Quest Pro is hitting in October (supposedly) with 2160x2160 per eye but I still don’t think that gets density to where it needs to be for doing desktop work.
I think Apple has realized this, which is why every screen resolution leak I’ve read has it pegged at 4K per eye or more. But who knows when that thing will even get announced?
(Also, I remember the initial rumours for the iPad; everyone I saw was saying it would run normal Mac OS X).
That said, I do think we’re approaching an announcement since it was apparently demo’ed to the board earlier this year. I just want it to happen so I can get excited at a keynote only to go “holy moly, I’m not buying a first-gen Apple peripheral for $3000, Mister Tim Apple”.
I look at it like the newest MB Pros: if the hardware is way ahead of everyone else, I’ll hold my nose and put up with some amount of kludgy workarounds (eg: Parsec because no Bootcamp, etc).
Debatable. You can run monitors and these ar glasses over usb c and I’m pretty sure you can get hdmi to usb c adapters if that’s what you need.
> Apple would still gimp it. I’m sure developers can’t access the USB port on iPad Pros
This is semi-true. According to this stack overflow post you can get access if you’re part of their MFi program but that’s mainly aimed at corporates. You can try working around it using midi or raspberry pi if you’re doing personal tinkering https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/13605/how-to-get-s...
More info on this stack overflow post for any future readers who stumble on this thread:
https://superuser.com/questions/1218848/hdmi-input-through-u...
On top of that, the headset itself must be comfortable to wear for sessions longer than 30 minutes. None of the current models are that comfortable.
A nice high end phones screen is like 300 PPI a 20 year old laptop screen is around 100. A nice desktop monitor is 160-240.
A calculator https://www.sven.de/dpi/
It's hard to discuss a monitor being 100ppi@720p because those 2 variables are related via a third variable size. A 720p screen would be 100dpi at about 14" and indeed that is a common size for crappy laptops. A tiny screen with that PPI strapped to your face would look like shit. For instance a 2" square screen would be 200px x 200px.
Resolution matters a lot.
A 20/20 equivalent 360 degrees panorama image is has a size of 21600x10800px minimum. For a VR headset with 120x120 degrees H/VFOV(178deg diagonally), you need a 7200x7200px panel. 2 x 7200px x 7200px x 24bpp x 144Hz = 360Gbps, or worth 4x 100GE LAG’d, or one PCIe 4.0 x23 link, or one DDR5 channel.
That’s a bit hard to put onto a face cheaply…
High pixel density is only required at the middle of where our gaze is - the surrounding can be highly compressed because our eyes are not very sensitive. No pixels are required where our blind spot is, and our colour and light level sensitivities varies from fovea outwards, so there are other compression possibilities too.
If the display can "move" with your eyes (high pixel density only for fovea e.g. contact lens) then the display also only needs a limited number of pixels.
https://www.picturecorrect.com/what-is-the-resolution-of-the...
An ocular 720p display at 100ppd would be be about an inch diagonally at 10cm from you eye balls. That's basically unuseable
Well, that sucks. Thanks for the clue to never purchase without a personal demonstration. I figured SD would be like that, but really hoped that 1080p would be satisfactory.
But doesn't this depend on pixel density? If the displays approach the pixel density of displays of high end smartphones, I'd probably be satisfied with that. Even though those pixels can be seen (at 10x magnification), at high enough pixel density, pixels can be ignored when focusing on the video content. I used to sit really close to CRT televisions, which have huge pixels, so there is bound to be some improvement from the way it was in the dark ages.