Why not complete the full fov?

Pimax 8K Series
1

This is a controversial opinion i guess. But theyre so close to matching human vision, why not just fill the remaining gap? Especially bc those final pixels are more “felt” than seen, they wouldnt even need to really be full res. Even if it was just stretching. Being able to advertise it as human scale fov would be some serious news across all tech websites and publications.

So…@pimax, can the lenses be adjusted to squeeze out those last few degrees of field of view for vertical and horizontal field of view?

Think about it please!

2

Human vision 32m @ 220° FoV
PiMax 8k. 16m @ 200° FoV

Need to wait for 8k clpl panels to be made & of course use 2. :beers::wink::+1::sparkles:

1 Like
3

They would have utilized the tech that was available which could be implemented at reasonable cost but also suited the needs of the project.

1 Like
4

220 degrees would be cool :slight_smile:

5

I think if we could choose for the future.

Better to pick 32m@200° FOV
then 16m@220° FOV.

Next step is to bump up the resolution maybe next year or 2.
When new generation 3d cards are out, i’m not talking about VOLTA but the one after VOLTA.

2 Likes
6

I believe that’s what they are doing , they said they currently utilize 80% of the display ,V3 Prototype has way bigger lenses but I think they are going to wait tell V4 to utilize the whole display .

2 Likes
7

I think this is a key point for inmersion in VR and marketing wise. If they can achieve this would be a game changer at least for me. not having horizontal and vertical black bars can be the selling point.
It would be so difficult to implement considering there is only a few degress left?

1 Like
8

Can’t they copy StarVR? It has 210 degrees fov and some huge lenses. Before the 8k, I had really high hopes for StarVR but appears they have no interest in the gaming, consumer markets but I’m sure it’s got better screens.

9

220 degrees would lessen the ppd even more, increase rendering costs needlessly, and to be honest, doing 220 horizontal would be of almost no benefit because you dont often look into your periphery. Your ocular system doesnt resolve any detail out that far.

200 degrees with vestibular stimulatio. Would make more sense.

10

I’m not sure why people Keep talking PPD, opening up more of the display will not make The image in the center any worse as long as they don’t Stretch the image, my guess I Pimax knows this and that’s why they are making there lenses bigger now.

11

If you extend the FOV you have to render even more to keep the same level of detail in the center.

I mention PPD because thats extremely important for resolving any detail in the distance. A pimax with 220 degrees would be like a DK2 with 200 degrees.

1 Like
12

A 8k X probably suits better for a 220 fov if PPD is much worse than 200, wich i dont think so.

13

Like I said those last degrees of periphery are felt more than seen. But anyone accustomed to vr knows how pronounced subtleties can be.

14

Ten more degrees per display wouldn’t hurt the ppd that much.

15

Except that StarVR claims to have done it, all while still no perceptible pixels.

16

Maybe you don’t know this, but the vertical fov on starvr is hot garbage. And the screen is full persistence. It’s certainly not “human fov” with its low vertical field of view.