this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
143 points (80.2% liked)
Technology
60086 readers
2209 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh great, another round of nonsense about the limits of human vision peddled by A) companies trying to trick you into thinking their products are great, and B) fools trying to cope with their buyer's remorse and envy, and C) people with not-so-great eyesight who, for some reason, think that's inconceivable.
We are nowhere near the limits of human visual acuity. It is trivial to prove this by experiment.
Not sure I'd call $3500 trivial...
(/s...sorta?)
The resolution and pixel density of the Vision aren't that much higher than the Q3's. I wanna try one to compare after seeing that because I can't believe it looks so much better that the $3000 more it costs is worth it. At least for VR; I know the cameras for the AR are way better.
I think it's significantly higher than the Quest 3, but it's kind of ridiculous to compare a $3500 productivity headset to a $500 gaming headset in the first place.
It's hard to get totally accurate numbers without independent standardized evaluation. Calculating pixel density isn't as straightforward with headsets as it is with regular displays.
There's an interesting analysis of a bunch of different headsets on Reddit. They put a comparison column for equivalent viewing distance with different common monitor sizes/resolutions. e.g. they calculate that the density of the Apple Vision Pro is similar to a 32" 4K display at a mere 15"/38cm distance, which is definitely close enough to see pixels. These are only estimates, since we don't know the per-eye FOV, or how exactly it's warped from center to edge.
Reddit link: https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/18sfi3i/ppdfocused_table_of_various_headmounted_displays/
Direct spreadsheet link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_Af6j8Qxzl3MSHf0qfpjHM9PA-NdxAzxujZesZUyBs0/edit?usp=sharing
I mean, it's still really good, don't get me wrong. But there's a giant chasm between "really good" and "the eye's resolution limits".
What do you mean it's not that much higher? It's well over double the resolution. That's a lot.
And there's the other aspects, apple has Micro-OLED panels Vs LCD, virtually zero screen door effect, very very good video passthrough, very low latency on the passthrough. Plus a bunch of other crap.
But it doesn't really matter, they're not comparable. The vision pro, to me, seems more like an engineering exercise on Apple's part, mixed with a Dev kit to put out in developers hands. It's not meant to compete against a $500 gaming and porn consumption headset.
The vision pro is a cool engineering marvel. But it has no real place in the market for any normal person. Nobody outside of devs banking on future Apple VR should buy it.