Sleeping Lesson
Member
I don't know about the actual display itself (from what I've read they're very very similar but not identical), but the consensus seems to be that the optics are better on the Rift.
HTC Vive is $799, ships early April 2016
- Thread starter Enter the Dragon Punch
- Start date
- Status
I don't know about the actual display itself (from what I've read they're very very similar but not identical), but the consensus seems to be that the optics are better on the Rift.
I have a set of them for my DK2, and while there is probably a measurable difference it must be so slight as to be imperceptible. The only reduction in FOV should come from the additional distance added between your eyes and the lenses (since you are basically making the padding thicker), but the ones I have are made of cotton and are about as thick as a t-shirt. Very much worth using in my opinion as they are far easier to clean and should help keep skin oil and sweat from absorbing as much into the padding itself.
I want to support devs, not two headsets.
Zalusithix
Member
The displays are the same. The optics, however, are different. The Rift, by most accounts has less SDE and a wider, boxier FoV. The Vive has more SDE, and a taller, more oval-like FoV (which most have preferred). While the Vive has more SDE, it's less than any existing headset, Gear VR included. Also have some haloing from the Vive's fresnel lenses in high contrast situations. Not sure exactly how the Rift fares there, but theoretically less to none.
All in all the Rift has the better optics in general but no touch controllers or room scale by default. Meanwhile the Vive has the more robust tracking solution and room scale out of the box. Add to that a less cumbersome setup in that you don't have to route tons of cables to the PC. Eventually the Rift will more or less reach parity in regards to the controllers. They'll be somewhat better in some aspects (ergonomics, capacitive button sensing), but somewhat worse in others (subjective - analogs instead of haptic touch pads). Room scale tracking performance with the touch controllers is an unknown for the Rift.
Did that make things clearer? No? Glad to have made your decision murkier!
And how would pirating software be helping devs?
DOT DASH DOT
Member
I'm going to be wearing glasses too, but like you say it must be very tiny indeed. And also you can slide the Vive's lenses back and forth, so that would sort any FOV loss anyway.
Zalusithix
Member
Any of the VR platforms can do that. It's just a software issue. That said, I don't think there's any players natively supporting SteamVR at the moment, but that'll obviously change once the Vive ships and more devs have them to play with. Regardless, I don't recommend watching traditional movies or TV on the current gen headsets. The resolution isn't high enough and the optics will add unwanted side effects.
DizzyCaffeine
Member
Lol, murkier, but I appreciate the extensive response. Truth be told, I already have Rift preordered, but with a May delivery date, the next month's worth of impressions of both headsets should help.
This may be a dumb question for a Vive thread, but it seems like more people are excited for it than the Rift...no?
Zalusithix
Member
Yeah, it's not an easy decision unless something forces your hand or you happen to feel strongly about some aspect of either. For me the Rift just wasn't a real option. Camera positioning would be a mess, and I'd have to throw a USB3 PCIe card into my PC even if I could get the wiring problem solved. The Vive works with no computer modifications, no wiring hassles, and gives me immediate access to roomscale experiences that interest me.
As for having more excitement directed to the Vive, I'd say around here and some of the sites focusing on the VR enthusiast crowds, there's that feeling. A lot has to do with being able to do the room scale stuff now instead of months down the line. In a somewhat ironic twist, I think this is particularly true for people that have already experienced the DK1/2. The CV1 is more of the same for them. Refined, sure, but more of the same. The Vive, on the other hand, will allow them to interact with the virtual world in ways that they haven't been able to thus far.
DouglasteR
Member
Any links to any UE4 demos for the Vive ?
This is really disappointing to hear. I know these are made for games but I thought if they were made for games they could handle some standard video like netflix.
Dreams-Visions
Member
they can. others have reported a good experience. ymmv.
Zalusithix
Member
It might be "good" in the "it really feels like I'm in a theater" sense, but it can't be good in a "damn the video looks nice" sense. It's just not physically possible unless you're nearsighted and don't know it. The resolution of these things combined with the massive FoV they have to render to means that reproducing the fidelity of a HD movie at standard seating distances is simply impossible. That's before we get into SDE and other optics issues. These are acceptable compromises in VR where there is no real life equivalent to the experience possible. But when you can buy a good HDTV for the same price that'll have objectively better visuals, why bother? Watching on a trip is the only reasonable excuse I can think of, but these kits aren't exactly mobile.
Dreams-Visions
Member
dunno about any of that. you'd have to ask the people who've actually used the feature. conjecture doesn't mean a lot.
Zalusithix
Member
It's not conjecture though. It's physics and math that any opinion can not override. A 1080p image at recommended seating distance puts more pixels in a given FoV than the headsets can put in a similar FoV. This is before the negative side effects of VR optics are considered. The only way the headsets are going to begin to be equivalent is if you're the type that sits in the first row of a movie theater - an action not recommended by any movie buff or videophile.
It's akin to home projectors, which typically gave you a huge image but you'd have to sacrifice image quality (a problem that even today isn't completely addressed by 4K projectors which have limited content and are priced at over $5,000). Using theater mode in the current headsets is going to give you an enormous display (your brain will interpret it as far bigger than what you'd get with a home projector) at the cost of some image quality. I'd never advocate using it in lieu of a nice television, but it certainly has its own appeal for some and will understandably be a non-starter for others that value image quality above all else.
My two cents: it's a cool feature if you keep your expectations in check.
My two cents: it's a cool feature if you keep your expectations in check.
You may give up a little sharpness, but otherwise I think you're out of your mind. Modern projectors in the 4000 price range are absolutely stunning.
Sure, a bad source will look even worse, but other than that, that's not even close to an apt comparison.
Dreams-Visions
Member
This has been my impression based on what many others have said as well. I'm sure it'll be cool even if not something that will inspire regular use.
Zalusithix
Member
I take it she has no prior experience with the Vive, or even knowledge of it. When it prompted her to use the grip button to reload, it took her some time to figure out where the button was.
At the sizes you can make these virtual screens, you run into the limitations of 1080p more so than you do the resolution of the screen. A 1080p image on a 100" screen is going to look blurry no matter how clear your optics are.
Which is why people feel this is a fine trade off. Enormous screens are naturally blurry.
Zalusithix
Member
Except in VR you'll effectively be making it even less than a 1080p image on a 100" screen. So it'll be even blurrier. Plus SDE, haloing, and whatever other optical aberrations might be present. No matter how you cut it, it's going to have inferior image quality. Besides, using the logic "1080p isn't perfectly sharp, so it doesn't matter if I make it worse" is a bit backwards. People serious about home theater go through great lengths to get the most out of the source material. They aren't about to just give up and go back to DVDs because 1080p content on Blurays isn't perfect.
If you're fine with trade offs on image quality for size, just sit a couple feet away from a large HDTV. Presto, an image that fills a huge portion of your FoV and an image quality reduction to match! =P
I mean it's fine if people want to watch movies in VR for the experience. Novelty can be fun. I just have to put the caveat out there for people asking so they know it's not a replacement for a setup in real life. At least not if they value image quality. If somebody buys a VR headset predominantly for movie watching, they're going to be disappointed in what they get for the investment. There's a reason they're not being marketed as movie watching devices.
Stop right there. You can't say that unless you know the distance the screen is at. Effective resolution is a function of distance by size. If your screen is bigger than your field of view - as an imax screen is - then no, you are not. Not at all.
Guardian Monkey
Member
You are aware that movies in movie theaters are in 4k on like 500" + screens right. So actually you have more ppi on a 1080p screen at 100". Thats correct, a 1080p home theater has better resolution than the movie theater you go to.
The reason, the virtual movies are no where near as good is two fold. One you are right in front of the screen so screendoor will show and two with a virtual theater you are going to lose half the screen to the surrounding area which cuts into your resolution.
Guardian Monkey
Member
Effective resolution is the resolution that is in front of you. 4k at 10 feet is 4k. 4k at 20 feet is 4k. <<< I am talking screen here. Perception of sharpness thats a different story.
Zalusithix
Member
Imax screens aren't having 1080p content projected on them. Lets be real here. The VR headsets are going to have less pixels in a given field of view than any sensibly sized screen with 1080p content being projected on it. Basically worse image quality than you can get at home in 99.99999999999999999999% of situations. That last fraction of a percent reserved for the crazy (rich) bastard that decides to project it onto a 500" screen and sit close to it.
We are not talking about 4k movies
I know what effective resolution is.
We are. We're talking about watching 1080p movies on imax sized screens.
Through a headset you mean I hope? These are 1080p projectors, pictures with a camera and jpg at that. I have a 10 ft wide screen and there is nothing remotely blurry about it.
Guardian Monkey
Member
Oh ok. But saying it makes it true?
Guardian Monkey
Member
Well he thinks IMAX screens are 100". So...
Oh... that's maybe where the confusion comes in.
Uh, yes? The bigger your screen, the more screen pixels your internal resolution takes up.
I think you maybe meant 100'?
Where did I say Imax screens are 100" big?
An Imax screen is more than 100' big.
You don't need an imax sized screen to make a 1080p image look blurry. 1080p images look blurred even at 100". 1080p content looks like shit on TVs that size.
Guardian Monkey
Member
Do Imax movies look horrible to you?
You can make it look blurry on a 5" screen by putting it in a headset and putting your eyeballs up to it too. I really don't understand what you're trying to argue.
If IMAX movies were running at 1080p, yeah, they would.
if I scaled the image being output on my screen so that I only see a number of pixels in my field of view that matches my effective resolution, than it'd look roughly the same as it would look on a similarly sized screen IRL.
Which is what we're talking about.
Guardian Monkey
Member
Thats not what I asked
Zalusithix
Member
We started talking about 1080p on 100" screens being "blurry" and thus the VR being blurry wasn't a big deal. I can assume when talking about 100" screens we're talking about best practices in home theater and recommended seating distances to keep said screen at the appropriate horizontal FoV. Hint: At appropriate seating distance a 1080p image on a 100" screen is not overly blurry. The point of projection systems is to get more people seated for the appropriate FoV and closer to on center. Not to make a huge FoV for one person.
If you want to watch a standard 1080p movie at Imax level FoV, then talking about quality is moot. Nobody that actually appreciates movies or image quality would do that other than to say they did it once.
Ah, the no true scottsman approach. Plenty of people who "appreciates movies" will do this.
What you asked is irrelevant to the point I'm making.
Guardian Monkey
Member
No it's not
And I'll say it again - if I watched a 1080p movie on an Imax sized screen, yeah they would.
Zalusithix
Member
Then they don't give a shit about image quality and might as well go back to sitting a foot away from a SD TV playing VHS content. Crappy video taking up a large FoV hasn't been hard to obtain ever.
I've watched a movie and played a few games on the Vive virtual theater they just put out.
Just like the various other virtual theater apps for the Gear and DK2, it's really a gimmick and not something you would want to use long term for 2D content.
The resolution is pretty bad. I'd say you get about 800x600 resolution max on the screen if you position yourself in the optimum viewing position in the virtual room. The pixels are pretty damn big and noticeable.
That coupled with all of the other optics artifacts that are brought into the equation, it's very disappointing.
I don't think I would even want to use it to watch something if the Vive was completey portable. I'd rather just use my phone.
Just like the various other virtual theater apps for the Gear and DK2, it's really a gimmick and not something you would want to use long term for 2D content.
The resolution is pretty bad. I'd say you get about 800x600 resolution max on the screen if you position yourself in the optimum viewing position in the virtual room. The pixels are pretty damn big and noticeable.
That coupled with all of the other optics artifacts that are brought into the equation, it's very disappointing.
I don't think I would even want to use it to watch something if the Vive was completey portable. I'd rather just use my phone.
I thought that was evident by the way we're talking about watching 1080p movies on imax sized screens.
You'll find way more people care less about image quality than they do having unfathomably large screens in their home.
Your claim that people should just "go back to sitting close to their SD CRTs" is pretty telling considering kids have been sitting close to SD CRTs for decades.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say. If 100" is unfathomably large at 1080p, I would ask if you've seen a high quality 1080p projector at an appropriate seating distance. The fov is quite large and the picture strikingly good.
If your argument is if you sit too close to a screen it looks bad, then ok. I think everyone understands that though.
When I say unfathomably large, I am talking about imax sized screens, not 100" screens.
My argument is not "if you sit to close it looks bad"
My argument is that if you view 1080p content on an imax sized screen, it'll look blurry anyways, and if you scale a 1080p frame such that the effective resolution matches the portion of the frame that you're seeing's internal resolution, it'll look roughly the same.
and that for many people, the thrill of having an imax sized screen is going to be cooler than the perceived loss of clarity.
- Status