Would love to see this image BUT with the reverb, index and rift s also compared!
1 Like
Think you need to lay off the LSD. He said the pics the OP posted make the XR look better than the 5k+.
Which is true the pics are poor representations.
5 Likes
why is the 5k+ not as sharp as before compared to the 8k? doesnt look the same
1 Like
@Mantidtings I believe that (with all the respect I have for @SweViver) the video is confusing two different things. What is rendered by the app and what is displayed on the panel.
What is rendered by the app is rendered at the render target resolution and there are no black margins on sides as the video suggests. The only masked area (hidden area mask) is in the corners of the rectangle. What is displayed on the panel is another story as there are other aspects playing the role in case of Pimax (FOV config, IPD accommodation), which are not present in Xtal.
If you want to see what is the difference between the rendered and displayed image check this post for an example and an explanation (https://community.openmr.ai/t/how-the-render-target-resolutions-and-the-supersampling-factors-of-pimax-and-steamvr-work-together/19506).
The reason why you do not see the real image displayed on the panel in the video is that they are not so easy to get. They are however not what SteamVR or OBS capture shows you.
Now coming to your reasoning about the magnification:
The magnification (and the optics in general) is set in a way that it can deliver the required FOV. In particular in Pimax, the percentage of the panel utilization changes dramatically with the selected FOV. If you apply your reasoning to the different FOV configuration you would have to conclude that the magnification of the Pimax changes for different FOV. Which is impossible, because the optics does not change.
If you want to make any meaningful comparison of the perceived visual quality, you need to consider the PPD (pixel per degree), which means to know exactly the FOV and the resolution at the same time. Calculating (measuring) of PPD is a bit more difficult though (https://community.openmr.ai/t/pixel-per-degree-ppd-of-pimax-5k/19389).
If you would want to make the comparison by the screenshots you need to guarantee the same conditions for all, which basically boils down to the very simple requirement - the object displayed (in this case the altimeter gauge) has to be observed at the same angular dimensions in all pictures taken.
So while the pics you posted are authentic I would simply question if the condition was met as there is no way to tell from just looking at them.
5 Likes
If we want those result to have more meaning a specialized application must be built for this purpose only. A few degrees in the angle of view or a few centimeters of distance vs the target can the blur the result between 2 ( or 3 
) similar headsets and I didn’t event talked about the numerous setting and possible combinations.
From the presented pictures we can only assert with that the Xtal must better than the others
It’s difficult to take good (representative) pictures “through the lens”, so variation is expected. Remember too, these are zoomed shots to see the pixels. In-game, it will probably look a little better (because eyes are very different from cameras and respond differently to light).
1 Like
There’s the visible part of the panels, which @Sjef found out in his teardown being 75%-77% of the panels.
The subpixel size stays constant no matter what FOV is used, the magnification also is a constant amount and does not vary.
The subpixel amount varies depending on FOV (FOV settings change the amount of rendered subpixels, they’re still visible through the lenses), but that’s irrelevant to the figures I presented, as the first PPI figure takes into account the whole screen size, and then alters the value depending on whether it’s pentile/rgb, and then once again to factor in magnification.
Hidden area mask and invisible portions of the screen are irrelevant when we’re talking just about the visible subpixels on the screen (which do not change in size)
Yes the FOV cuts off some rendering in the visible range, but we assume the whole screen is the PPI value and rendered subpixel value, and then factor in visible screen amount to determine Magnification amount (and perceived loss in pixel density in the last PPI value for Pimax, and the visible rendered subpixel amount is also extrapolated from the visible percentage of panel utilization (75-77%)
Magnification affects the perceived pixel density, which is why the PPI value is adjusted once again, with respect to sjef’s findings on visible screen space.
In other words, the magnification amount is constant and the visible subpixels (77% of the screen you can see in the lenses) are the same size as the whole screen in fact; but perceived pixel density is less because the magnification occurs, so the PPI value after magnification decreases the PPI by roughly 1/4, to take into account the decrease of perceived pixel density as a result of magnification.
With regards to the discrepancy in viewing distances to take photos, some discrepancy may exist but I wouldn’t discount any findings solely on that basis as those discrepancies are likely small enough to be attributed to human error and they would not greatly affect the result
(in statistical analysis in journals there is always a few margins of error allowed)
I agree that PPD is a useful metric (but difficult as you need to know panel utilization for all headsets and viewing distances between screens and lenses for each. which is different for all HMDs).
As vertical PPI is the same for pentile and RGB screens of the same size and resolution; Vertical PPI may be useful to compare wide fov and small fov headsets, but I don’t see much point in comparing pentile to rgb if it’s the same measurement of pixels vertically (This is why I think diagonal PPI is useful for comparing pentile and rgb screens with the same diagonal measurement (5.5 inches or 3.5); and for comparing headsets with similar resolutions (in total subpixel amount, … > 5 million - 10 million)
It’s not really useful when comparing a 5.5 to a 2.5 inch screen.
2 Likes
While we know the sizes of the 5k+ (5.5" & 8k 5.7")
The ppi can be calculated based on knowing panel size. Sj says approximately 77% to 79% panel utilization. We don’t I believe know Xtal’s panel utilization or if it’s using any tricks to help eliminate sde(ie film).
Aspherical lenses do however have less distortion than Fresnel lenses and can in that respect have more uniformed magnification to have better clarity due to uniformed focus.
We don’t know the physical screen size is so ppi is not known.
Here is updated specs.
79% was before factoring in vertical usage. 77% after vertical, but less considering the corners aren’t used. We can go with 77 or 75, I chose 75 to calculate PPI of the Pimax in the OP to take into account the corners that aren’t seen, which is 400-411 diagonal ppi on the 5K+ (75-77% of 534) and 400-411 on the 8K and 8KX if it uses the 8K’s pentile screen.
Approximately is the key word. 77% can still be approximately + or - approx 3%
1 Like
There are many imprecision in those “through lens” images. They in no way accurately represent what the eye really sees.
I have WAY better results on my 8K, and I don’t have a killer GFX card, just a 980ti. I was a bit afraid after choosing the 8K over the 5K back then, scared of having horribly blurred text… and I was wrong.
You just need to get the settings right. My take is to get the input resolution as close as possible to the native input resolution of the headset.
I have absolutely no problem in reading the dials in games like Elite Dangerous or Assetto Corsa. They are as clear as if they were on a monitor.
3 Likes
Gauges in my 5K+ and 8K both look like the XTAL in the far right upper METpol gauge HOWEVER I have to assume these thru lens shots are very much zoomed in
2 Likes
Are you blind? Could you finish with the latter part of my sentence: “…but my test is the opposite.”
2 Likes
So you actually tried it, or just looking at pretty much useless through the lens screen shots? I can not see how anyone would think the 5k XR “clearer” than 5k+ it’s not even close
You need to read what @Yanfeng wrote. It was clear he stated the Op’s pics are flawed.
5k+ has better clarity over the XR. It’s a no brainer. 5k+ has RGB while XR has Pentile.
Yanfeng stated by his tests; which in case you were sleeping he was is a m1 tester whom provided very nice quality through lens photos. He has undoubtably has had hands on with the XR headset as well.
Final - Op’s Pics make the XR’s Pics appear better than 5k+. Yanfeng is stating the pics are misleading as the 5k+ has better clarity than the XR.
I hope this clears your confusion 
4 Likes
Resurrecting this thread, just to discuss the PSVR2 screens which are supposedly 3200x1600 and 1058 ppi. Seems rather impressive compared to all the current headsets. Especially considering it’s to be wireless as well.
2 Likes
Are You sure it’s two screens/panels and not one?
EDIT: PSVR uses two panels so I guess it is.
EDIT: I was wrong as pointed out by @Heliosurge so if it’s a single panel is that really impressive?
Og psvr was a single panel
1 Like
Comment edited… 
I don’t find that impressive at all then… 
1 Like