Actually this is my position, and i outlined that to the people you are talking about quite some time ago. There is a difference between understanding someone else’s view, and holding it. I am very happy with the tradeoff for fov / clarity pimax chose. wide fov is the reason i backed above all others.
to quote myself
Why do you get to decide this, and how. Also why would i expect the image from the 8k to be radically sharper than 4k and totally free of sde and pixels when the larger FOV from the beginning meant it would be around same density as 4k.
You place a lesser priority on FOV, and that’s fine, but when you talk about having 6000 angry backers you need to consider how many angry backers there will be if they push out a 140 degree headset. I will be one of them. Frankly, it would be a different headset to what i ordered given the main selling point is the fov, thats what they sold it on, not pixels per inch.
we have known for a very very long time that the 8k will not be totally free of sde, merely that it would be greatly reduced.
3f2fbac8b111cd082d91ce476c3d01925001ab28.jpg1630x822 249 KB
It sounds like you want a headset that would be better for what you use VR for, and want pimax to accommodate you. A headset that takes a 4k image and applies it to a much smaller fov for higher clarity. And that could be great. But that’s not the headset pimax wanted to build, and its not the headset people signed up for.
And i really really do not think the results of a what, 50 backer survey should speak for 6000 people?
Now if they can make the lenses interchangeable and offer lower fov lenses later, im cool with that. but im not cool with it coming at cost of protracted dev time, and def not ok with it being the default option.
5 Likes