What’s the hold up. It’s now February?
Why are Pimax relying on third parties where the method of measurement is not stated?
1 Like
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).
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
I’m not sure if the Risa tool existed back then.
But Pimax or the testers could say we got X in ROV then we’d all just draw a line under it.
Hopefully it’s no less than 115.
2 Likes
It did not. I made it specifically to address these fuzzy claims.
10 Likes
Hat off to you.
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.
2 Likes
As a flight/space sim’er, I just wonder how I’m going to feel with a 115° as a FoV…
Will I regret this smaller FoV for such games and any of the benefits a larger FoV will provide, both in immersion and in gameplay?
1 Like
I think most importantly I would to know how the official 125 horizontal number was recorded and work back from there.
1 Like
Again, let’s say the optics can show 120 degrees FoV. Why would they only render 103 then? No headset manufacturer would want that. Just render the full 120 degrees instead.
3 Likes
Because it was not an issue before Risa2000 exposed it. As I said before, when zooming in, you will have better immersion, you will feel “closer” to the action.
When a headset renders at 103 degree, obviously the distortion on the edges will be less. It might also simplify the profile calibration.
So why not ? You probably will enjoy more with a zoom-in view than the regular view.
1 Like
You’re acting like this is a confirmed fact when I would very strongly bet this is not the case and it’s not how this stuff works. Pimax is not the first manufacturer who has been more than a little bit “liberal” when it comes to their FoV estimates, though to this extent is a new one, to my recollection.
Pimax is going to, supposedly, address this in a Q&A being hosted by Josh and Sweviver soon, so perhaps we’ll get a more definitive answer then, depending on how they answer it. Could just as easily side step the question with something like, “Well, it depends on your face shape”. Guess we’ll find out hopefully soon.
3 Likes
Wish this type of information was relayed to the forums, it seems Pimax reps exclusively use discord now while people here run around with their heads cut off looking for information.
1 Like
Actually, not even Discord this time, funny enough. They used a subreddit, not even the main Pimax subreddit that almost everyone uses but the one they officially run and is kind of a ghost town, to announce this and it would’ve been very easily missed if not for somebody pointing it out on Discord. Posts there aren’t even tracked in the community Discord because of that.
2 Likes
Because you will only see 103 degrees rendered instead of the 125 and everything looks incorrect. I really don’t see why you’d want that
1 Like
When the Aero was initially released, Varjo was claiming 115 degree HFOV, but the actual measured HFOV was only 84 HFOV x 65 VFOV.
This was later increased substantially via firmware updates which brought it much closer to Varjo’s claims.
I think there’s a good chance we’re seeing the same kind of progression with Pimax. In particular, eye tracking may need to be working in order to enable better distortion correction around the edges which would in turn enable opening up the FOV.
1 Like