5 ms·

Gruber claims that it has the exact same FOV as actual human vision, and no discernible pixels. https://daringfireball.net/2023/06/first_impressions_of_vision_

Gruber claims that it has the exact same FOV as actual human vision, and no discernible pixels. https://daringfireball.net/2023/06/first_impressions_of_vision_pro_and_visionos https://daringfireball.net/2023/06/first_impressions_of_visi...

hbn 3y ago
I’m still curious how things will look in low light. All the demos were in an optimally lit room, but what about when you dim the lights and the camera has trouble picking up the room?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mlajtos 3y ago
  There are infra-red illuminators.
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    Oh, that’ll be fun when people start to realize that some polyester fabrics are transparent in IR!
iknowstuff 3y ago
I think he’s mostly saying that whatever is in the visible field of view matches our eyes. Doesn’t mean the actual FOV is 180 :)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mlajtos 3y ago
  The actual quote from Gruber was "There is no border in the field of vision — your field of view through Vision Pro exactly matches what you see through your eyes without it." What does "border in the FoV" means?
  - graftak 3y ago
    I assume that you’d be able to look beyond the edges of the screen.
wkat4242 3y ago
That can't be right. The human FoV is huge, more than 180 degrees. To cover that range without visible pixels requires much more than "4k" type resolution. Either one of those statements can be right. Not both at the same time. It's time someone with real measuring equipment looks at of these and gives a more technical review than just "wow Apple magic".
- rfgmendoza 3y ago
  each eye is not getting "4k resolution" they are claimed to be each capable of rendering a 4k screen in natural resolution. meaning a couple 4k screens can be rendered in the visible area without a noticeable difference in quality to real screens at a similar "apparent" distance
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    With Apple's marketing power, I really would expect them to claim a higher resolution number if it was that high. After all, why not? If it's actually 5K they would shout it from the rooftops. All they've said is "more pixels than a 4K screen", also we know this type of lens distortion causes some waste. We also know 23 million pixels for the whole system. So, 11.5 million for one display. a 4K display is 8.2 million. So it's not a whole lot more than 4K, and lower than their own 5K display (which has 14 million), which matches what they claim ("more than a 4K display"). That's not enough to cover the full field of human vision and still have pixels so small they can't be seen. With corner waste it's just barely enough for one 4K display this way (and stretched to the full limits of vision it will be pretty unwatchable so close). You can't display two as you mention, because AR/VR projection works by using the 2 screens to display the same content just from a slightly different position (parallax) causing the 3D effect. The more overlap between the eyes the better and more comfortable the 3D effect (some headsets try to get an ultrawide FoV this way but shoot themselves in the foot with low overlap). If it has a really wide FoV its sharpness will be pretty much on-par with a quest 3/Pico 4, if it's got the same FoV it will be a lot sharper. I expect the truth to be somewhere in between. Wider than a Quest and also sharper, but pixels visible if you look well and not quite full human FoV. What I expect Apple will have done is sacrifice a bit of vertical FoV for horizontal FoV. Vertical FoV is important in VR (especially 'roomscale') because of orientation issues, and not quite as important in AR. Also most of their marketing material promotes a seated position so moving around is not an issue. Most VR headsets have an almost-square resolution per eye, but I expect this one to be closer to 16:10 (maybe not quite that wide). I think it will come out at around 4300x2600 pixels per eye which is slightly over 11 million pixels. Still very impressive (which it must be at that price point obviously!). But real-world and not magic. Makes sense because Apple's engineers, as good as they are, are bound by the same laws of physics we all are. Their marketeers would love us to believe otherwise though. It's really time for some real-world specs on this thing instead of marketing blah. But I think Apple specifically doesn't want this, it's no wonder they let only the most loyal media outlets (like Gruber) get as much as a short hands-on with this thing. And even those experience are white-gloved in detail (they even prepared custom adaptive lenses). They just want to keep the marketing buzz on as long as possible.
rcpt 3y ago
> Vision Pro and VisionOS feel like they’ve been pulled forward in time from the future. I haven’t had that feeling about a new product since the original iPhone in 2007. tf? Did he miss everything about LLMs?
- XajniN 3y ago
  LLMs are not so impressive when you understand how they work approximately. This new Apple thingy is very impressive even though it’s much easier to understand. Apparently even if yoou worked on it from the beginning.
machdiamonds 3y ago
Norm from Tested, a highly credible source for VR, actually mentions the FOV is akin to Valve Index's: https://youtu.be/f0HBzePUmZ0?t=825 https://youtu.be/f0HBzePUmZ0?t=825 This is actually a bit disappointing since I would rather not have to move my entire head to look at a virtual side monitor. It seems like the technology is there now and many companies are looking into it, hopefully other headsets will be released with higher FOVs: https://youtu.be/y054OEP3qck?t=283 https://youtu.be/y054OEP3qck?t=283 Another noteworthy point from that video: Apple has bought Limbak, an optics specialist that was formerly tied with Lynx R1's optics. This means Lynx can no longer use Limbak's future optics that, admittedly, fall short in scaling to higher resolutions. Now, Lynx has shifted its gaze to hypervision optics, intent on preventing a similar acquisition by another tech behemoth like Apple.
skygazer 3y ago
I just read Gruber's review. When he says "field of view" he's not talking about total degrees of arc, he's talking about what one might think of as "zoom," in this instance. He says things don't appear larger or smaller when you remove the headset.

hbn 3y ago

I’m still curious how things will look in low light. All the demos were in an optimally lit room, but what about when you dim the lights and the camera has trouble picking up the room?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mlajtos 3y ago
There are infra-red illuminators.
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  Oh, that’ll be fun when people start to realize that some polyester fabrics are transparent in IR!

iknowstuff 3y ago

I think he’s mostly saying that whatever is in the visible field of view matches our eyes. Doesn’t mean the actual FOV is 180 :)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mlajtos 3y ago
The actual quote from Gruber was "There is no border in the field of vision — your field of view through Vision Pro exactly matches what you see through your eyes without it." What does "border in the FoV" means?
- graftak 3y ago
  I assume that you’d be able to look beyond the edges of the screen.

wkat4242 3y ago

That can't be right. The human FoV is huge, more than 180 degrees. To cover that range without visible pixels requires much more than "4k" type resolution. Either one of those statements can be right. Not both at the same time. It's time someone with real measuring equipment looks at of these and gives a more technical review than just "wow Apple magic".

rfgmendoza 3y ago
each eye is not getting "4k resolution" they are claimed to be each capable of rendering a 4k screen in natural resolution. meaning a couple 4k screens can be rendered in the visible area without a noticeable difference in quality to real screens at a similar "apparent" distance
- wkat4242 3y ago
  With Apple's marketing power, I really would expect them to claim a higher resolution number if it was that high. After all, why not? If it's actually 5K they would shout it from the rooftops. All they've said is "more pixels than a 4K screen", also we know this type of lens distortion causes some waste. We also know 23 million pixels for the whole system. So, 11.5 million for one display. a 4K display is 8.2 million. So it's not a whole lot more than 4K, and lower than their own 5K display (which has 14 million), which matches what they claim ("more than a 4K display"). That's not enough to cover the full field of human vision and still have pixels so small they can't be seen. With corner waste it's just barely enough for one 4K display this way (and stretched to the full limits of vision it will be pretty unwatchable so close). You can't display two as you mention, because AR/VR projection works by using the 2 screens to display the same content just from a slightly different position (parallax) causing the 3D effect. The more overlap between the eyes the better and more comfortable the 3D effect (some headsets try to get an ultrawide FoV this way but shoot themselves in the foot with low overlap). If it has a really wide FoV its sharpness will be pretty much on-par with a quest 3/Pico 4, if it's got the same FoV it will be a lot sharper. I expect the truth to be somewhere in between. Wider than a Quest and also sharper, but pixels visible if you look well and not quite full human FoV. What I expect Apple will have done is sacrifice a bit of vertical FoV for horizontal FoV. Vertical FoV is important in VR (especially 'roomscale') because of orientation issues, and not quite as important in AR. Also most of their marketing material promotes a seated position so moving around is not an issue. Most VR headsets have an almost-square resolution per eye, but I expect this one to be closer to 16:10 (maybe not quite that wide). I think it will come out at around 4300x2600 pixels per eye which is slightly over 11 million pixels. Still very impressive (which it must be at that price point obviously!). But real-world and not magic. Makes sense because Apple's engineers, as good as they are, are bound by the same laws of physics we all are. Their marketeers would love us to believe otherwise though. It's really time for some real-world specs on this thing instead of marketing blah. But I think Apple specifically doesn't want this, it's no wonder they let only the most loyal media outlets (like Gruber) get as much as a short hands-on with this thing. And even those experience are white-gloved in detail (they even prepared custom adaptive lenses). They just want to keep the marketing buzz on as long as possible.

rcpt 3y ago

> Vision Pro and VisionOS feel like they’ve been pulled forward in time from the future. I haven’t had that feeling about a new product since the original iPhone in 2007. tf? Did he miss everything about LLMs?

XajniN 3y ago
LLMs are not so impressive when you understand how they work approximately. This new Apple thingy is very impressive even though it’s much easier to understand. Apparently even if yoou worked on it from the beginning.

machdiamonds 3y ago

Norm from Tested, a highly credible source for VR, actually mentions the FOV is akin to Valve Index's: https://youtu.be/f0HBzePUmZ0?t=825 https://youtu.be/f0HBzePUmZ0?t=825 This is actually a bit disappointing since I would rather not have to move my entire head to look at a virtual side monitor. It seems like the technology is there now and many companies are looking into it, hopefully other headsets will be released with higher FOVs: https://youtu.be/y054OEP3qck?t=283 https://youtu.be/y054OEP3qck?t=283 Another noteworthy point from that video: Apple has bought Limbak, an optics specialist that was formerly tied with Lynx R1's optics. This means Lynx can no longer use Limbak's future optics that, admittedly, fall short in scaling to higher resolutions. Now, Lynx has shifted its gaze to hypervision optics, intent on preventing a similar acquisition by another tech behemoth like Apple.

skygazer 3y ago

I just read Gruber's review. When he says "field of view" he's not talking about total degrees of arc, he's talking about what one might think of as "zoom," in this instance. He says things don't appear larger or smaller when you remove the headset.