Afaik, no. That would result in the world scale being off and other issues. Were that possible then I think we’d have been seeing it already. I don’t know the exact details, not that educated in the field, but I have seen that question come up with more knowledgeable people in the industry before and the answer was quite strictly no. Of course, who knows what happens in the future but if Pimax had made some sort of huge breakthrough in this regard then we would have heard about it long ago.
Ultimately, what reason is there to believe that crystal is the first and only headset to do what you’re suggesting? I still think there’s some hope that the 103 may have been wrong in someway, like early hardware issue or such, although I find it unlikely. That said I am pretty shocked by the advertising of 125 degree horizontal if that’s the case. An official response would clear this up well, and hopefully we’ll get one soon.
I think it’s a mistake to give multiple testers different models. I mean you need a base from which to build. If issues are reported and everyone’s on different iterations and FW then how is it possible the rectify the issue?
How hard is it for one person from either Pimax or one of the 15 testers to report on this?
Either there’s a cover up going on behind the scenes or……we’ll I can’t think of any other reason not to say we see it and we’re looking in to it.
I said the above because sometimes when playing VR videos I would zoom in and watch the video more “closely”. I didn’t feel anything off or uncomfortable in a zoom-in state. And since a simple VR video player can do zoom in and out easily, a headset might also be doing that without anyone noticing.
I don’t think Pimax made a mistake on beta testing. If anything, the issue of 103 FOV proves the necessity of beta testers. It’s way better to discover this issue now, than we consumers finding out after the $1700 purchase.
Let me try to explain why it makes no sense what you are suggesting. Ok so you have a headset with optics that can show 125 degrees but the software would only render 103 degrees, right? It would look bad because it indeed would feel like a zoomed in image. And why would anyone do that? Why not just render the 125 degrees that it can show? The image would then be correct and you would also see more of the virtual world. So it really would not make sense to render less fov than the optics can show (and if you worry about gpu power then just limit the FoV but not zoom it out. Exactly like pimax does)
That same tester was able to get a wider (and shorter) FOV with software offsets. I think it was like 109/98, omniwhatever documented it in his original posts. This is at the expense of stereo overlap of course, but might be desirable to certain users (particularly those that are less sensitive to overlap, like Aero has the lowest overlap on the market iirc and it doesn’t seem to be an issue for many).
Yeah, that is very odd tbh. They could just talk about how they measured the numbers on the official spec sheet, although I guess there’s merit to numbers coming from a 3rd party as validation. Hopefully we’ll hear more soon.
A zoom-in image will make you feel closer to the world. The immersion feeling is stronger. It’s not really “bad”.
I guess this is an issue Pimax themselves didn’t even notice, that the Crystal’s images are slightly zoomed-in, so the 103 FOV becomes 115 or 125. This discrepancy should be blamed on the Pimax.
Yet as someone who personally attended the Crystal demo event in NYC, I don’t think the picture I watched is merely 103 degree. It just felt much larger than that. This is based on my own observation. ( Actually it explains why I saw some small shape changes in the center when I looked around. It was the zoom-in effect. )
So once again, the real FOV number should be measured by real instruments. The Risa2000 program exposed a Pimax’s rendering problem, everyone should appreciate that, but it doesn’t mean the headset’s real FOV is 103.
As far as I know, that’s not it works. You can’t just zoom in to get a larger fov, all you’d do is have the same fov but make the image scaled too large. Think of like adjustable binoculars, when you zoom in with them you’re not making the “fov” of the binoculars larger. I could be wrong but that’s my understanding of it.
I agree. It could be the placebo from the edge to edge clarity but I also felt like it was 103, however those risa2000 numbers are objective but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t something mistaken in terms of setup or revision of hardware.
It does mean that the fov was 103 at that setting. So the setting might be incorrect but if it’s measuring 103 then you’re not seeing more than 103. I could be wrong but that has been my understanding.
Oculus also refused to give a value for the o.g. Rift at the time saying it was to dependent on subjective differences. If they use an objective method and then a user tries it and due to his head shape measures less FoV degrees, he‘s going berzerk. This has always been a tricky spec in terms of comparisons.
That’s a good point, valve did similar with the index. The difference in this case is that Pimax have given numbers, but it just seems like no one is getting near to them (even the 3rd party one shown off by Pimax is at 115, not 125):
Take a look at the spect sheet on that link.
I’ve fine with a lower FOV tbh, like more is always nice but what I saw at the roadshow I was happy with. I just want Pimax to correct these numbers, or else explain why tests so far aren’t seeing them. My main reason is because I’m a fan boy and I don’t want Pimax to be giving ammunition to detractors! So it’s not like I am coming from a negative place, I am commited to buying a crystal already.
An interesting report for sure, 115 is a HELL of a lot better than 103, but I’m curious exactly how they tested it and this was reached, given current findings. I’m assuming they measured it via something like TestHMD, or any similar app. It’s a good sign and worth discussing, but still skeptical till we know exactly how they got those numbers.
I know that one tester played with the software IPD offsets and ended up getting 108~ or so hFoV, but it came at the cost of lowering stereo overlap by several degrees and a little vertical. Pimax release a new distortion profile or something maybe? The Aero got more via the same method, after all.
