The PSVR4K is just a mid-gen slim revision, with an added head massage feature to counter nausea.
The head massage will probably not be available for games.
Sony VR Headset/Project Morpheus/PlayStation VR
The head massage will probably not be available for games.
I felt like the only person on the planet (internet 
) who knew this but:
http://webmshare.com/a79A6
People were claiming Sony was not able to use a multi-lens optical system. But I guess they never saw the S.A.P.S. commercials
) who knew this but:http://webmshare.com/a79A6
People were claiming Sony was not able to use a multi-lens optical system. But I guess they never saw the S.A.P.S. commercials
Comes October and expecting for a wild multi way battle between all VR headsets.
There are games that comes to multiple headsets so should help the comparison.
There are games that comes to multiple headsets so should help the comparison.
Still, RoadtoVR is probably the ONLY objective source available. The oculus and Vive fans will flood the internet claiming the reduced colours, saturation and black levels are unnoticeable, the pentile is unnoticeable, screen door non existent, light flare unnoticeable. Go on Reddit and you see it already happening.
The general consensus will thus be that Vive/ Oculus have the best optics. Historically even. In the same way that people nowadays will claim a Galaxy S2 was faster than an iPhone 4S and had better color reproduction and so on. It's not always the winner that dictates history, not in the age of the internet, wikipedia, and fanboys
The general consensus will thus be that Vive/ Oculus have the best optics. Historically even. In the same way that people nowadays will claim a Galaxy S2 was faster than an iPhone 4S and had better color reproduction and so on. It's not always the winner that dictates history, not in the age of the internet, wikipedia, and fanboys
Rolls eyes. You should try listening to yourself sometimes.Still, RoadtoVR is probably the ONLY objective source available. The oculus and Vive fans will flood the internet claiming the reduced colours, saturation and black levels are unnoticeable, the pentile is unnoticeable, screen door non existent, light flare unnoticeable. Go on Reddit and you see it already happening.
The general consensus will thus be that Vive/ Oculus have the best optics. Historically even. In the same way that people nowadays will claim a Galaxy S2 was faster than an iPhone 4S and had better color reproduction and so on. It's not always the winner that dictates history, not in the age of the internet, wikipedia, and fanboys
Still, RoadtoVR is probably the ONLY objective source available. The oculus and Vive fans will flood the internet claiming the reduced colours, saturation and black levels are unnoticeable, the pentile is unnoticeable, screen door non existent, light flare unnoticeable. Go on Reddit and you see it already happening.
The general consensus will thus be that Vive/ Oculus have the best optics. Historically even. In the same way that people nowadays will claim a Galaxy S2 was faster than an iPhone 4S and had better color reproduction and so on. It's not always the winner that dictates history, not in the age of the internet, wikipedia, and fanboys
i have not tried oculus rift so dunno... maybe differ from person to person? depending of the game?
when i was a PC gamer, playing PS3 games were awful. It have cumbersome control, low frame rate, bad texture, flat world, jaggies, etc. Then come great games like uncharted 2, then 3, then TLOU.... it makes me just enjoy the game.
nowadays i play on PS4 and MGS V's low poly objects did not bother me one bit. i know its there. but it doesnt matter anymore.
If you really want to roll your eyes, record a video of yourself reacting to reading the following:
"Color reproduction? That doesn't matter, colour is colour. The human eye can only see 3 colours anyway, the rest is a little in between. FOV? a lower FOV means a more tight image, with less motion sickness. Higher brightness? Come on, people don't want brightness, they didn't invent sunglasses for nothing. Better contrast? I don't like this on TV's it's not natural. Lower black levels? I am not a racist so I don't see how that would be a good thing. If anything, it's bad that Vive has lower black levels in this time and age. It's not the 50's anymore. Less flare artefacts? It actually enhances games, like in a JJ Abrams movie; everybody loves lens flares so again, I don't see how less flare would be in favour of Vive. More screen door effect? Everybody knows that screen door is most important factor in image quality in an VR HMD! So yes, Oculus is has the best image quality, without a doubt"
I posted this here because I believe cheap headsets (cheap in quality, not price, obviously) could severely damage the public perception of VR, and thus, PSVR launch. People will think PSVR has even worse quality than Oculus, because the price is lower. They will think DS4 is the same as an Xbox One controller, and so on.
Sony really needs to get demo units in every store, because it's the only way to move 2 million units this year.
Palmer said that cheap VR would damage VR, and though I agree 100%, it appears he wasn't talking about consumer product costs..
cheapchips
Veteran
I think it's some sort of parody account? [emoji6]
Only VR I have ever tried is the Google Cardboard and that was very unimpressive. Is PSVR how much better?
How much better is PSVR compared to for example Samsung's Gear VR?
I know neither of those have much interactivity, but how much better is PSVR image quality, field of view etc..?
How much better is PSVR compared to for example Samsung's Gear VR?
I know neither of those have much interactivity, but how much better is PSVR image quality, field of view etc..?
I was just illustrating through parody, the technical ignorance (/illiteracy) of users towards PSVR or competitors in general.
In my defence: the "black levels" remark should have made it really obvious. Even my mom knows what black level means when she was looking at a new TV last week
I could be really biased towards PSVR, but I would objectively judge the possibility of VR mass market adaptation by a combination of the following
-content
-quality
-comfort
-ease of use
Take away 1 of these and the product will remain niche. Not even that, it will damage similar products.
Let's say a person tried VR, but the drivers were acting up, the HMD was irritating after 15 minutes, and could not be worn with glasses.
Would that person recommend VR to his friends? He would never know that other HMDs could be used comfortably with glasses, without driver errors or without causing too much strain on the face.
Now imagine PSVR, but with PS1 graphics, complete with Z-buffer errors. He would probably think that it's a limitation of VR technology, while PC, with enough graphic cards stacked, could produce PS5 graphic, with correct Z-buffer ordering. Still he would not recommend it.
If you can try it in stores however, the negative aspects of competitors will vanish. "But Timmy said he cannot wear his glasses, are you sure you want to buy a VR?" -"Who cares what Timmy says? I tried it in store and it worked perfectly. Thats what Timmy gets for ordering things from China without trying them in a store"
In my defence: the "black levels" remark should have made it really obvious. Even my mom knows what black level means when she was looking at a new TV last week
I could be really biased towards PSVR, but I would objectively judge the possibility of VR mass market adaptation by a combination of the following
-content
-quality
-comfort
-ease of use
Take away 1 of these and the product will remain niche. Not even that, it will damage similar products.
Let's say a person tried VR, but the drivers were acting up, the HMD was irritating after 15 minutes, and could not be worn with glasses.
Would that person recommend VR to his friends? He would never know that other HMDs could be used comfortably with glasses, without driver errors or without causing too much strain on the face.
Now imagine PSVR, but with PS1 graphics, complete with Z-buffer errors. He would probably think that it's a limitation of VR technology, while PC, with enough graphic cards stacked, could produce PS5 graphic, with correct Z-buffer ordering. Still he would not recommend it.
If you can try it in stores however, the negative aspects of competitors will vanish. "But Timmy said he cannot wear his glasses, are you sure you want to buy a VR?" -"Who cares what Timmy says? I tried it in store and it worked perfectly. Thats what Timmy gets for ordering things from China without trying them in a store"
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
Well, if you're going by screen resolution Samsung Gear beats Vive, Oculus rift, and PSVR.
Obviously there's more to VR than simply resolution. It all depends if you want simplistic mobile phone quality graphics and 360 video, or if you want fully rendered and realised worlds. In which case the Gear VR can only give you an idea as to how good that'd be on dedicated hardware.
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy Idol
Legend
RIGS seems to be a killer app. All people so far seemed to like it.
Now I heard that even SP content (story mode?) is planed...I am excited as well now!
However, I wait and see. Motion sickness is a concern for me. Also, how tiresome it is when playing an extended session of 2-3h or so.
Now I heard that even SP content (story mode?) is planed...I am excited as well now!
However, I wait and see. Motion sickness is a concern for me. Also, how tiresome it is when playing an extended session of 2-3h or so.
You could compare VR to digital cameras:
-screen resolution being the image sensor. Higher resolution is better? Only if all things are equal. Even then. Does the sensor have a low pass filter, maybe the other one is backside illuminated, and so on.
-Even if the image sensor is better, if the other camera has a better lens attached, it will in almost all cases result in a better image.
-Let's say a camera has superior image quality through a combination of its lens and sensor. But it's hard to use, and the white balance is often incorrect needing constant adjustments. It's possible that the camera with worse image quality would still produce a better image.
Bottom line: you cannot look at a single spec to predict 'image quality'
-screen resolution being the image sensor. Higher resolution is better? Only if all things are equal. Even then. Does the sensor have a low pass filter, maybe the other one is backside illuminated, and so on.
-Even if the image sensor is better, if the other camera has a better lens attached, it will in almost all cases result in a better image.
-Let's say a camera has superior image quality through a combination of its lens and sensor. But it's hard to use, and the white balance is often incorrect needing constant adjustments. It's possible that the camera with worse image quality would still produce a better image.
Bottom line: you cannot look at a single spec to predict 'image quality'
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
Oh and by the way, PSVR is just as interactive as PCVR.
I'm not sure whether you're trolling?
Yes, with Cardboard what disappointed me the most was the very limited FOV, I think PSVR will be a bit better with that. Also it was very difficult for me to focus on the image without getting a double vision, most of the time it was like seeing just two overlapping different views, I have no trouble seeing 3D in movies and Blu-ray but the 3D with cardboard just didn't work. That must have been because there was no IPS adjustment with Cardboard.
I've decided to keep away from these cheap VR gadgets and keep myself a VR virgin before my preordered PSVR arrives. Hope the first time is good and not a disappointment.
Sorry, I was not trolling. I was talking about those VR gadgets where you strap a cellphone on the frame and which have very limited controls and interactivity. I was not talking about Vive or Oculus at all.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I was thinking about this yesterday. Most of the 360 online videos that you're able to watch are filmed from a single lens that has full 360 view of the surroundings, so I'd imagine that 3D separation is simply not possible, as it'd need two lenses with several inches of space between them. If you're viewing an image of say, as person, the exact same image is sent to both eyes, but with maybe a little extra on the right or left depending on the eye.
Here's an image of one of the cameras:
So I can't help but think the view that you'd see would be something like this:
With the inner circle being the lens, the outer circle being the 360 view, and the lines being the views that the eyes see. some of the image must be shared and wouldn't have a unique image/eye, the only unique part would be the part of the data that's dedicated per eye.
Obviously you don't have a completely 180 view in reality, but I imagine this is close to the truth.
The PCVR and PSVR are both rendering two completely different views per eye, so the 3D separation should be much more pronounced.
It's worth noting that I haven't tried VR since the 90s, so I'm just speculating.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I actually just watched a 360 video just now on my phone and set it to cardboard mode and it looks like the image is replicated 100% for both eyes. So unless your brain is doing something funky with the same image shown twice, then you shouldn't actually get any 3D separation at all from cardboard while watching 360 videos.
Similar threads
