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

Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

kguttag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#21

Post by bryanlarsen »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #10
audunw wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, if they have a limited production rate on this “prototype” - which it seems they do - pricing it so only the ones who are extremely enthusiastic, or ones that will actually develop apps for it and thus consider it an investment, is absolutely the right thing to do. Meanwhile they also get that halo effect where they establish it as a premium product. If they later drop the price or let inflation slowly redu…

But why would you release a "limited production prototype" to the public for purchase as a finished product? It's very non-Apple. The iPod, iPhone, iPad etc were not released as limited edition prototypes. I don't think Steve Jobs, had he still be alive and in charge, would have released the AVP yet in this state. Same how Appel hasn't yet released a folding phone even though Android OEMs have been doing it for 5 yea…

I'd argue that the iPhone without the app store was unfinished / a prototype.

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#22

Post by slashink »

htk wrote: post #18

It reads like this guy has an axe to grind with the AVP or with reviewers. He really wants to convince the reader that the product is not good and it doesn't matter what people feel about it. I'm all for objective analysis, but what if the slight blurriness helps with the immersion? And what's the problem with the displays not being as precise as 1080p monitors if the immersion is good and people are satisfied with t…

The author ends the review by saying “AVP is the superior product” so I find it hard to agree with your take. The information presented clearly shows the tradeoffs that Apple has chosen with their displays. It’s left up to the reader to decide if that’s a subjectively more enjoyable experience but from the objective viewpoint, the article does a good job at showcasing the drawbacks.

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#23

Post by quitit »

htk wrote: post #18

It reads like this guy has an axe to grind with the AVP or with reviewers. He really wants to convince the reader that the product is not good and it doesn't matter what people feel about it. I'm all for objective analysis, but what if the slight blurriness helps with the immersion? And what's the problem with the displays not being as precise as 1080p monitors if the immersion is good and people are satisfied with t…

It is needlessly smug and overconfident.

The core problem is that taking a photo with a camera isn't a valid comparison to the optics of the human eye.

Unlike digital cameras which are designed to bring colour into focus on a single plane (the sensor), the natural human eye produces a mixture of focal points dependent on wavelength of light, falling before and after the macula. The display+lens proximity to the cornea and natural crystalline lens needs to be accounted for; it's not going to be perfectly planar to the eye, and that is going to cause blurring which will change dependent on how the digital camera rig is arranged as well as lens selection.

Analysis based on photos taken through the viewport is an insufficient approach to draw conclusions as they don't account for phenomena present in the human eye. A secondary factor is that certain types of blurring may be intentional to offset the development of myopia. (It could even be to help prevent the appearance of aliasing.)

One can take "thousands" of photos of VR goggles, it doesn't make them an ophthalmologist. It makes them good at taking photos of VR goggles.

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#24

Post by peddling-brink »

quitit wrote: post #23
htk wrote: post #18

It reads like this guy has an axe to grind with the AVP or with reviewers. He really wants to convince the reader that the product is not good and it doesn't matter what people feel about it. I'm all for objective analysis, but what if the slight blurriness helps with the immersion? And what's the problem with the displays not being as precise as 1080p monitors if the immersion is good and people are satisfied with t…

It is needlessly smug and overconfident. The core problem is that taking a photo with a camera isn't a valid comparison to the optics of the human eye. Unlike digital cameras which are designed to bring colour into focus on a single plane (the sensor), the natural human eye produces a mixture of focal points dependent on wavelength of light, falling before and after the macula. The display+lens proximity to the corne…

I don’t have an MQ3, so I can’t compare, but I can say the photo of the blurriness of the AVP is not representative of what the eye sees with that same picture open as large as it will go, as far from the viewer as it will go.

I can see 5 lines, not some amorphous blob.

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#25

Post by quitit »

peddling-brink wrote: post #24
quitit wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is needlessly smug and overconfident. The core problem is that taking a photo with a camera isn't a valid comparison to the optics of the human eye. Unlike digital cameras which are designed to bring colour into focus on a single plane (the sensor), the natural human eye produces a mixture of focal points dependent on wavelength of light, falling before and after the macula. The display+lens proximity to the corne…

I don’t have an MQ3, so I can’t compare, but I can say the photo of the blurriness of the AVP is not representative of what the eye sees with that same picture open as large as it will go, as far from the viewer as it will go. I can see 5 lines, not some amorphous blob.

I was going to add to my comment but it was dragging on a bit: the real test is simply to put it on and wear it.

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#26

Post by freitzkriesler2 »

Am I the only one sick of this cyberpunk dystopian tech? VR tech was a fun niche toy and this isn't that much different. Walking around all of the time with one is a level of cringe I can't even fathom.

Might as well call them iSores.

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#27

Post by andsoitis »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #14
andsoitis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think Steve Jobs, had he still be alive and in charge, would have released the AVP yet in this state. Even assuming that, what does it matter? He’s not around and times change.

>Even assuming that, what does it matter? He’s not around and times change. Because they can also change for the worst. This product is less Apple iPad and more Apple Newton. Both were great innovative technical achievements of tablet computers in their eras, but only one was a smash hit with the mainstream public. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton

The following products were all created under Jobs' direction and failed commercially:

- Apple III (1981)

- Lisa (1983)

- Puck Mouse (1998)

- The Cube (2000)

- iTunes phone (2005)

- Apple TV (2007)

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#28

Post by dann0 »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #10
audunw wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, if they have a limited production rate on this “prototype” - which it seems they do - pricing it so only the ones who are extremely enthusiastic, or ones that will actually develop apps for it and thus consider it an investment, is absolutely the right thing to do. Meanwhile they also get that halo effect where they establish it as a premium product. If they later drop the price or let inflation slowly redu…

But why would you release a "limited production prototype" to the public for purchase as a finished product? It's very non-Apple. The iPod, iPhone, iPad etc were not released as limited edition prototypes. I don't think Steve Jobs, had he still be alive and in charge, would have released the AVP yet in this state. Same how Appel hasn't yet released a folding phone even though Android OEMs have been doing it for 5 yea…

It is actually very Apple, and perhaps even more so at post-Jobs Apple.

The iPod wasn’t as good on paper as the Rio or Rune. Cost a LOT more too.

The original iPhone wasn’t great, but it was good enough to capture the imagination. It certainly wasn’t cheap.

The Series 0 Watch was also pretty ordinary, especially when compared to other smart watches. Expensive too.

Same with Siri, the HomePod and Apple TV, but these haven’t quite hit the mark. Probably not failures (except maybe Siri), but not in the best of Apple category.

All of these early products were for the bleeding edge. They provide the feedback and insight into how the product is going to be used.

Apple’s special ability is to find the essence of what a good product needs to have, quickly. Sometimes they don’t nail it first time, but they excel at finding out and then iterating until it does.

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#29

Post by dann0 »

andsoitis wrote: post #27
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even assuming that, what does it matter? He’s not around and times change. Because they can also change for the worst. This product is less Apple iPad and more Apple Newton. Both were great innovative technical achievements of tablet computers in their eras, but only one was a smash hit with the mainstream public. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton

The following products were all created under Jobs' direction and failed commercially: - Apple III (1981) - Lisa (1983) - Puck Mouse (1998) - The Cube (2000) - iTunes phone (2005) - Apple TV (2007)

I’d argue that the Motorola iTunes phone was a success. I don’t think its goal was to be a great phone, I think it was to bring in some much needed cash.

The original Apple TV, like the iPod hifi, always felt like a hobby project that really needed some decent investment. I think they couldn’t really figure out what they needed it to be, but someone important wanted to have an Apple something in their home.

Post reply on HN