So is it safe to assume the higher PPD/Lower FOV lens is the only major difference between the two headsets? Does the 12k have a higher resolution screen?
For the Crystal 5760 x 2880 is quoted. So: 2880 x 2800 per panel.
2880x2720 is the resolution of the Varjo Aero.
How’s this not an Aero again?
At first I didn’t understand why they quoted higher PPD than the Aero.
Pixel are pixels!
Degrees are Degrees.
If the PPD is higher, then it MUST have a lower FOV?
Why would Pimax use diagonal as the measurement?
Let’s invite Pythagoras:
c2=a2+b2
or more specific to our discussion: DiagFOV = √(HorizFOV² + VertFOV²)`
As a WideFOV maker, you would at first see/think that using the diagonal only cheapens their relative value in comparison:
Doubling of FOV produces a a result of only 58.114% larger diagonal FOV!
Perhaps they use “Pixels per Degree” inappropriately to say Total Pixels per Diagonal degree.
Then you get to say something that is almost magical:
“Well we doubled the pixels, while not doubling the diagonal FOV”
THEN you get to claim higher PPD without doing anything but a good math trick.
A 26.5% larger PPD measurement is the result when you double the FOV.
[2 divided by 1.58114] -“show your work Mister!”
PPD should be either: Horizontal pixels per Horizontal Degree
or: Vertical pixels per Vertical Degree.
They should be identical if done properly. (Unless Pixels are suddenly not square).
But again, if you use Pimaxian Logic: 2x of the Horizontal FOV by itself magically increases the PPD by 26.5% by way of their inappropriate use of the measurement using diagonals.
Does this surprise us when they called it an 8K when neither of the displays - nor the total resolution - meet the total pixels of an 8K monitor (as defined by VESA standards)?
1 Like
You’re right. The presentation was gimmicky. At least it wasn’t in Chinese or Google translated though, right? Also Kudos to Pimax for getting the English version of their website looking more correct. How do I say in Chinese: Your website needs help?
您的网站有翻译错误
Nín de wǎngzhàn yǒu fānyì cuòwù
(Your website has translation errors)
不知怎的，它很可爱很讨人喜欢
Bùzhī zěn di, tā hěn kě’ài hěn tǎo rén xǐhuān
(Somehow it’s cute and endearing)
1 Like
Varjo lists the diagonal and horizontal as the measurement. And Pimax is clearly competing with the Aero with this product and listing the same values.
Crystal is 2880x2800 per eye. Wide lens is claimed 35 PPD with 120 HFOV.
Aero is 2880x2720 per eye. Claimed 35 PPD with 115 HFOV.
These claims are virtually the same between the two.
With the narrow lens, Pimax is claiming a somewhat higher PPD than the Aero and a somewhat narrower FOV to go along with it.
The numbers in the these marketing claims don’t quite match up with each other, but also they’re not that far off. So I’m not quite sure what you’re going on about here.
2 Likes
Where does the 42ppd come from then? An fov narrower than the Aero?
That would be terrible as eveyone agrees the fov on the aero is crap
There are many aero owners who don’t think the aero fov is crap. Horizontally its bigger than q2, vertical its smaller, but when u have 35ppd and near edge to edge clarity, a smaller fov like this is less concerning. 42ppd with similar fov to aero would be v impressive imo, but i am a clarity rather than fov fan.
2 Likes
Well even the index has a slightly larger fov…
Just sayin same pixels.
Will Crystal controllers have trackpads (hope not) or thumbsticks (hope so)?
2 Likes
You make a good point about ppd; how can it have nearly same res as aero, similar fov, but be 7ppd higher? It doesn’t really add up. Would like to know more on this too.
3 Likes
Well just notice that its 26 percent bigger and that they use the diagonal. Thats exactly what good ol’ pythagoras predicts. If people want to get lost in the lens talk: please remember: no lens can make a 4k image have the clarity of an 8k. You just see the damn pixels more sharply. This is a very nice Aero with sound and wireless for less money. I LOVE the product. But I’m calling them out on the PPD shenanigans. Perhaps the distorion is less resulting in a larger area of full PPD as measured from center as shown in the video. That makes sense, but it doesnt increase the PPD at the center, just keeps it optimal father from center, which is indeed good, but doesnt affect the calculation above.
1 Like
If it’s not really 42 ppd then i’ll stick with my aero, i believe its ppd values. I only crave a hmd with higher clarity. But if u don’t own an aero and if crystal turns out to be real (even if its ppd isn’t quite accurate) then it’s a no brainer which 1 you should go for.
I have read your post, and I’m not convinced by the logic and math you present. You’ve come up with your own theory and convinced yourself of it, but your math doesn’t appear to actually model any of the numbers in Pimax’s claims. Further, you don’t seem to be aware or accept that the narrow lens is gaining higher PPD by sacrificing FOV to be even narrower than the Aero’s FOV. Your premises for the math appear to be flawed.
They’re the same controllers as on the 12K, and Pimax has already indicated that those will have thumbsticks. In fact, they’re basically clones of the Meta Quest 2’s controllers.
The narrow lens does not have a similar FOV to the Aero. The FOV is smaller than the Aero’s FOV.
That difference is not enough to account for the increase from 35 to 42 PPD on its own, however. But that’s only when considering it in a simplistic way. And in reality, we’re talking about something which is more complex than that.
There are a number of factors that could account for this. For various reasons, VR headsets are not able to use all of the pixels on the panels. The Crystal may be able to utilize a higher percentage of them than the Aero does.
Also, PPD is not actually consistent across the display. So what PPD do you claim? The average? The center?
It’s possible that the narrow lens for the Crystal concentrates PPD at the center and sacrifices PPD at the periphery. It is, after all, an aspherical lens, and that could be part of its design. In which case, the 42 PPD is a measurement from the center area.
The wide lens for the Crystal, by contrast, may have its PPD distributed more evenly. And I think this kind of approach would actually make sense for what I imagine the differing purposes of these two lenses to be. The narrow lens is likely meant for business use cases where maximum clarity is important especially in the center and FOV (and VR immersion) is not. Whereas the wide lens would be meant for gaming and more general use cases.
I’m not saying that this is necessarily actually the case. But I’m pointing out that it’s at least possible for Pimax’s claims to be accurate. Or at least no more inflated than Varjo’s claims.
1 Like
Well the problem is that they make it sound like they have somehow a better pixel density than the Aero which simply can’t be true without lowering the FoV. And who wants a lower FoV, I already don’t like the FoV on my Aero, it’s really THE downside of the Aero. If I could improve one thing about the Aero it would be the FoV.
I wonder who will buy this headset. Current Aero owners like me won’t be buying one for sure. I’ll be looking into the Pimax 12k, but the Crystal just makes no sense when you already own an Aero. IF the Crystal hits the market in a few months, we’re already really close to the supposed release date of the 12K, so I think anyone interested in the Crystal will probably first want to see the 12K and most likely will go for that.
It just seems the Crystal is going to arrive about a year too late to the party.
3 Likes
I think we can all agree we want Pimax to stick to their wide-FOV roots, just adding higher resolution and optical clarity to that.
3 Likes
All the talk about PPD is rather pointless if the lenses aren’t up to the task. That will be one major discriminator between the Aero and the Crystal in terms of visual quality. I heard somebody cite the presentation mocking that Pimax said it had a “high-tech optical lab” ? Well, let’s see what this great lab has come up with… 
But let’s park all of the discussion until the headset is out in the wild and critical, reknown testers have had a go at it. Having experienced a fair number of headset announcements in the past years I have learned that the spec sheets can be very misleading as to the visual quality (and of course many other qualities) one is to expect.
3 Likes
Yes that’s my biggest reservation, I really have my doubts Pimax has the ability to make high-end lenses. But who knows, we’ll just have to wait and see.
1 Like
This has that feeling of “Oh Varjo did this and it got popular so let’s do what they did but promise a lot more on top of it!”
And all in a compressed timeframe as well. Either it’ll be the execution of a generation or good luck to the beta testers. If I’m skeptical, it’s purely down to experiences but let’s see if this is a much needed turnaround for Pimax, reputationally.
Happy to watch from the sidelines though.
5 Likes
So the 12K has max ppd of 35ppd and Crystal 42ppd, correct? I prefer clarity over fov. I could be tempted by Crystal but I just have a nagging feeling about Pimax QC/QA and after sale support. It has got me interested in pimax again though, the 12K I was meh about because no increase in ppd over my Aero.