The point of a properly constructed eye exam is that your mind can’t just fill in the gaps with accuracy. If you can subvert the test like that, then it’s just not a good and reliable eye exam. Which admittedly not all of them are.
Actually, part of my point is to include the software and settings into the comparison as well. Because even if the hardware itself is potentially capable of better, the software part of the product may not be reaching that potential. There are a lot of ways that can and does happen. And I think it’s meaningful to also include how software algorithms and settings impact those results as part of the total package end to end.
For instance, I found in testing the 8KX against an eye chart that I could keep increasing its resolving power by increasing super sampling well beyond resolutions that could reasonably be run in a game on even the fastest modern GPUs. Whereas with an Index, its resolving power would max out and see no further gains at resolutions my 3080 Ti could easily keep up with.
I used this kind of approach to tune my settings on the 8KX objectively to get the most resolving power out of limited GPU capacity.
An upshot of this is that the faster your GPU is, the higher clarity you can have on your 8KX. Which does mean that people running 8KXs on slow GPUs and/or on systems which are not well tuned are not experiencing the same product that people with fast GPUs and good tuning are. And I believe this is one of the reasons why there is such large disparity in reviews of the 8KX.
If you looked at the 8KX hardware alone, you’d get misleading results in terms of the clarity the customer will actually experience with the product. Pimax’s software also matters. As does software (such as nVidia drivers and SteamVR) which Pimax has no control over.
Yeah. I don’t believe that claim either.
I am highly skeptical. If you were able to read the 20/20 line with an 8KX, I question whether the construction of your test was able to produce valid results.
I searched for and found your post on the subject. I don’t see anything obviously wrong in what you’ve posted about the methodology that I am able to identify, but I think the method is fraught with danger of getting some aspect of it wrong either in implementation or misunderstanding how the chart needs to be used. And since the result you got appears to be bogus, I think that’s what has happened.
I’ve never seen anyone else claim 20/20 vision on an 8KX or any other VR headset besides maybe the Varjo headsets (which might just be marketing claims). I’d want to see your test results corroborated by credible 3rd parties.
It’s obvious that the 8KX degrades sharpness significantly relative to normal vision outside of VR. So how could you be getting a valid 20/20 result?