. Your eyes focus at different distances when looking at 3d objects in VR. You can feel it! I am not a physicist by any means, and I am not sure what a "light field" exactly is in terms of engineering, but as a everyday skeptic I am generally rather wary of anything Magic Leap puts out.
You are confusing optical focus (like a camera lens or the lens in your eye) with stereopsis - the mechanism by which your brain detects depth information through parallax.
The VR headset shows each eye a slightly different image. Objects appear in slightly different locations in each image. When you look at these virtual objects, the relative angle between your eyes changes which creates the illusion of depth. (This is my layman understanding. I am open to correction).
The optical focal distance remains constant, however.
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#144Sooo looking forward to being able to live fully in a virtual world. Virtual cash, virtual socially distanced "relationships" and friends, a virtual body so I don't have to work out, and Neuralink attached to my brain (or whatever's left of that) so other people can make decisions for me. What a relief it's all coming together
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rumors indicate this to only being a transitionary product for AR. Sorta like a dev kit, but not named that way.
The future of AR is VR. With 8K screens you just redraw reality.
Sure, but the quality of those 8k screens are important. Reality has very high dynamic range, refresh rate, and bit depth :)
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#146I 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…
Why? I mostly have zero interest in being immersed in meetings. Most people aren't IRL most of the time. There's potentially value where people need to be on-site in other contexts such as repairing equipment.
Who said anything about meetings?
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#147Do we know what the effects are likely to be of wearing a VR headset for hours at a time? I don't think our eyes are going to be happy with a fixed focal length for an extended period of time. At least when I'm working on a laptop/desktop, I'm constantly looking around the room, at my keyboard etc.
Curious of this too, I don't want to go blind!
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
A field of view about 180 degrees wide, 135 degrees high, 1 arc minute in maximum pixel size, and updated 100 times per second… twice, to account for full stereography, and using 48 bits of color. 180 * 135 * 60 * 60 * 100 * 48 = 419904000000, 420 billion bits per second, without compression.
Keep in mind that the 90FPS benchmark is merely required to achieve "presence," which is the phenomenon of the brain accepting the virtual reality as reality. Higher framerates are always beneficial (as this also reduces latency). > 420Gbps I assume foveated compression (a pet idea of mine that I have no doubt someone else also has) is probably the only way to realistically deliver the stream to the HMD (assuming tha…
Right, 420Gb/s is the worst-case number. If you can track the fovea accurately, at 100 Hz you need to keep at least a 9 degree circle at full resolution -- more likely an 18 degree circle -- and even so, there's no mechanical system likely that's going to keep up with that motion, so you need a display screen at full resolution across the entire surface, even if you're only painting full resolution across a small sector each frame.
Also also note: there's head motion to track and events to respond to. If you're playing a movie, that's pretty much your best case because you only have to pan and tilt a stream of things you already know about. Playing a game is medium bad, because you can predict the range of possible events. Doing AR mediation is worst, because you can't predict the rest of the universe.
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
I know what parallax is, but what is lens focus? Is that an area seeking improvement in AR research?
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
A field of view about 180 degrees wide, 135 degrees high, 1 arc minute in maximum pixel size, and updated 100 times per second… twice, to account for full stereography, and using 48 bits of color. 180 * 135 * 60 * 60 * 100 * 48 = 419904000000, 420 billion bits per second, without compression.
What's the resolution in terms of a screen? Like height by width in pixels? Sorry if that's obvious from your comment, coming at this with just basic consumer knowledge about displays.
From the logic of the GP, that would be:
Height: 135 * 60 (135 degrees at 60 pixels per degree)
Width: 180 * 60
So 87 megapixels, or a 10.8K display with a 4:3 aspect ratio