I appreciate @hammerhead_gal 's write-up/post on the forums regarding FoV.
However, I would like to see something re-iterated or even iteratedmore strongly regarding the MINIMUM FoV the Crystal can do in the expected optimal use environment. Without all of the subjective variances thrown in there to yield potential skepticism regarding the Crystal’s FoV capabilities.
“Technically speaking, given all factors are at optimal setup, the Crystal Display is capable of a MAX Diagnal FoV of ###°. Based on the design of Crystal’s displays, lenses and other hardware capabilities. This is +/- ###° as compared to the PIMAX 8KX’s Diagnal 200° FoV. User experience and results may vary due to subjective factors (like distance of eyes to lenses).”
I mean, something like the above would be a more appropriate statement IMO.
140 degrees diagonal was advertised for the crystal long long ago…should be 98 degrees horizontal if the displays are square…but the 5 degree canted displays(total) should offer more, at the cost of binocular overlap, so 103 degrees horizontal 98 degrees vertical? This corresponds exactly with the leaked HMDQ that appeared online. Its confusing to me why people thought it would be more…is it just a disappointment because people want this to be a 12k ?
103°x103° may be the visual field of one eye, and the parameter of Pimax should be the visual field of both eyes.
If it is the field of view of both eyes, calculated according to HFOV120°, the overlapping area of the two eyes is 86° x 103°, and there are 17° non-overlapping fields of sight for the left and right eyes.
im thinking maybe people tought it would be more cause they claim so on their store when you preorder it “FIELD OF VIEW 35PPD：
Horizontal：125°
Diagonal：140°
42PPD：
Horizontal：110°
Diagonal：120°”
thats a whole insane 22 degree less field of view than what they advertise,any credibility on that 35PPD claim also?who knows.
I wasnt aware of that. Possibly, they simply used the wrong factor in converting the diagonal to horizontal. If the displays were 3:2 or 16:9 that would maybe make more sense.
Oh yeah non-euclidean…once again? Still if crystal is hotizontally 103 degrees fov. They possibly knew it was 98 each eye and simply extrapolated incorrectly on their own to say 140 diagonal, incorrectly…in the same way I did. I dont doubt the math is wrong, just that they did that math wrong too. Can you blame them (8kx 12kx)
This is gaslighting. I’m actually very annoyed to see this having been posted after waiting for so long for an answer to the FOV concerns of the crystal, this comes across like “What is the best way we can twitch reality to get out of this”.
I added some useful highlights in red just incase the non-diagonal measurement was missed.
Even if we take this misleading fluff at face value, there’s no way in any reality that 103x103 amounts to 140 diagonal.
Just give us a straight answer, and if necessary then update the specs to not be false advertising. It’s fine if the FOV is 103x103, crystal will be still amazing, which isn’t fine is false advertising and then trying to gaslight people weeks after concerns are raised.
Edit: Also, I would like to add that other sources (youtubers) have also confirmed that the FOV is indeed 103 rendered (with 102 being what they saw visually). So the numbers are confirmed.
If it’s a case that the advertised FOV is what Pimax are aiming for in the future (like how Varjo Aero got a big bump) then tell us that. If that’s not the case, then simply update the specs and stop falsely advertising. I want Pimax to succeed, breaking the law with false advertising is not going to help yous succeed.
Don’t know why Hammerhead_gal posted this. Everyone here should already understand the details about FOV, even dummies like me got the idea of how FOV works and what those numbers mean.
There is no one confused about FOV and its variations. We would have appreciated more if Pimax gave us the concrete numbers. The numbers that’s measured by optical instruments. So we can feel not in the dark any more. Lower number is not a problem. The real problem is that we all know the number is lower, but just not exactly how low.
Is it really that difficult to have someone using optical instrument to measure the real FOV? The FOV discussion has been around for months. How much longer Pimax want this to continue?
If her type-up provides some educational value overall regarding FoV, then It’s appreciated.
This for the benefit of newbies and those who have very little to no understanding of VR Tech, but are still interested in it and buying even their first HMD.
First off, it’s not educational as it’s not accurate. Secondly, this is clearly as a response to the push for answers on the crystal’s FOV being 103 rather than the advertised 125.
I agree, they should be able to concretely confirm DFOV as originally stated/advertised 125°, if that was indeed that case. If they cannot, and if it is not, then there needs to be sufficient clarification.
DFOV is advertised at 140 btw, it’s horizontal that is advertised at 125.
So far literally everyone that has released any results on the FOV of the crystal has gotten about 103 max (which matches up with the rendered fov max) for horizontal. That’s a 22 degree difference, even if it was only the 140 and we went with what this post was say, it still wouldn’t be close to advertised.
This post being the only response after weeks all but confirms that they messed up. While unfortunate, it’s fine if they just change the marketing material and stop misleading people.
If it’s a case that it’s like when the Varjo Aero launched (it launched with a much smaller FOV than advertised but eventually reached closer to advertised through software) then that’s fine, just tell us that.
They are only slightly canted square panels. Personally, I never expected more than 105-108 degrees horizontally and about 125 degrees diagonally after the first show, which basically corresponds to the index. I also don’t understand where these 140 degrees suddenly come from. They weren’t advertised at all at first in my memory, or had I misheard it completely?
User experience and results may vary due to subjective factors (like distance of eyes to lenses).”
