I dont care if people try the varjo, pimax, quest or whatever. For $1200 Im sure the 8KX is great…you guys are so tone death to every complement and accolade and praise I give pimax and its founder
But Facts are the facts. The current lineup of Pimax headsets are now old gen tech. They are no longer cutting edge. The glory days of being an affordable alternative of xtal has passed them by.
Vargo has raised the bar with 35ppd & 70ppd
I mean is this a varjo thread or pimax thread, should we be discussing this in the pimax section? There are like ten pimax sections to have these kinds of discussions.
You do know Varjo is using a form of Nvidia’s Cascaded Displays and using aspherical lenses which several manufacturers have used.
So the actual new stuff will be Varifocal Displays and Lightfield. And to be frank your still talking about things you have yet to experience.
So you are quite correct about facts be facts. Your talking about things you have no xp til you fix up your subscription issue. And then you will only be 2/3.
Ppd yes; FoV no. So like pimax maybe only vr 1.5 nearing both to v2.0.
Again read the op’s post it has 3 main hmds being discussed and how they compare on the good and what is missing. Each has strengths and big weaknesses.
Then you might be aware that several manufacturers have used Aspherical outside of mobileVR long ago. Pimax has, Sony Before them, the VP gearVR mod, VRgineers since was it hero1. Then Hybrid lenses.
And yes maybe we will see more go the Aspherical or hybrid route.
Now tbh I am looking forward when you are able to contribute to the conversation once you have xp’d the Varjo once you get your subscription working.
I dont need to try the pimax 8kx…sebastian’s review and comparison vs the G2 and VR3 was all i really needed to see. That thing looked rough! Yea yea that FOV, that fov I dont care about that fov.
Anyway, looks like Varjo got the subscription sorted out…just waiting on them on another step and I will be good to go.
I must say that back when Oculus made a bit of a deal about the CV1 lenses being “hybrids”, it seemed to me that all this meant was that the non-frensnel side of the slab was not flat, but a regular convex profile, and I am yet to come across any information to the contrary.
The same of course applies to most other VR lenses, including the CV1 contemporary original Vive, and the Pimax 8k/5k series (…with its characteristic: “fried egg” shape).
The one “touchable” surface in the Valve Index lens stack is, as it happens, not curved, but flat. -I presume whatever properties Valve got out of the bulge in the Vive lens, they now get from the second lens element.
It occurs to me that this flat surface appears to have a few of benefits: Namely that it makes the lens thinner yet, and unifies the first diffracting transitional surface, which should yield previously discussed pros when it comes to pupil swim; It means less oblique an angle from your eye to the lens surface away from the centre, reducing the reflectiveness fresnel property (a thing apart from with fresnel lenses), for less direct reflection of leaked light; And it gives another millimetre or two that you can get closer to the centre plane of the lens. (EDIT: Should also make it easy to apply a simple flat sheet lens protector…)
(As it happens, the lenses I’ve got in my home-botched… hmm… “viewer” device, are plano-convex… Really need to try to get it hooked up, and wish I had the skill to cook up some rudimentary drivers… :P)
Wearality Developed hybrid lenses in there Sky viewer for phones. Otherwise we have had hybrid fresnel optics like used in StarVR and Pimax. With Vrgineers creating hybrid custom Aspherical lenses where most just use so to speak off the shelf lenses.
You might be able to draw some support from one of the open projects. If @crony is around he can likely give guidance as he is very versed in VR and has created a couple home grown viewers one iirc using Infinni eye papers.
Does this in any of the cases contradict my old conclusion that what makes them: “hybrid”, is simply that the non-ridged side is not flat (…unlike, say, that first InfinitEye)? -If so; Do you know, and can you describe how each of them works, to stake their claim on the word? -Just to still my curiousity. :7
Not so sure about that, because if I am not presuming incorrectly here, SteamVR uses the same x1.4 “base” render target multiplier with the Index, as it does with the Vive, which would suggest a similar amount of “pillow” distortion.
(Don’t think I’ve seen any overhead projector that uses a fresnel lens for anything other than collimating the illumination source - all the ones I’ve come across have had a conventional glass lens (EDIT2: …and a regular flat mirror) for the projection…)
Hey, just saying I don’t like him. Nothing bad. He’s the kind of guy that likes gross insults on this forum. Not the kind of type I like, that’s all. And I’m sure the feeling is mutual and thats perfectly fine
Well maybe not. Simple truth is any could be called custom/hybrid for an lenses specially made vs using existing “skus” to build cameras/scopes etc…
Overhead projectors and the like do not need to worry about weight snd size. The first lens compresses the image eeflected off the mirror and decompressed projected typically larger than source image.
