That number is new. As I recall it was stated before at 80%. So i think the grapevine might be wrong.
I hope you’re right man. It’s one of the main reasons I’m not expecting too much of the HMD at this point. But it might turn out you’re right. I guess at least some Berlin visitors own the Pimax 4k so they can compare and make a judgement of the SDE/resolution in comparison to the Pimax 4k. If you’re right, should be about the same. If the grapevine is right, the Pimax 8k SDE/resolution will be about/slightly below the odyssey/Vive Pro level.
Indeed at this point too much speculation. What we need is release of 5k/8k & a full head on review of these 3 headsets. Until then were just mole ppl. Lol
Although the interestinh trend is more resolution height.
Stretched over a huuge FOV. The ppd wont be that much higher than current gen. Their claim of ppd is a bit shady.
I was doing some math recently based on my personal assumption. As this Star VR One have same similarities I will do the same principles to be able to compare.
This is comparable to Pimax5K, not 8K even 5K and 8K have exactly same native resolution 8K have some advantage over 4K displays. Hardware upscaling to 4K per eye and significantly less SDE. But resources consumption is the same if we compare 5and 8K Pimax.
StarVR One compared with Pimax5K will have lower PPD for about 10%. Not much but lower. There is also a question of lenses to compare. We could notice different aspect ratio over displays also 5% wider FOV what is bring some other issues like picture higher distortion which should compensate in two ways. With optics and software picture stretching. This brings another fact that because this physical differences StarVR one optics must have higher magnification factor what means larger pixels impression as an end result. Those are Cons compared to Pimax5K.
Pro for StarVR one is fact that they use AMOLED displays. That means better colors and more vivid picture like for example difference in Odyssey vs Explorer WMR. Also, there is a dual DP connector for each display separately what could have better refresh rate and more smoother picture. Possible future benefit from VR SLI/CF dual GPU configuration.
It will be interesting to compare it on the same machine in the same games, not on some specific presentation software made to bring only pros without testing in a real situation for real comparison. That is why I don’t expect much from Sebastian if he will not be able to do some serious testing and comparison with Pimax8K under the same condition.
BTW StarVR is under development more than 5 years.
The HMD is not as wide as the Pimax it seams and it looks like the screens have a flatter angle. Yet they claim more FoV.
This could mean way more distortion to compensate and a FoV that has some fish eye effect to cram the wide view in there.
It’s all speculation unfortunately. Besides the marketing material there’s nothing else?
They could have been forced by the progress Pimax is making to make some marketing noise to calm investors…?
I made some wrong assumptions. It was originally based on the FoV of 210° and the prototypes 2x 2560x1440 panels.
Now with the new panels said to be 2x 1830x1464 my estimation for perceived pixel per degree of FoV is 18 which is lower than the DK2 that features roughly 20 pixel per degree of FoV, in my estimation model the Pimax5k has 26 vs. the StarVR prototype that was 25.
So no. There is too much weird information about this headset circulating. The display resolution is simply way to small for the advertised FoV and the marketing material showing crystal clear text and numbers to read.
I think the headset looks great but since people are speculating 2-10 k for it i dont think its an issue with consumer version of 8k in terms of competition. now it may be an entirely different story with competition in the business sector.
I thought 1464 is the horizontal res, not the vertical one (2928 x 1830 both eyes)
At least it’s how the article specified it…
The 2 articles are reporting differently.
I’m not sure why you bolded four base stations, that’s just how steamvr works.
As Heliosurge said: There are apprently a bunch of articles saying different things. :7
I have no idea where these articles get their numbers, but guess word of mouth from demonstrators; StarVR’s own specs page just lists the rather nebulous “16 million subpixels” (man, how I hate marketing lingo), which could mean 1 pixel tall, and 5333333 pixels wide, for all I know.
…but taller than wide, with 210x130 degrees, would make for some rather Commodore64-like pixels, so I doubt that. at least. :7
@Mazi: I seem to recall Infiniteye/StarVR has in the past dabbled with prisms, to try to shift the image around (…and I believe the lenses were always stacks of fresnel lens sheets, rather than a single layer).
As for now, I would assume their new custom optics (whether single lens, or a more complex train) are designed to wrap the image on a physically smaller display panel, across a larger arc; Every lens segment can theoretically be tuned individually, when one design one’s own fresnel lens, rather than pick a symmetrical one off a store shelf; conceivably compensating for things like field curvature, and so on.
Could you outline your ppd estimation model, by the way? Every one of your numbers seems rather high, to my mind.
Where did you pull out that PPD? Based on what?
PPD = horizontal resolution per eye / FOV per eye and your numbers are totally incorrect.
These values are not totally correct but you will get the point.
DK2 - 960 / 100 = 9.6 PPD
CV1 - 1080 / 100 = 10.8 PPD
Vive PRO /WMR - 1440 / 100 = 14.4 PPD
Pimax5K/8K - 2560 / 150 = 17 PPD
StarVR one - 1830 / 150 = 12.2 PPD
This is an example using same formula on all. I use round FOV value but real numbers with exact values will not make significant changes what could effect on end results. Sorry, your number is completely wrong and completely changing perspective.
Pimax 5k/8k horizontal Fov = 170
StarVr One horizontal Fov = 210
So StarVR One will have much lower PPD: 1830/210 = 8.7 PPD.
Pimax theoretically would have 2560/170 = 15.05 PPD, BUT rumours are that the lenses only can display half of the panel size. In which case the PPD would drop to about 7.5, so LOWER than the StarVR …
EDIT Hmm I think this is wrong, you’d probably need to calculate it diagonally, so use pythagoras
Pimax 8k: square root (3840² + 2160²)/170 = 26 PPD
StarVR One: (1830² + 1464²)/210 =11.2 PDD
So even if Pimax 8k would use 50% of the panel size, it would still have better PPD than the StarVR One.
Then multiply the starvr by 3/2 for effective resolution due to extra subpixel and it looks better ( well it should if we ever get to see it )
Notz exactly. 170 is a possibility but 200 is real FOV. As I understand it is software possibilities and will not effect on PPD because this reduction turning off part of the display to reduce rendering resources on GPU. So it is simultaneously reducing FOV same as a resolution so PPD stays the same.
But anyway as I say this is not exact figures but you can get a point what I was want to say. Fact is that StarVR One has lower PPD than WMR.
So is it that awesome? Awesome, based on what?
No. Pimax is horizontally 170 maximum. The 210 you’re talking about is diagonally.
Pimax 8k should look smoother than starvr but probably not as bright , a bit like the difference between my OG vive with the lens swap and the WMR lcd headsets ( I can’t decide which one I prefer ) I only use the vive pro now lol
FOV id FOV and there is no diagonal FOV. StarVR got 210 Pimax got 200 and that’s horizontal. I told you what is that reduction to 170 FOV and why.
And please read what I’m writing and don’t twisting my words.
As I said before this more accurate figures will not change significantly on end results. Difference between 11.2 and 12 is insignificant but the point is the same but you manage to make it complicated without in essence change nothing and confusing 70% of the people who read this.
I don’t want to debate on this pointless details but please don’t make it complicated especially when there is no need for it.