So Star vr one is awesome. What the hell just happened?


#62

There was a long discussion (with no real resolution to it) whether the Pimax 200° FoV number is about the horizontal or the diagonal FoV. They have repeatedly said it was horizontal, but e.g. their KS FoV graphics depict it to be diagonal. So inconclusive information here. Diagonal would obviously translate into a lower number for horizontal FoV.

But while it is cool to argue the shit out of everything (and frankly we seem to have little else to do these days), we will only get to know the answer once we try the 8K. Next opportunity being in Berlin. [edited because I was being thick - you would not be able to see the stick when wearing the M2… :laughing:]


#63

Nope. 100% confirmed by ‘little birdie’ that Pimax Fov is MAXIMUM 170 horizontally. The 210 pimax adversised with was measured diagonally. Pimax has claimed different things but it’s confirmed now to be 170 horizontally. Trust me on this one :wink:


#64

…and frankly, you should be glad about that. As long as we don’t have true 8K per eye, the sacrifice of detail in the center region to accommodate for extreme peripheral vision is not worth the trade-off in my view.


#65

I agree here. I’d rather have more pixels packed into 170 degrees than spread over 210 degrees. What worries me though is that little birdie claims that pimax lenses can only show 50% of the panel. Which would dramatically reduce resolution. Heliosurge claimed it’s not correct though. So the Berlin testers will have the verdict here I guess in 2 weeks. It should be easy to see if the Pimax 8k has PPD comparable to the Pimax 4k or worse.


#66

Not sure they will be able to give a definitive verdict, it’s often diofficult to judge from a mere demo. Even the likes of Rift & Vive have some substantial loss, if I recall correctly, and it appears the more FoV you allow the more you lose. 50% would be harsh of course but then again, I liked the V2 a lot in terms of general progress over Rift & Vive, while I did notice that the level of detail was not such a great leap - but SDE was almost gone. As long as I get something resembling that I will be happy. It only could mean that the 8K(X) is not as great as we’d hope for, but that’s an issue for another day.


#67

People with Pimax 4k experience will be able to tell. Even though I like the Vive Pro SDE/resolution, the Pimax 4k is really a different thing, so much harder to see indvidual pixels there …


#68

The tool for solve the distortion is only 190 fov

Now we have the new equipment that supports 190 FOV test, it definitely will help the engineers to test and correct the distortions at the edge, the accuracy will be largely improved.

If this is 190 horizontal fov , I think 170-180 is enough. Only hope that they can solve those issues.


#69

Sorry, you are right but that is not FOV or at least it is the wrong presentation of it.

I’m disappointed now with Pimax because this is deception.


#70

Problem of this video is they reference 110 fov while 110 of other headset is horizontal, so this is incorrect comparision and make some people misunderstand.

But we ever asked about horizontal fov since the campaign still not end, but never got the real answer of horizontal fov. But some calculation tell that the more diagonal fov, the horizontal fov will be same.

Infact we can use this tool.

So, if someone at the meeting try this, we will get the real answer.
I ever test with samsung odyssey, it is around 105-106 fov.


#71

Again, trust me on this one, the testers have confirmed that it’s 170 degrees horizontally. There’s no doubt here. Maybe some will be disappointed. But I think it’s better to have more pixels packed into 170 than 200. That last just seems a waste of resources to me, especially in the absence of foveated rendering.


#72

When I try the samsungt with mixed reality home (building scene), that is very wide and I am not sure that it is only 110 fov. So I think 140 fov of next oculus is okay and 170 fov is incredible.


#73

I am afraid that Pimax actually responded a couple of times, and typically said it was 200° horizontally. But as Sjef points out, this time just be glad they didn’t get their act together in the communication because what you will get with the 8K is far beyond the binocular feel of Rift & Vive, feels very liberating and with the current resolutions is already borderline of what one should reasonably aim for. With the V2 I did notice the boundaries, and apart from the first disappointment, that while hoping for no boundaries at all I did actually see them when bending my eyes into almost uncomfortable positions, I also noticed that it in any case felt very different to the Rift/Vive. It is already really a great experience. Don’t get hung up on the 200° number - in this case it’s simply not worth it.


#74

Ever hope with 210 fov of starvr and very disappointed. Fov is great, but other thing is so bad. Luckily they don’t make it for consumer on old version.


#75

It’s simply my own model considering likely sub pixel pattern penalties and adding both eyes trying to get FoV assumptions right.
It’s a rough model because FoV claims r usually mixed ones and most importantly the lenses r not taken into account. When toying around the relative discrepancies remain as long as it’s assumed they r able to achieve similar lens quality.

In the end the lens hack showed the importance next to display quality but sure it won’t do wonders when resolution is missing in 1st place.


#76

Well, I haven’t little birds flying near Pimax 8k M1 but for sure Pimax is not only the one who claiming biger FOV than real values.
check this link : https://www.google.pl/search?q=vive+fov+vs+rift+fov&rlz=1C1GGRV_plPL751PL751&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Ao3RCNYFWXxd_M%3A%2CK_x75HrVuaOSbM%2C_&usg=AFrqEzcaNy4xDt4mQHMeHF5sSwQzMZIBZQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwij9L6Zxe_cAhVGLFAKHSngBx8Q9QEwBHoECAQQBg#imgrc=Ao3RCNYFWXxd_M:

and my 6th sense teling me that Star VR real horiontal fov will be also far lower than their marketing specs.


#77

If no one in the world measure FOV diagonally than that is deception. Sorry, you have to follow some standards.
Now when people start to realize that damage is already done.
I could agree 110 is OK, 140 great and 170 incredible. I could even agree with that but if someone constantly trying to sell me 170 as 200 then that is deception no matter how good 170 FOV is.

Here is not the question is the 170 good or not, this is a matter of trust. Question is how could I trust them any more. This is not the first time and can’t be always like lost in translation. This is now obvious deception.
Now I even differently looking on that NDA where we can’t even talk about specification because of it.
This is a huge step backward. which could be avoided with a just different approach and more honesty.


#78

200 fov of the pimax is diagonal. Horizontal is 170. Mrtv one of the testers confirmed . Im a little disappointed, but i hope at least 150 of perfect sweet spot. Lenovo explorer its 110 but the sweet spot its very very small.


#79

I hope that @oscar_rov FoV tool gets used on StarVR. Due to if StarVR is actually 210 then folks like Ben would have comment on an immense difference; like he did with the Panasonic 220 FoV.


#80

Pimax has an Rgb layout as well.


#81

Sj is refering to info that suggests Pimax’s 200 FoV is diagonal; which would make tge Horizontal around 170.

See RoadtoVR Article on Panasonic’s 220 FoV; Ben States you can really feel the FoV compared to StarVR & Pimax 8k. This suggests StarVR’s horizontal FoV is not 210 either as an extra 5° per side shouldn’t be noticed that dramaticly.