Thats a good question. I don’t think a true answer to the 12k resolution exists because of the length of time passed since the initial announcement back in 2021.
I looked at the initial Pimax 12k launch video but I don’t think they specifically state the resolution there.
I looked a bit more online and there is this article from RoadtoVR with a spec sheet.
Lets face it in two years anything could of changed. Mabe Pimax @PimaxQuorra can confirm the exact resolution.
Given 120,441,600 subpixels = 20,073,600 pixels per display (assuming 2 RGB panels)
Someone else pointed out the very important asterix, which seems to suggest at the time that their displays would be 3:1 in the reality series, but the Crystal is apparently not and the infographic seems to suggest a 32:9.
Given 3:1 aspect ratio (3:2 per panel) it comes to 5487 * 3658.
If it is 32:9 aspect ratio (16:9 per panel) it would be 5975 * 3360.
100% SteamVR resolutions will be ridiculous either way, given that it’s usually ~140% of each or about 200% of the rendered pixels.
My god: 7750 * 5175 or 8450 x 4750 in SteamVR?
In any case, you need 240% what the 8KX is in raw horsepower; I personally would take 8KX resolutions with the increased color, etc. It’s no longer about resolution for me. Wide FOV, good displays, nothing getting in the way of that.
Still the displays are not disclosed, this is all reverse math and at the time of the Frontier event I don’t think the display suppliers were even finalized.
@DJSlanr which is why a functional dynamic foveated rendering pipeline end2end is almost mandatory for the 12K. Although you can surely achieve some improvement by applying fixed foveated rendering: anything beyond 160 degrees horizontally is really difficult to focus on anyhow, so why would you have it rendered at full resolution? But still it will remain challenging.
What exactly does ROS mean? If it’s success as in how well they have sold etc, how can that be decided when many of them haven’t been released yet?
aren’t there two devices on the plan at apple? the “reality pro”, and later “reality one”. i think it is fundamentally very wrong, it is misleading. to put already released devices with devices on a list about which nothing is known!
I think you missed the explanation under the chart.
If you take Apples Reality One for example which is not released yet. We know it’s going to be very small and light, have the best feature set of any HMD and have great software support. But it will be so expensive it will be priced out of most peoples reach. To that end it scores 50.
I did see the explanation. I don’t think you can assign a “success” to hmd’s based on proposed specs, they need to be out in the wild and independently reviewed for so the specs can be assessed to be accurate. I mean, how can anyone assign 100% to Index 2 when all we have is patents? I’m not feeling this ROS column at all atmos, sorry.
i don’t think black or white, there is a lot of gray. everyone has their truth! but please separate hard facts from speculation. that’s all I’m asking from you.
If I remove Index2, Reality One, 12k I’d also have to remove Crystal. I should add the 8KX
Why Crystal? Because we don’t know the FOV, WiFi6, Eye tracking, stand-alone capabilities. They’re all turned off at launch.
I could put them in a second chart for unreleased headsets. The problem then becomes that chart becomes bigger than the released headset chart and people are only interested in upcoming HMDs and we’re pretty much back at square one.
Having everything in one chart seemed a better choice to me anyway.
It might be an idea to create 2 charts to separate released hmds from not released; especially with ones with potentially incorrect specs or speculated specs. Move them to the released chart when released.
One column I might add at the very start is STATUS. ie Prototype - Announced - Rumour - Release date.
STATUS———— HMD
Released 2021—-Aero
Rumour————-Reality One
Announced———12k
Release date——Crystal
Prototype————Somnium
