As a casual gamer who pays $2k for a TV, $3k sounds ok for something better than a tv. Sign me up.
New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
131–140 of 465 posts
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#132How are they going to handle bandwidth for 8k in each eye? wired, Wifi, bluetooth, freaking lasers?
freaking lasers attached to the head because every consumer deserves a warm-UX?!
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#133Do 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.
There is not a fixed focal distance in VR. The screens are an inch in front of your eye, but the objects you look at can be (virtually) at any distance. It’s like normal vision. The question of the effect on vision of shining screens into your eyes for hours at a time still stands. Edit: whoops, guess I was wrong about that!
This is inaccurate. Unlike IRL in which objects can appear at varying focal distances, requiring the eye muscles to constantly adjust the focal distance of the eye, the two images in a VR headset (one for each eye) remain at a constant focal distance as determined by the lenses.
The 3D illusion in VR comes from stereoscopy. The objects that appear in VR are actually all at the same focal distance.
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#134Earlier 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.
Nah, they have fixed focus (I think at infinity, but that might not be true). You use other depth cues in normal VR systems, but not focal depth.
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#135Earlier 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.
There's also the odd sensation you can get after extended VR use that your limbs arent really your limbs.
I can get that sensation once in a while when I'm driving for an hour or so in my car. My brain kinda makes the car an extended part of the body so it's a bit of a strange sensation to suddenly "rediscover" your arms and hands as your actual limbs. First time I experienced it I thought it was because I needed a break from driving but I wasn't even remotely tired or unfocused. I was maybe too much immersed like what happens in VR?
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#136Thank 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…
An A12, or even an A14 chip can’t push dual 8k video streams today. Maybe an A14x or M1x with way more GPU cores could pull it off, but even then I think we’re talking about another huge leap over what we’ve seen out of Apple Silicon thus far.
That said, this excites me - I wouldn’t be buying a gen 1 at 3k, but down the road I could see replacing a laptop or two with this kind of thing.
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#137Earlier 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.
Very much disagree. I have a Vive Cosmos Elite which has 90Hz refresh rate (pretty standard apart from the Index) and 1440x1700 resolution, which is a bit higher than the average. IMO it has the most comfortable halo ring design for the headband.
That said, I can spend about an hour in it. I can be having the time of my life but after an hour, I need to take a break if I want to jump back in.
I'd laugh in your face if you told me you planned on working 40 hour weeks in this thing.
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#138The problem with Apple is that although they care about privacy, they don't deeply care about the addictiveness of their products. 30-50 years from now: * in society, concerns about privacy will become fringe * concern about addiction to computational worlds and deeply impaired cognition due to this addiction — initially via iPhones and ultimately by VR — will be the the true concern of the era, not unlike cigarettes
> they don't deeply care about the addictiveness of their products
Apple products aren't inherently addictive. It's the applications that are.
Also they do provide Screen Time and other features to control your usage of their devices.
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#139What's the necessary resolution in each eye needed to be "retina"? Once we reach that will it be the end of the "monitor era"? A lot of interesting things can happen once you no longer need monitors. Though sharing with others will still be a practical limitation so I doubt they'll go anywhere for now. Once you no longer have monitors I think there will have to be a UI and UX shift around how you interact with things…
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.
In the future there may be an integrated display technology that physically cannot display an arbitrary combination of pixels at high speed, but can only do so for the space of "images which humans are likely to see" which I suspect is an unimaginably smaller possibility space.
I suppose something like a neural representation of a scene that is directly rendered on the underlying hardware, without first being converted to a raw bit stream.
Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag
#140Earlier 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.
The eye doesn't care about pixels, the eye cares about the smallest detail that it can distinguish. If you specify a particular distance you can figure out how small the pixels have to be at that range so that you can't see them. It's around one half of an arc-minute, which is to say, 1/120th of a degree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity is a really useful overview.
Now, we know that human eyes can only cover a little less than 180 degrees horizontally, and about 135 degrees vertically, so we could multiply each of those by 120 and get:
180 * 120 = 21600 across by 135 *120 = 16200 down. That's a screen where every pixel is guaranteed not to be distinguishable from the ones around it. If you had this on a hemispherical screen 10cm from your eye, your square pixels need to be no larger than 0.0145 mm on a diagonal, or if you prefer have a dot pitch of 0.0145 mm. Current state of commercial availability smartphone screens have dot pitches of about 0.045 mm, about 3 times too big.
Does that help?