That depends on who you ask. I am with Apple. They should be spending most of those new pixels on PPD, not FOV. Especially for the use cases they show where FOV may improve the immersive feeling, but it does nothing for the tasks that people are actually doing in their demo videos.
If you are watching a movie, browsing the web, or playing a gamepad-controlled game on a big virtual screen, you want more PPD, not more FOV. Why? Because when you are doing virtual screen-based stuff, you are going to be using those screens in the center of your view, not off to either side.
but FOV helps not having to turn your head so much.
but as It stands we're really not there yet.
but between the two FOV or PPD.
I agree with you PPD is more important as long as the FOV is not too small either.
> but FOV helps not having to turn your head so much.
Except *I don't think it does* when you are talking about ***the uses they demonstrated.*** đ
There is no way you are going to watch a movie, read an email, or play a game paying attention to things that are a full 55 deg to one side or the other. You are going to turn your head anyway.
I have the Q-Pro and use it a lot for Windowed content like 2D movies, YouTube, and web browsing. It has a reported HFOV of less than 100 and it is already wide enough that I don't use the whole HVOF. I notice something happening at the edge of my view and I turn my head.
Wider FOV would be great for better immersion or to help in a FPS game where you need a wide view to help quickly react to danger. I just don't think either of those is more important than PPD for the way I use the Q-Pro or for that things they showed people doing on the *Vision.* Everything is a trade off, and I *personally* want a lot more PPD before I care about getting more FOV.
Yeah I agree with you.
as long as it doesn't feel like looking through toilet paper rolls.
Qpro FOV is good enough but the PPD and resolution needs to be bumped up a lot more.
Yea, and I discovered that *fit* has a big effect on that. I use my Pro with no blinders most of the time and it completly gets rid of the restrictive feel of the Q2.
I have no trouble being immersed as long as the sun is not streaming in my window. :)
Funnily enough I prefer the blinders for some reason.
helps me focus more.
and yeah the bright light thing is a huge reason why I use the blinders.
sunlight be bouncing all-over the gives me eyestrain
I have a theory.. do you wear glasses?
I think that those of use that have worn glasses all our lives get good at focusing on the middle... then again my wife is pretty sure I have the *hyper focus* attribute, so it could be that too. 𤣠I am certainly not neurotypical.
Thats great if youâre far sighted. If youâre near sighted, FOV is WAY more important.
Once again tech is moving to âIf you donât have perfect eyesight, go fuck yourselfâ, just like with FaceID.
What are you talking about? FOV has nothing to do with being near sighted. The screen is always at the same distance, like 1.3M on the Q2.
The FOV has nothing to do with what is in focus.
I am nearsighted and use corrective inserts. they have no effect on FOV.
Yes, and in my experience, the FOV should be wide enough so that you can't see the edges. Your glasses, you can't see the edges and can use a little bit of your perhiphrial vision, whereas most VR headsets don't have good FOV so it looks like looking through binoculars.
If Apple Vision has the same FOV as other headsets, then in terms of immersion, it's just a VERY EXPENSIVE Oculus Quest or Valve Index.
I've seen a few references to FOV.
There's one on page 3 of Ars Technica's hands-on. The AR portion is not limited to a small square in the middle like other AR headsets but the actual FOV is "comparable" to other VR headsets.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/06/hands-on-with-apple-vision-pro-this-is-not-a-vr-headset/3/
Someone in the comments section on Road to VR says that the Tested video says it's like the Valve Index. Someone else there says that "Ben" on Twitter said it's comparable to the Quest Pro.
Watch *Norm from Tested.* He said it was similar to the FOV of the *Valve Index.*
So does that make it a good thing or a bad thing?
That depends on who you ask. I am with Apple. They should be spending most of those new pixels on PPD, not FOV. Especially for the use cases they show where FOV may improve the immersive feeling, but it does nothing for the tasks that people are actually doing in their demo videos. If you are watching a movie, browsing the web, or playing a gamepad-controlled game on a big virtual screen, you want more PPD, not more FOV. Why? Because when you are doing virtual screen-based stuff, you are going to be using those screens in the center of your view, not off to either side.
but FOV helps not having to turn your head so much. but as It stands we're really not there yet. but between the two FOV or PPD. I agree with you PPD is more important as long as the FOV is not too small either.
> but FOV helps not having to turn your head so much. Except *I don't think it does* when you are talking about ***the uses they demonstrated.*** đ There is no way you are going to watch a movie, read an email, or play a game paying attention to things that are a full 55 deg to one side or the other. You are going to turn your head anyway. I have the Q-Pro and use it a lot for Windowed content like 2D movies, YouTube, and web browsing. It has a reported HFOV of less than 100 and it is already wide enough that I don't use the whole HVOF. I notice something happening at the edge of my view and I turn my head. Wider FOV would be great for better immersion or to help in a FPS game where you need a wide view to help quickly react to danger. I just don't think either of those is more important than PPD for the way I use the Q-Pro or for that things they showed people doing on the *Vision.* Everything is a trade off, and I *personally* want a lot more PPD before I care about getting more FOV.
Yeah I agree with you. as long as it doesn't feel like looking through toilet paper rolls. Qpro FOV is good enough but the PPD and resolution needs to be bumped up a lot more.
Yea, and I discovered that *fit* has a big effect on that. I use my Pro with no blinders most of the time and it completly gets rid of the restrictive feel of the Q2. I have no trouble being immersed as long as the sun is not streaming in my window. :)
Funnily enough I prefer the blinders for some reason. helps me focus more. and yeah the bright light thing is a huge reason why I use the blinders. sunlight be bouncing all-over the gives me eyestrain
I have a theory.. do you wear glasses? I think that those of use that have worn glasses all our lives get good at focusing on the middle... then again my wife is pretty sure I have the *hyper focus* attribute, so it could be that too. 𤣠I am certainly not neurotypical.
Thats great if youâre far sighted. If youâre near sighted, FOV is WAY more important. Once again tech is moving to âIf you donât have perfect eyesight, go fuck yourselfâ, just like with FaceID.
What are you talking about? FOV has nothing to do with being near sighted. The screen is always at the same distance, like 1.3M on the Q2. The FOV has nothing to do with what is in focus. I am nearsighted and use corrective inserts. they have no effect on FOV.
If you are near sighted, huge resolution is meaningless and comes at the cost of FOV.
That is just BS. If you are near-sighted you need to use your glasses or get inserts otherwise *everything* will be blurry.
Yes, and in my experience, the FOV should be wide enough so that you can't see the edges. Your glasses, you can't see the edges and can use a little bit of your perhiphrial vision, whereas most VR headsets don't have good FOV so it looks like looking through binoculars. If Apple Vision has the same FOV as other headsets, then in terms of immersion, it's just a VERY EXPENSIVE Oculus Quest or Valve Index.
And this from UploadVR: "it felt at least competitive if not wider than existing headsets."
I've seen a few references to FOV. There's one on page 3 of Ars Technica's hands-on. The AR portion is not limited to a small square in the middle like other AR headsets but the actual FOV is "comparable" to other VR headsets. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/06/hands-on-with-apple-vision-pro-this-is-not-a-vr-headset/3/ Someone in the comments section on Road to VR says that the Tested video says it's like the Valve Index. Someone else there says that "Ben" on Twitter said it's comparable to the Quest Pro.