Clarifying Near IPD x Distant IPD confusion

Quite a lot of users made an observation that when they set their IPD setting in Pimax using the method of “getting images in both eyes sharp at the same time, while focusing on the distant object”, the reported IPD by the HMD is actually significantly smaller than what is their real IPD.

Some started to believe that this is because “Pimax requires using Near IPD”. Just for the sake of understanding, let’s assume that by Near IPD I understand the interpupillary distance of the eyes when they are in the reading mode i.e. focusing on objects which are in reading distance. As reading distance is relatively short (~40 cm) the convergent nature of the reading look makes the eye pupils closer to each other (because the look has significant convergence). So the consequence is that Near IPD is shorter than the “normal IPD” (which some called “distant”).

While this is true, it has nothing to do with Pimax, because in VR, the environments and the objects, which are rendered in the virtual space, are very seldom viewed (and thus rendered) at the reading distance. In fact the VR guidelines suggests that things like UI should be rendered at 1-3 meters (closer to focal distance) to avoid some discomfort which comes from disparity of the focal distance and the virtual distance.

On the other hand in VR, while the objects cannot preserve their focal distance from the real world (as this one is fixed by the HMD design), they can still preserve the convergence property of the view. In other words, if my HMD is set up correctly and I look at something 3 virtual meters in front me, my eyes should converge in the exactly same way as they would if I was looking at the real object 3 real meters in front of me. This is ensured by setting correctly the rendering views for each eye in OpenVR.

I have already posted a long story on IPD and Pimax optics here Some thoughts on the IPD discrepancy, so I will just reiterate some results here (for more detail, read my original post).

The Pimax optics is set this way:

I drew the eyes this way just to give an idea how the different distances change along the optical axes, but of course you are not supposed to look into Pimax this way. You can however note that in order to align lenses with the eyes the distance between lenses centers must be higher than the IPD (which is 68 mm for the diagram). [On the side note, the eye size is supposed to be scale accurate, the distance of the lenses (and the panels) from the eye is arbitrary - they are probably closer to the eye, but I did not want to clutter the image]

When we look at things in Pimax, we are looking at them this way:

Notice the slightly convergent look (in fact the eyes converge at the point which 1,5 m away and which is at the correct scale), but then this way they no longer look through the lenses centers, but through the lenses peripheral ring. This makes the image slightly unclear, because it suffers the distortion.

People however noticed that and started to decrease the IPD setting using the method described above (getting images in both eyes sharp at the same time, while focusing on the distant object), which led them to this:

In this configuration the eyes are still focusing on the point 1,5 m away, but lenses are adjusted in a way that the eye optical axes align with lenses centers, which should give the clearest picture in both eyes. Also note what would the HMD report in this case as an IPD. 60,4 mm is much lower than 68 mm which is the nominal value, but the difference does not stem from the near vs far IPD, but from the optical design of the Pimax (divergent views).

The problem of this setting, while it may help with focusing the image, is that it screws up the angular fidelity of the stereo views, because the views are in the application rendered with divergent views (at 10° angular offset) but they are observed dead ahead at the different angle and through the lenses which are now tilted.

I hope I made it clear that the discrepancy in the IPD many observe when they try to set it by using the aforementioned method has nothing to do with the “near IPD” and while it may work for some it is definitely not a universal solution.

32 Likes

So are u saying it’s really somewhere in the middle of both, which is really useful but not. Really it becomes a hit and miss exercise getting a correct setting being that every game could have a different focal point based on user preference. ?

1 Like

I am not sure about what you mean by every game could have a different focal point based on user preference. The games do not define “focal points”. They render the objects/environments according to the geometry which OpenVR provides to them. Some of that geometry you can change (e.g. adjusting the IPD physically on the headset), some you cannot (the angular divergence of the views).

You are between the rock and the hard case. Either you accept the implications of the divergent views, which some people find to be the cause of the eyestrain, because, besides others, in this configuration you cannot look at some object and see it sharp by both eyes at the same time, or you decrease the IPD settings to make your image sharp, but will suffer the distortion of non aligned views since you will be looking at the objects from different angle than they were rendered and through the lenses which are no longer in optimal position either (relative to the eye optical axis)

Choosing something in between could be also a solution, by suffering both, but to the lesser degree.

3 Likes

Nice explanation, i’d just like to point out that in theory (assuming that headset is designed correctly) if you set your IPD to your reading value your sense of distance will be out of whack because where your eyes would converge at infinity in RL (looking at moon or star), in VR they will converge at less than 1m distances. So a moon in VR will appear to be arm’s distance from you and anything up close will be in front of your nose.

So should we choose Near IPD, IPD, or some value between?

Hi Risa,
What I meant was, different games, or uses, may require different ipd settings to get the required outcome. That’s what I took from you comments. So say I apply it to a practical situation. Racing game small cars, tight windy track, the focal point or ipd is going to be tighter because an individual focus on corner apex is rushed and close to front of the car. Whereas on an open track, not much in the way of multi corner combinations, you may like to set the ipd to a further focal point, see apexes, clearer at a further distance. I’m going to play around with it that way anyway. See if it works as I’m understanding it. If it doesn’t, then I’ll at least have hopefully found the sweet spot for my shape/requirements:)
Cheers

I see what you mean, but it was not what I intended to convey :slight_smile:. Normally, you do not need to adjust IPD based on the distance, the difference in the IPD caused by the different convergence is not so big (unless you look at something really close) that the eyes cannot accommodate it.

Imagine people who are shortsighted and have to wear glasses to see “into the distance”, if they have to “reconfigure” their glasses lenses distance for looking at closer objects (or reading) it will be quite cumbersome.

The other point is that having the lenses set closer to each other than is your IPD works only well, if you really look directly ahead. Once your look strays to the periphery the “inner” eye will suffer from the shorter IPD by experiencing stronger distortion, because it will be more offset to the lenses center.

So setting “near IPD” really makes sense only for reading glasses. For anything else (even for looking at closer distances), the normal IPD is in general better.

For your particular example, for sim car racing, you probably want to have the same visual quality when you look dead ahead or sharp left or right (when overtaking or taking corners), so setting the normal (universal) IPD will suit you better. Besides, even if you look at the horizon or at the trunk of the car in front of you, at these distances the change in actual IPD of your eyes is minimal.

1 Like

Thank you risa2000 for information on this. I agree that this problem of absolute acurate IPD adjustments is not exclusive to Pimax wide FOV hmds but all the Rift, Vive, Odyssey, WMR all are subject to similar constraints without eye tracking and the associated software you will never have an absolute perfect IPD setting for any of these hmds, I’m now convinced of that.

2 Likes

Now add “graduated bifocals” to your scenario. Welcome to my world… :stuck_out_tongue: They need an emote for “cross eyed”. :crazy_face:

1 Like

To make it even more difficult for the very smart engineers at Pimax they will have to wrestle with eye tracking combined with software combined with foveated rendering combined with mechanical lens adjustment all working harmoniously together.

Oh and one other thing the perfect lens design.

1 Like

I think if you set it too far it’s more obvious when looking at close objects than the other way around. If i have it set up so I can comfortably look at things I’m holding in my hand, things still look alright at a distance.

I pick an object around 1-2m from my face and set my IPD to that using the following method:
look at it with your left eye open and move until you can clearly make out the pixels, then switch eyes without moving your head and look at the same spot. You probably have to move a bit to the side to get it as sharp as the other eye and then adjust the IPD in the appropriate direction. A few rounds back and forth and you’ll have it dialed in to see perfectly sharp pixels with both eyes. You’ve now set up your IPD for that exact distance.

1 Like

Not really. What you really did, is exactly what you describe in your method. You set the lenses distance so you can see the same object in focus by both eyes at the same time.

But, as I tried to explain in my first post above, this is not the correct IPD settings for Pimax optics. This does not mean though that it cannot suit you better than the other one as it also have its issues.

2 Likes

I just want to know how to set the Pimax to a setting where it does not hurt my eyes.

I measured 63mm IPD by using the ruler and mirror method. Using 63mm in Pimax hurts my eyes. Using the minimum 60mm also hurts my eyes.

I don’t care if it’s blurry, I just want the pain to stop as I cannot use the product at all at this rate. My friends with 65mm and 70mm IPD have no pain from prolonged sessions by using the reading IPD in Pimax.

3 Likes

Mine too. You should probably have a pair of non-progressive lens glasses, for computer use and/or reading. I’ll probably use the Pimax prescription lens insert with fixed focus. I’d like to know the exact focal range of the Pimax. I’ve heard 1-2 m, but I haven’t seen an official distance.

I may break down and buy a separate set of glasses focused at around 4.2 feet and hope for the best: this is ridiculous!

1 Like

I would suggest sticking to your correct IPD and pulling the headset away a bit, or tilt the top or bottom. You can do this with your hands while moving your head around in steam VR Home. You might try a slightly higher IPD too.

3 Likes

Sounds good. Thanks!

So what you’re saying it seems @risa2000 is that the design of the pimax itself is actually screwed?

Nice one @risa2000

I have the headset for 2 days, I wear glasses (short sited) and I still don’t get the IPD thing.
My first understanding was: good IPD = sharp image.
After trying a flight simulation, I found out that for in cockpit the image was quite good and clear (did not test left or right eyes), but for objects far below, I felt as they were out of focus or blurry. This effect did not alter even after I dialed the IPD down or up. So I guess that IPD != focus or sharpness for objects that are close or far away. It did not change my perceive image or sharpness (as far as I know).
At the end I just gave up and decided that I will use the IPD dial to relief nose stress :joy: .
Right now I’m using IPD 64mm to make it more comfortable, but I do not feel much change to the image or strain to the eyes, even for longer than 30min sessions.

I wish there was an application or a good method to assist in setting the HMD IPD or image clarity. right now I just use the old way, my subjective eyes :grin:

Cheers

1 Like

@risa2000 I have a question. I had originally only used parallel projection when an app absolutely needed it (such as pavlov crossed eye, some vorpx games, etc)

Lately I have been testing it on games that don’t really need it (kills performance of course) and I am not sure if it’s just a placebo effect but I feel like the eye strain feeling is a bit less when doing this. Could this be a possibility? You’re explanation in that post is great but sometimes I sort of feel small additional software tweaks could still be made to alleviate any subtle remaining uncomfortable eye strain effects.