On March 02 2015 11:14 SKC wrote: There are cables. So you are not really walking around the house wearing those. They also should be pretty simple to remove if you need to, a camera seems a bit unnecessary.
The controller thing could be interesting. Time to revive the power glove.
Well honestly I'm more curious for my situational awareness, I don't like the idea of basically wearing a blind fold and ear bud/noise cancelling headphones. Anything you can't smell or feel happening, you would be pretty oblivious to (even more so than in front of you monitor).
That's the point of VR though
Yeah, but reality doesn't give most people the opportunity/desire to completely check out. Some awareness of your surroundings (or at least the option for it) seems pretty reasonable to me. If I am gaming or whatever I don't want to have to take off the headset every time I want to take a drink or look at another display (like a football/basketball game I'm passively watching).
But that's not the point of VR...
If you want some AR things wait for AR/HoloLens. If you want to a head mounted display get a head mounted display. If you want VR, this is VR.
It's not reasonable at all unless you're saying you want to have something plug into your head that runs on your retinas that you can plug in and out of instantly... that is VR and this is VR. The whole of VR is immersing yourself in another reality - meaning all your senses used to simulate another reality. Not having half in one half in another and multi-tasking between the two or what you're suggesting. If you're saying it's going to be a problem, that's one thing, but you seem to be against the idea of VR... If it's not for you then it's not for you...
What I'm saying is if I hear some loud cheering or something thump, I don't want to have to whip off the headset to see what it was. Or if I want to stay hydrated I don't want to have to take the thing off so I can see my drink. I haven't used one yet so I don't really know how long people plan on being able to wear these but it seems that some basic option for some level of situational awareness seems reasonable.
For instance it would be virtually impossible to drink some beers (or hot tea if that's your thing) and use it at the same time (not sure if that drinking alcohol would cause some crazy nausea on it's own).
As he said, this is for immersion. If your playing some first-person RPG with the headset/earbuds(fire crackling for that wood smell) on, your not going to be worrying about the score of the game. As for drinking, they are just goggles~ Pull them up, drink, pull them down.
On March 02 2015 11:14 SKC wrote: There are cables. So you are not really walking around the house wearing those. They also should be pretty simple to remove if you need to, a camera seems a bit unnecessary.
The controller thing could be interesting. Time to revive the power glove.
Well honestly I'm more curious for my situational awareness, I don't like the idea of basically wearing a blind fold and ear bud/noise cancelling headphones. Anything you can't smell or feel happening, you would be pretty oblivious to (even more so than in front of you monitor).
That's the point of VR though
Yeah, but reality doesn't give most people the opportunity/desire to completely check out. Some awareness of your surroundings (or at least the option for it) seems pretty reasonable to me. If I am gaming or whatever I don't want to have to take off the headset every time I want to take a drink or look at another display (like a football/basketball game I'm passively watching).
But that's not the point of VR...
If you want some AR things wait for AR/HoloLens. If you want to a head mounted display get a head mounted display. If you want VR, this is VR.
It's not reasonable at all unless you're saying you want to have something plug into your head that runs on your retinas that you can plug in and out of instantly... that is VR and this is VR. The whole of VR is immersing yourself in another reality - meaning all your senses used to simulate another reality. Not having half in one half in another and multi-tasking between the two or what you're suggesting. If you're saying it's going to be a problem, that's one thing, but you seem to be against the idea of VR... If it's not for you then it's not for you...
What I'm saying is if I hear some loud cheering or something thump, I don't want to have to whip off the headset to see what it was. Or if I want to stay hydrated I don't want to have to take the thing off so I can see my drink. I haven't used one yet so I don't really know how long people plan on being able to wear these but it seems that some basic option for some level of situational awareness seems reasonable.
For instance it would be virtually impossible to drink some beers (or hot tea if that's your thing) and use it at the same time (not sure if that drinking alcohol would cause some crazy nausea on it's own).
As he said, this is for immersion. If your playing some first-person RPG with the headset/earbuds(fire crackling for that wood smell) on, your not going to be worrying about the score of the game. As for drinking, they are just goggles~ Pull them up, drink, pull them down.
Fair enough on the game or something. But it kind of looks like you would have to take off the whole rig for a drink which would be a bit of a pain, like if you had to take your headphones off every time you took a drink. Wouldn't make or break my decision or anything just seems like one of those things that would make me more likely to have some sort of accident.dropping it or something.
I guess I'm also thinking of Web 4.0 type applications too, but I suppose that will be several models from now.
On March 03 2015 20:23 -Archangel- wrote: A small warning for people that want to buy this. You will need a monster computer to run it at those resolutions at 90 FPS, especially if the game itself is a resource hog. So calculate a possible computer upgrade along with this purchase.
Silicon technology is not limited to 23nm , just giving some insider
May I ask why do we need 90 fps if the human eye doesn't see in 90 fps.
Forget it I did some research and it kind of depends on how much "blurriness" you want and what are you seeing, so even though we can watch movies perfectly fine at 24 fps, with other things, it dependeds.
On March 06 2015 22:21 [Phantom] wrote: May I ask why do we need 90 fps if the human eye doesn't see in 90 fps.
Forget it I did some research and it kind of depends on how much "blurriness" you want and what are you seeing, so even though we can watch movies perfectly fine at 24 fps, with other things, it dependeds.
human eye can probably see more than 90 fps even
movies work at 24 fps because the frames are perfectly synced. when gaming, frame rate can vary, as can the time it takes to render a frame. that's why 24 fps in gaming just doesn't look good
well doubtlessly someone else will come in and start discussing the topic with more complete explanations than mine
movies so don't work at 24fps either they look like blurry shit it's just that 24fps was established as a standard for film waaaaaaaay back and it's really hard to get people to change the standard (until digital which is allowing things like 48fps hobbit).
On March 07 2015 00:28 Sn0_Man wrote: movies so don't work at 24fps either they look like blurry shit it's just that 24fps was established as a standard for film waaaaaaaay back and it's really hard to get people to change the standard (until digital which is allowing things like 48fps hobbit).
Secondly the rules for filming (and making it look good) have a century of practice. The rules for rendering 3d games have like 2 decades and the base line changes every 3 years.
The human eye doesn't see in frames per second. It's continuous. Your brain can be fooled into seeing motion rather than a series of static images at around 24fps, but even then you have to be careful what kind of camera movement you do.
What your brain very definitely ISN'T happy with is full-scene judder and a 1/24th second delay between turning your head and seeing the world change. Judder is caused when the screen shows a static image for too long (that's why the best VR screens use low persistence, flashing the image for just a couple of milliseconds before turning off and waiting for the next frame), and when your brain perceives a mismatch between vision and movement, it assumes you've been poisoned (historically the most likely reason) and makes you want to vomit.
As I said earlier though, so long as head movement and what you see is locked tightly and smoothly together (which timewarp does by repeatedly and rapidly adjusting how the most recent frame is displayed according to current head position), your brain is happy to overlook a lower underlying framerate.
hey sn0_Man 24 frames in movies while "historical" is also an aesthetic choice. The main reason why the movie industry hasn't adopted 60 frames or 30 drop, or any other flavor was primarily a financial and technical one... Today, it still is to a degree but it is also an aesthetic and psychological choice as well.
By intentionally shooting at 24, our brains have to interpolate missing data between frames to form a contiguous experience, and this is intentional today. Many argue that this is the optimal way because it gives the right amount of blur, and allows our brains the right amount of space to interpret data in a non-overloaded way. There's also our perception of data and why 24 seems more 'real' to many people than 48 or 60 (there's some pretty deep perceptual psychology behind this, but I don't know enough to say one way or another). Overall this reinforces a very particular movie-going experience aesthetic, and that's the point.
Personally I've found that movies or television shows shot in over 30 frames seem very artificial to my eyes because there's too much data being given to me and I have to interpret less. Perhaps it's because i'm just not used to it, but I can say that my overwhelming experience was that I was getting too much data, and it made the entire world feel surreal, and disconnected, which could be disastrous for an emotionally driven medium.
at 60hz? I'd rather stick to me 120hz monitors. But this looks interesting
it means 90hz and low-persistence means that it looks much much better than 120hz in practice
@wolfwood I personally believe that people who thing >24fps movies look "fake" simply have had their eyes trained to think that 24fps = movie experience and anything else therefore doesn't look like a movie. Plus a lot of bullshit movie action scenes are a lot more believable when blurred to shit at low FPS lol. But thats just me.
From my experience with my Vive and from forums on it it's completely what you see is what you get. There are exceptions where people experiencing stereo blindness are suddenly able to see things in 3d for the first time but generally you have exactly the same vision in the Vive as you have without it.
It seems to be a degenerative disease of the eye muscles. The Vive has it's viewpoint fixed for infinity so as long as the person can see things normally at a distance they can see fine in the Vive. All VR headset today also have fresnel lenses. That means that the sharp area of vision is centered straight forward. So ideally you move your eyes less and your head more than you'd naturally do if you want to have a clear focus.
On July 28 2016 04:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: From my experience with my Vive and from forums on it it's completely what you see is what you get. There are exceptions where people experiencing stereo blindness are suddenly able to see things in 3d for the first time but generally you have exactly the same vision in the Vive as you have without it.
It seems to be a degenerative disease of the eye muscles. The Vive has it's viewpoint fixed for infinity so as long as the person can see things normally at a distance they can see fine in the Vive. All VR headset today also have fresnel lenses. That means that the sharp area of vision is centered straight forward. So ideally you move your eyes less and your head more than you'd naturally do if you want to have a clear focus.
Hope it helps.
Yeah it does. To be real honest, I don't know his concrete condition beyond the generalities, but I know he can drive just fine and doing his usual work, so if it just sharpens his vision and slightly and doesn't rely on him using peripheral vision, I'll buy it for him.
The Vive has it's viewpoint fixed for infinity so as long as the person can see things normally at a distance they can see fine in the Vive.
Do you have any information about why this is neccesary?
Not really. I think the Rift has their point at 3 m. It might be the other way around too, it's rarely a stated technical fact so it's hard to remember. Most lenses have a fixed distance (all that I've worked with at least). One thing is probably that essentially your putting a screen right in your face so viewing it like that would be incredibly uncomfortable, but I'm sure there's more technical things involved.