Rift, Vive, and Virtual Reality
- Thread starter idsn6
- Start date
If that's so then that's pretty cool. Saves me £30 quid. If it's an apology for the delays then they probably need to be a bit more vocal about. From my pov though it would be an apology well accepted.
PSVR is not a second generation headset, not by any stretch of the imagination. It's the last of the first generation headsets to launch. That's it.
Oddly enough I did watch the video before I posted it
. What I took from it was that the Rift is clearly the better option at the point that touch arrives. Until then Vive wins in immersion and wow factor, but loses on visuals, audio, and comfort.First generation headsets use plastic fresnel lenses, scuba mask ergonomics as well as non-RGB subpixel layout screens; coupled with diffusers further degrading image quality.
I expect the second generation of VR headsets to use real optics as well as higher pixel density displays with true RGB subpixels.
PSVR is likely the first of the second generation VR headsets to hit the market, unless Oculus or HTC is first. Their launch stock has already been depleted so it's possible they will ship better second generation headsets soon. If Oculus ships first then they will win a lot of market share over HTC
Please stop talking rubbish. The PSVR is a first generation headset, full stop. I'm not going to get into a feature vs feature comparison, suffice it to say that the vast majority of comparisons put it roughly on par or below the Rift and Vive in terms of picture quality (despite your drum banging about sub pixel layout and lens quality) and tracking capability.
It does not feature eye tracking, it does not feature a HDR display and it does not feature particularly high resolution screens - all of the things we're hoping for in second gen headsets which will make for a generational leap over the current generation. The PSVR is at best a sideways step from Rift and Vive, and I think most would argue it's more of a diagonally downwards step - and that's before we consider the controllers.
Last edited:
Even Sony themselves admit it's not as 'high quality VR' as the Rift.
Luckily it seems there's something for everyone even in this first generation. It's quite remarkable really.
Luckily it seems there's something for everyone even in this first generation. It's quite remarkable really.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
PSVR is the worst of the first gen devices. I'm not sure why you continue to think otherwise. When both Sony and users of all 3 devices report that. BTW - that doesn't mean it is bad or that it will not do well. It should sell more than either Rift or Vive.
It would be extremely embarrassing if it was a 2nd Gen device. That'd be like calling the original Wii a 2nd next generation console when X360 and PS3 were out.
Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Welcome to the world of the early adopter where things regularly get delayed after you order them. Just be lucky you didn't pre-order and then have your product shipped 6-12 months after the originally promised ship date like many early adopter products. Cars, TV's, stereo equipment, etc. etc.
Get used to it or stop being an early adopter. Not saying it's a good thing. But it happens all the time. It's part of being an early adopter.
Regards,
SB
They all have pros and cons. Selective bias doesn't really help.
PSVR Pros: Expected to have more exclusives. Crisp lenses, better intra-scene contrast, no light rays artifacts. Better RGB screen and higher refresh. Efficiency from fixed-hardware optimisation and frame-doubling. More comfortable with glasses, easier setup and adjustment (no velcro straps). Console and TRCs guarantee a plug-and-play experience and no dropped frame rate. Much less expensive with more granular bundle options based on what the users already own or want. Default DS4 is fully trackable. Retail volume and distribution at launch instead of a "paper launch" by mail order.
PSVR Cons: Limited by the PS4 horsepower. Doesn't sufficiently block external light. Inferior tracking compared to Vive, the camera frustum limits the play area, Move controllers lack analog sticks and are not as precise. Lens most probably have a bit of uncorrectable CA/softness in corners (educated guess), the software IPD correction will cause users with significant IPD deviation to have a less crisp view as the lenses exit pupil might not be large enough (also an educated guess), a bit less FOV for those with a wider IPD. No integrated headphones. Delayed until October.
PSVR Pros: Expected to have more exclusives. Crisp lenses, better intra-scene contrast, no light rays artifacts. Better RGB screen and higher refresh. Efficiency from fixed-hardware optimisation and frame-doubling. More comfortable with glasses, easier setup and adjustment (no velcro straps). Console and TRCs guarantee a plug-and-play experience and no dropped frame rate. Much less expensive with more granular bundle options based on what the users already own or want. Default DS4 is fully trackable. Retail volume and distribution at launch instead of a "paper launch" by mail order.
PSVR Cons: Limited by the PS4 horsepower. Doesn't sufficiently block external light. Inferior tracking compared to Vive, the camera frustum limits the play area, Move controllers lack analog sticks and are not as precise. Lens most probably have a bit of uncorrectable CA/softness in corners (educated guess), the software IPD correction will cause users with significant IPD deviation to have a less crisp view as the lenses exit pupil might not be large enough (also an educated guess), a bit less FOV for those with a wider IPD. No integrated headphones. Delayed until October.
Last edited:
Is it a given that PSVR has a sharper image than Vive or Rift? I'm sure I read somewhere that it had a softer image.
Do you have a source for this? It's not something I've come across. They're all using OLED screens so I'd assume contrast levels are similar but I'd be interested to hear if there's some specific contrast ratio details available for each screen.
Unless it's producing a better image I don't think it can be classed as a better screen. Yes the sub pixel layout is better, but then it's also lower overall resolution. It's the trade off between these two that determines if it's a better screen or not and I haven't read anything stating that PSVR has the best image quality.
Granted that the higher refresh rate is a universal advantage though, at least on paper. In reality it means you need either 33% more performance to hit the displays native refresh rate or you have to rely on frame doubling. For a console it's definitely the right choice IMO but I'm not so sure for PC.
That's confirmed to be coming to Vive too, presumably the same will occur for OR at some point.
Yes both the PC headsets seem to have problems here, at least with bigger glasses. Seems like a silly oversight.
I think it could be argued that Oculus and anything sold through Oculus store gives the same experience. Most of the reviews have raved about how 'console like' the setup experience is (the same doesn't apply to Vive). There will certainly be VR supporting games that don't go through the Oculus stores verification process, however I'd actually expect a wider range of VR software (both game and non game related on the PC thanks to the more open ecosystem. The downside of that though is the lack of guaranteed performance.
Can this be classed as an advantage when it releases 6 months later? Regardless of how paper the Rift and Vive launches have been, they're still going to be available to the average consumer long before the PSVR.
Nothing is a given until we have at least a final product and a teardown. By that time I will have something to play with and I will not care anymore.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The contrast argument is moot if developers can't have intrascene contrast anyway with fresnel, the light rays are the limiting factor (*) Fresnel ridges scatter light and this both reduces intrascene contrast and creates light rays artifacts. Luckey agrees with this. (**) Higher number of ridges per mm will make those worse. This is corroborated by Tested who said the light rays are more visible on oculus than Vive.
Vive seems to have an additional artifact which was solved on oculus. Coarse ridges are causing visible discreet rings instead of just a lower contrast and rays, because the artifacts only happen at the ridges, and these are sparse. The artifacts are further back from the first surface (which has power) making them much less OOF than we would intuitively predict.
Carmack said he'd rather have 2560 rgb than 4k pentile. (***) That would be 60% more angular pixel size, while 1200p versus 1080p is only 12%. Sure, many other factors are at play, but unless we discover something dramatic after PSVR teardown, the PSVR screen itself have better specs, even if the PS4 cannot take full advantage of it like a 980ti would, or even if the lens might have softer corners (as I said this is an educated guess). It's not crazy to think some improvements in one place can counterbalance limitations in other places.
There's a high chance frame-doubling will be crap at 45Hz unless it's a simple Virtual Theater or stationary experiences without much motion close to the gamer, otherwise the edges of objects in motion will flicker like hell, it's desperation to even propose this. Otherwise Sony would have the biggest incentives to allowed 45->90 and they forbid this. This is logical, artifacts at 60Hz melt into blur, while artifacts at 45Hz are flickering.
Oculus said themselves the launch games on the store have an average of 5% dropped frames. These would have been denied on PSVR.
I'm guessing the lens have a limited MTF resolution by design, this could be how they reduce screendoor naturally. Diffuser stacks are extremely difficult to design without adding major flaws making everything worse. By leaving some spherical aberration in the aspheric profile, they would make the actual lens just soft enough for an MTF matching the blue/red sub-pixels, and they wouldn't need any form of diffuser. The lens does all the work by not being too sharp, which was the biggest flaw on DK2, it was too sharp at the center (major SDE), and too shitty at the edges (CA, softness).
(*) https://forums.oculus.com/community...ens-flare-anyone-discover-ways-to-minimize-it
(**) "Because they kill contrast, add a variety of annoying artifacts, and don't actually save all that much weight. They don't help with form factor, either; Fresnels cannot come close to matching the focal length/magnification of other optics tech." -- Palmer Luckey
(***) "While the marketing decision is clear, on a purely technical level I might prefer a 2560 RGB stripe display over a 4k pentile one." -- John Carmack
I really believe both HTC as well as Oculus will launch their second generation consumer headsets soon: the factories are not geared towards high volume production yet; as demonstrated by the paper launches. Aside from the 'ergonomic' design, putting in a more expensive lens, and 2 native 1200*1080 displays, same dimensions will improve image quality vastly, with no additional design costs
The one who's first can completely demolish the other one in PR;
"tired of wasting 33% of your GPU by throwing away pixels? buy the new Oculus/HTC NOW! Also gone is the extreme lens flare.
Don't worry all you JJ Abrams out there; the old model is still available while supplies last, at a discount."
People who don't care about image quality and lens flare would be encouraged to buy the old model; so no stock will be left over. And the media will cover the company as the technical superior option, while the only thing they did is switch 2 parts
Forget John Carmack, Oculus should hire me
The one who's first can completely demolish the other one in PR;
"tired of wasting 33% of your GPU by throwing away pixels? buy the new Oculus/HTC NOW! Also gone is the extreme lens flare.
Don't worry all you JJ Abrams out there; the old model is still available while supplies last, at a discount."
People who don't care about image quality and lens flare would be encouraged to buy the old model; so no stock will be left over. And the media will cover the company as the technical superior option, while the only thing they did is switch 2 parts
Forget John Carmack, Oculus should hire me
Forget what I said, they should hire you Mr. Fox!!
Btw this is a picture of the Oculus final CV1 screen; the subpixels are smeared towards the edges, but it has to do with the way the picture was taken; otherwise only 30 pixels or so in the middle would be clear, the rest would be smeared over each other. The ones in the middle are smeared a little bit as well. Maybe there is a matte diffuser top layer?
Btw this is a picture of the Oculus final CV1 screen; the subpixels are smeared towards the edges, but it has to do with the way the picture was taken; otherwise only 30 pixels or so in the middle would be clear, the rest would be smeared over each other. The ones in the middle are smeared a little bit as well. Maybe there is a matte diffuser top layer?
I'm in Disney from the 18th to the 22nd. So I will be wondering the whole time if my rift came and wtf is going to get it for me .
Bro I'm 34 years old. I've been an early adopter since the Sega Saturn , I stood outside all night for a n64 at toys r us , I got my dreamcast launch day and had to hit 3 stores to get all the games I wanted. I could list all of the early adopter stuff I have been though.
This is by far the low point in being an early adopter.
No shit , 4k pentile is still 3840x2160 = 8.29m pixels . 2560x1440 = 3.68m pixels.
So of course he would prefer the lower resolution panel since there is actual hardware that could play current games at that resolution.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
Interesting that he actually mentions "RGB" and "pentile", no?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
My understanding is that the issue is with highly contrasting elements that are adjacent to each other on the screen. That doesn't mean you can't have a high level of contrast across the entire screen. In fact, it doesnt mean you can't have a high level of contrast at all, it just means that when you do, you risk the glare issue. Therefore while it's valid to call out the glare issue, I don't think it's valid to also double up with a claim of higher contrast for PSVR without knowing the actual capabilities of the screen. Otherwise you'r just counting the same issue twice.
Interesting comments, do you have a link to the Luckey statement? I'd like to better understand the context. It's worth noting that from your second reference there appears to be a suggestion that OR isn't using pure Fresnel but rather some kind of hybrid so I don't think it's necessarily fair to call upon comments made by Luckey about pure Fresnel if that's not directly applicable to the lenses being used in OR. Granted, we know the glare can be an issue, but form factor for example is excellent on Rift.
And this highlights an important point of which I know you're fully aware. i.e. that you can't just take bullet point specs or features in isolation and claim them as advantages or otherwise of one solution over another. Its the interaction of screen, with lens, with viewing position that produces a final output which will be a compromise between various factors. Your statement above of "Crisp lenses, better intra-scene contrast, no light rays artifacts. Better RGB screen" effectively boils down to "much better image quality" which I don't think is supported by the impressions so far. Personally I would have replaced all of the above with "no light rays artifacts". That's the genuine advantage, the rest I think is debatable.
I don't understand this conclusion. It's a low resolution screen, therefore it doesn't have better specs. It does have a better sub pixel arrangement but the two are a trade off and have to be considered hand in hand with the lenses to understand which is better. The bottom line is that Oculus could also have gone with a lower resolution/RGB subpixel screen, but didn't. The reasoning for the choice on Sony's part was obviously - PS4 would struggle at more than 1080p. But Oculus clearly made the decision that they did for a reason and I can't believe that had better image quality truly been possible with a lower performance requirement by going down the Sony route that they wouldn't have taken it. As to Carmacks statement, there's no context around it so as eastmen states, it could easily be referencing the performance requirement vs image quality.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy this at all. Valve - one of the worlds leading companies in VR - are pushing it as a genuine solution for lower performing PC's which applies dynamically based on scene complexity for any game that it's implemented in. So it's not just for virtual theatre, its a solution for game rendering that they're confident in enough to implement. In fact they specifically target this as the preferable option over lowering resolution at 90hz which is also entirely possible without any performance issues at all.
It seems silly to suggest that doubling 60fps is near perfect and doubling 45fps is crap. As for Sony's decision, that seems obvious. Doubling 60fps is still going to provide a better experience than 45, just as 70 would provide a better experience than 60. They had to draw a line somewhere and that was probably driven by the prevalence of 60fps as a target in the console world already.
Yep, although we know the lense has changed for CV1 which alleviates the above issue.[/quote]
Last edited:
We shouldn't think of games having to render native res, especially on Pentile where the geometry between framebuffer and pixels don't really match. Higher res == less screen door no matter what resolution. Higher rendering resolution then means better sharpness. That is, a 1080p image looks better on a QHD screen in VR than a 1080p screen in VR.
