D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
If the films made use of the screen to allow for 3d films, I think it could work. I don't see the point in using the tracking.
Sony VR Headset/Project Morpheus/PlayStation VR
A virtual movie theater showing a 3D movie on a virtual 2D screen. It's so crazy it just might work!
Sure for 1,000 times the performance ( I'm rounding up like you !)
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
No virtual theatre! Just the film on a screen.
Think about it though!
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
It makes my brain hurt.
Gotta put on your virtual polarized glasses to watch the 3D movie projected onto a virtual 2D screen inside a virtual movie theater.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I'd only do it, if I could virtually get into a superior VR headset like Vive or Rift first; put on Morpheus, then in the 'game' I could put on the Vive and virtually go to the cinema. It'd be the virtual reality Inception. Which headset are you REALLY in??
If you go deep enough you might find yourself in the Virtual Boy.
If you go deep enough you might find yourself in the Virtual Boy.
PSVR is OLED. It'll offer pure blacks and contrast your laptop can only dream of (unless they make laptops with OLED's these days). Screen-door and pixelation may be an issue, but a laptop can't offer a big screen experience without sitting really close, going cross eyed and having the same issue.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I guess the screendoor and pixelation can be a similar experience to watching a 3D film on a passive 3D TV. As they're displaying in 1/2 resolution (just not an inch from your face).
It's possible your GPU suffers from body dysmorphic disorder.
Great interview about PSVR with Dr. Richard Marks
He confirms that a single PS4 renders both VR feed and TV feed during couch coop games, breaker box info [it splits the video stream, manages 3D audio and manages headset sensor data], talks about display [lack of screen dor effect], framerates, and more.
He confirms that a single PS4 renders both VR feed and TV feed during couch coop games, breaker box info [it splits the video stream, manages 3D audio and manages headset sensor data], talks about display [lack of screen dor effect], framerates, and more.
Before the PC master race exposed their insecurities in this Sony thread,
Reading back over the last few pages the first post I can find that brought up price comparisons was this one:
https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1875215/
I guess if you consider pointing out that a system with 6-8x the raw performance of another system shouldn't be compared directly on price to that system as "exposing insecurities" then there's little more to be said.
upnorthsox
Veteran
Sounds like there actually is a GPU in the breakout box, though not one that's going to add any real additional game rendering. Maybe a Vita class GPU?
.
It seems to package the sensors data for the PS4 without processing it much. This wasn't clear...
The things he said the box actually does doesn't require much processing power. My guess is a very small general purpose DSP which can't cost more than $10 or so on the BOM. For example a one watt tensilica dsp would be already overkill, and it's really small.
I like that he praised the optical engineers again, this is an edge they had from the start. Optics are hard. Very very hard.
Didn't say it has a gpu, he said the second screen is rendered offscreen by the PS4 and sent through the hdmi in a flexible way, the box is just splitting the data it receives. Since there is a software on both sides to mux/demux the data, thry can do whatever they want as long as there is enough bandwidth available through hdmi. The normal mode for most games is to have the box simply unwarp the image for the TV.
It seems to package the sensors data for the PS4 without processing it much. This wasn't clear...
The things he said the box actually does doesn't require much processing power. My guess is a very small general purpose DSP which can't cost more than $10 or so on the BOM. For example a one watt tensilica dsp would be already overkill, and it's really small.
I like that he praised the optical engineers again, this is an edge they had from the start. Optics are hard. Very very hard.
I think the one new thing I learnt is that they support 90fps to accommodate multi-platform development. Smart. Also heard confirmed again that geometry becomes more important vs other 'tricks', which makes sense. Depth of field, motion blur and bump mapping might all be less important than frame rate resolution and polygonal detail. Also mention that PSVR really has solved most of the screen door effect. And he reaffirms the sub pixel thing.
lol, I didn't have a calculator to hand, I did quick maths realising 50% more was 1050 which is why I said around.
Jesus, you master race really are touchy - the point still stands, 43% (or whatever the exact figure is) isn't exactly something I'd call close...and whilst it may be true that it'll offer 6-8x the performance that hasn't stopped the PS4 selling like hot cakes when a "much better performing PC" is available for ~43% more
We aren't talking about sales . We are talking about experience. I rather drop 43% more if it means a much greater experience. The ps4 is rated at 1.8tflops a r290x is at 5tflops. I'm sure with 16nm we will be some where in the 7+ tflop range for performance. Put two together and we will be in the 14+ tflop area. 14tflops will give a much better experience than a 1.8tflop experience in terms of picture quality. When you look at the cost difference that 43% seems very small compared to the performance difference you get.
Clearly a $1000 PC costing ~43% more than the PS4 version will offer a better experience.
I've totally lost the point, but what I'm saying is firstly 43% more cost is not a marginal amount and secondly I expect most general buyers to go for the ease of use over better performance.
Reading back it looks like you were just passing a personal PoV on why you will be buying Oculus which is fine, it has nothing to do with PSVR though so maybe that's where I crossed my wires and lost the plot.
I've totally lost the point, but what I'm saying is firstly 43% more cost is not a marginal amount and secondly I expect most general buyers to go for the ease of use over better performance.
Reading back it looks like you were just passing a personal PoV on why you will be buying Oculus which is fine, it has nothing to do with PSVR though so maybe that's where I crossed my wires and lost the plot.
Last edited:
He was talking about second screen which was a simple split job and then said that the images for vr are not suitable for tv so the box fixes this.
I think if you have no second screen content (or some programmable state) the box displays the headset content on the screen and for that they would require something to recreate the image for tv, is that just reprojecting pixels out of the lens adjusted image to straight 2d.
why not do the 3d audio on the ps4? It has custom audio hardware i assume?
Similar threads
