Pimax Crystal Wide FoV Lenses Review + Almalence EXCLUSIVE | Wider FoV Does Not Come for Free

[@georgetazberik6834]

Almalence Devs, if you are reading this, I would pay 30 - 50 USD for an Almalence plugin that never expires.

[@HeadsetHistorian]

I wish almalance would sell directly to us consumers. Personally I think I would pay up to 100 USD for it.

[@Omniwhatever]

Be nice, but I don't think that'd really work as it'd need some cooperation from the company behind the headset in order to properly integrate it as there's some notable limitations with the current way, wasn't designed to be used long term this way. So they're kind of along for the ride anyway.

[@nekron75]

Yeah, I would gladly pay100 USD for a license, especially for the crystal Super (costing already 1799$). Another hurdle is potential software piracy, and the VR-market being an already a niche market, I understand why Almalence is going for the license-with-manufacturer type of business model.

[@EndersVRcade]

Superbly thorough examination as always!

[@TheTuckster123]

Is Almalence coming back ??? I've missed it since March.

[@Omniwhatever]

We just don't know. We I said in the review, this is just a private demo and will see what Pimax and Almalence work out.

[@liebesmaennchen]

This is such a great review, I also have the same opinion, the lenses are far away from plug and play, with a little tinkering, you can achieve a very good experience.

[@Omniwhatever]

In a funny way, it almost feels like a bit of a microcosm of Pimax as a whole. There's some issues to work with, it's absolutely not for everyone, it requires some extra tinkering and a very specific setup, but there's a niche of people who might like it even if it's not for everyone or even most people.

[@HeadsetHistorian]

​@@OmniwhateverIt brings the true Pimax wide FOV experience to the crystal ha

[@buzzow]

That (in)famous Crystal false FOV statement makes me wonder what will be the REAL fov of the theoric 130º of the Super.

[@Omniwhatever]

Yeaaaaaah, we'll see what happens there. I'm cautiously optimistic about it though. I know that the panel the Crystal Super is using is a physically bigger panel than the normal Crystal and the XR4(Which should be using the same panels) seems to get around 115~ horizontal and I think Pimax's lens design is generally better than Varjo's. I don't believe the XR4 cants the displays eithers, so there could be some more FoV squeezed out of it doing that perhaps. If it gets a REAL 120+ I'll be begrudgingly satisfied. Hopefully without significant overlap compromises.

[@buzzow]

@@Omniwhatever Indeed. Not long ago just with fresnel lenses and really lower res panels 120 horizontal was a very good fov, so getting "just" 120 with these nowadays clarity would be fantastic. I'm in fact thinking on getting a Super if that fov is real, even though no way I could run max res and 50 ppd with my 3090, BUT I guess I could downscale res to the 35ppd numbers and try to use it as a regular Crystal but with the increased fov. It may sound like a waste of money, but 100 to 120 horizontal means a lot in terms of sims inmersion because of the sense of speed, and anyway there's currently no rig to run Super at max settings. Do you think is doable that Super res downscale to regular Crystal numbers to look similar or the image would degradate so much that it would look worse than the 35ppd version?

[@Omniwhatever]

@@buzzow Well, it's hard to say too specifically without having the actual product to test. But GENERALLY speaking, if you have a physically higher res display even if you downsample it somewhat it'll still look better than a lower resolution display since it's still a physically greater pixel density. If you go MASSIVELY down in res it can potentially start to screw with things a bit more than just the sharpness, but a little bit won't hurt. So even if you subsampled the Super down to around the levels of the current Crystal in SteamVR, it'll likely still be a step up on the visuals in my experience with other headsets doing that kind of thing. Just won't be the same huge benefit of driving the full res. How MUCH better or how much image quality you'll lose vs full res is hard to say. On the Crystal going from 100% to 80% isn't that much of a drop, though it does come with a slight sacrifice to quality but it's small enough some may find it worth doing to get some extra performance back, not that bad. So you'll probably get away with it on the Super. Something I'll be planning to take a look at way down the line if I pick up the Super myself.

[@buzzow]

@@Omniwhatever Sounds like a plan for me then. I'm just a bit confused about the aspect of same resolution on panels with different pixel densities, that's why I asked about the quality when downgrading resolution on a higher density panel, like a 1440 max resolution monitor working on 1080 will look worse than a 1080 max monitor, but I guess I'm confusing pixel density with pixel per inch. Anyway, thanks for your replies.

[@Omniwhatever]

@@buzzow VR's kind of different from how flatscreen works, so normally yes that'd be a concern, in VR it's not quite the same when you're doing some minorish downsampling.

[@GT1GT]

Thank you for the real good detail on these lenses, *Thumbs up.* I have been hounding on these for almost a year at the Pimax employees. Very disappoint at these results. I was a pre-order that gets the discount and not sure I even want to pay for these until I try them myself or I get a guarantee, *that if not liking them,* I can return them with free shipping. So now what happends if we dont get them, guess we where ripped off for a second set of lenses. Sort of, *the joke is on us,* more of Pimaxes B..S.

[@Panzerlang]

I contacted their support this morning after a year of their BS promises, accusing them of fraud, got a reply that they're now sending the 42PPD ones. I guess they pulled the wide-FOV pieces of sht. The 42PPD are pieces of sht too by all accounts. Guess who won't be buying their Crystal Super. Absolute sht-show of a company.

[@Janninatore]

@5:00 shouldn't you always temper your expectations with pimax? I mean their products still deliver somewhat but usually you can expect 90% of their marketing to be wrong or at least misleading

[@Sean_Coyne]

I was so annoyed when Pimax decided not to adopt Almalence that I have almost completely stopped flying in Microsoft Flight Simulator since the trial period ended, as the the added clarity was that great. I most certainly will NOT be buying the wide FOV lenses unless Pimax makes a deal with Almalence, even though I'm entitled to the early adopter discount. If Almalence is reading this, I would still be prepared to pay a $100 or so to be able to use their plugin.

[@brzijoe6700]

Max IPD with wide fov lences is 67mm?????????????????????????? WTF????? And 15mm face pad - I tried once to stick my head into crystal with 15mm pad, no go.

[@drmikehuntphd7905]

Cool burkha

[@DouglasSantos-bw3un]

Well..... Now let's hope that Pimax FOCUS on the Super and 12k and stop pursuing every squirrel that they see.

[@Omniwhatever]

Hopefully. Pimax has some issues with trying to do everything at once. That said, I'm still hoping for good things from the Wigig module as that would be a pretty significant thing for the Crystal to have. At least the early impressions from CES seemed pretty positive. I think the Wigig has a good chance of being a worthwhile project for Pimax to go for on the Crystal.

[@paulct91]

They already removed standalone from both so, at least the 12K will hopefully end up cheaper, though personally I like the idea of on board computing, it is what it is...

[@Omniwhatever]

@@paulct91 The standalone on the 12k was honestly a terrible idea, given how it worked out on the Crystal. Not at all worth it, not at all leveraged well beyond the upcoming wireless, maybe. And even then the 12k's resolution is so much higher and bandwidth intensive than the Crystal the wireless would not be good or you'd basically turn it into a Crystal anyway.

[@Omniwhatever]

@@adrenalinejunkie3828 I'm aware. That's why I used the past tense of WAS for it. Pimax made the smart decision to remove it. It's way too late in the game to be using a last gen XR2 on that, never mind the issues the Crystal had lol. Pimax's standalone didn't work out.

[@farmertrueVR]

Fantastic in depth analysis and very informative as usual! I’m still waiting on my wide FOV lenses to arrive but I’m excited. They seem to be somewhat similar to the Crystal in that they take some time to properly tinker and get dialed in but once adjusted they’re solid.

[@wittyname-sy5je]

Fantastic review. I really appreciate all the different data points on performance, FOV measurements and through the lense examples. Well done. I pre-ordered the Crystal so I should have the $70 discount for these. But even at that price it sounds like these are a bit of a waste without Almalence working its magic. Also keep in mind people who like to use prescription lenses would have to buy a second pair as I don't believe their normal lense pair will fit on the wide FOV. I really hope Pimax works something out with Almalence or comes up with a comparable solution. With the Crystal Light now released, the regular Crystal needs something special to justify that extra $700 and 300+ grams of weight. Eye tracking is nice for the DFR (especially in DCS with Quad Views) but you could just take that money and invest it in a better graphics card to drive a Crystal Light. I am still of the opinion though that Pimax should offer eye tracking as an option on the Crystal Light. The upcoming wireless adapter could help redeem the Crystal but we'll have to see how that actually turns out. For the wireless Crystal bundle price ($1800) you could buy two Crystal Lights with local dimming. Adding an extra edge in sharpness/clarity as well as significantly reducing CA using Almalence or something to the same effect together with a wireless adapter that performs well, I could see the Crystal hanging in there as a premium flagship. And I can only imagine what Pimax could potentially achieve in image quality if they implemented that on the Crystal Super (provided the lenses are of sufficient quality to resolve all those pixels).

[@Omniwhatever]

Here's to hoping for good things on the wireless adapter! The CES impressions sounded amazingly positive compared to when Pimax usually demos a product for the first time. If they end up implementing Almalence and the wireless adapter isn't bad 100% the first thing I'm gonna do is play something with Almalence, Quad-Views, and the Wigig adapter at the same time. Be really cool to see what eye tracking can truly do since it's core to all 3 of those things. But, who knows if that'll happen.

[@wittyname-sy5je]

@@Omniwhatever That would be great, fingers crossed.

[@SargonDragon]

Pimax's customers were surprised when Pimax turned Almalence down despite the obvious visual improvement it made (which I think varied person by person). But now in the future, we know that Pimax's next headset, the Crystal Light, wasn't going to have eye tracking. So Almalence wouldn't have worked on it. It seems likely that this would have influenced that decision. In the longer term, my guess is that Pimax plans to implement dynamic distortion profiles themselves.

[@Omniwhatever]

It's always worth keeping in mind the cost of things too. We have no idea about how the negotiations went behind the scenes. For all we know, Almalence could've asked way too much for Pimax to consider. Could be all on Pimax not personally seeing enough improvements, or just some factors on both sides that made the initial prospects not viable. As they are still a smaller company at the end of the day. Especially coupled with the Crystal Light not having eye tracking, like you said. We'll see what happens and if Pimax ever does do their own dynamic correction thing, or if they might come to some kind of agreement with Almalence. Software has always been Pimax's weakness, so I wouldn't personally put too many hopes in it.

[@cowtung7355]

Pimax Crystal user must use Almalence, I hope we can get it for payware, thanks

[@Vindaloooooo]

Dammit being trying to get Almalence to RIP in my brain but there you go reminding me of the good stuff it can do. There has to be a minimum Pimax can do to add a layer support into their pipeline that would be usable to Almalence without much additional commitment and resources. I know the Almalence guys will need a Tobii license and so on but cost it out and get a sounding from the community on what they would pay and commit to. There is value there for eye based image correction and if this got some real world leg in it would make me excited for the future and the Crystal Super cause I'm kinda so so throwing more res with Crystal level optics without something that improves aspheric lens weaknesses.

[@MrHoodsquirrel]

Great review as always! Thank you

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

If they would have designed these lenses in collaboration with almalence, i think they could have done much better. It could completely change the priorities of lens design.

[@djp1234]

Bro, there's like giant feathers floating around your room. Maybe get an air filter.

[@wesbarfog]

I wonder if early adopters can change their answer to the google forms sent last summer : Which option would you like? * 1.Change nothing and keep the 42ppd lenses. 2. Cancel 42ppd lenses delivery and get a $30 coupon instead of the lenses. 3. Cancel 42ppd lenses delivery and upgrade to Wide Fov Lenses for a special price of $59 instead of $129. I was hyped and choose "3" ... Now i'd like to switch to "2" ... And have a little discount on the wigi module

[@Omniwhatever]

Good question. The wFoV lenses aren't supposed to ship out to most people for another 6-8 weeks. So you might have some luck with support. I recall that current crystal owners do get 50 dollars off the Wigig module already at least.

[@Janninatore]

And then a year from now you would say the same about the wigi module...

[@ПавелФедоров-и9б]

Hello. Have you tried to turn on big fove on regular lenses (35 ppd)? I turned it on and the angle increased to 112 degrees, and the program also reports this. And by the way, all the disadvantages that you mentioned also came to the surface.

[@Omniwhatever]

Oh, yeah. You don't wanna do that lol. The lenses aren't designed for use with that distortion profile so you'll end up getting much worse results. The 35PPD are designed for the 35PPD profile. Using the wrong distortion profile will be bad on ANY kind of lenses. The wFoV lenses might not be something you'll like but that's not a good way to judge them.

[@ПавелФедоров-и9б]

@@Omniwhatever So have you tried it or not? With big fov I start to see the bridge of my nose, and distortions on top. Try it))) and please write back.

[@gibilator]

Welcome back fella! Hope you've been well.

[@Omniwhatever]

Thanks! Good to be back. Really happy to see the warm welcome back and positive reception this video's gotten.

[@rogerwilcojr]

I'm thinking a wide FOV is important to me, but I'm also thinking the quality of the image out in the periphery may not be. I don't wear glasses when walking or driving, but I do need them to focus on a computer monitor or TV. And when I wear the glasses, I only look at things through the relatively narrow FOV of the frames. Anything outside of the frames is a hot blurry mess at a different magnification that doesn't even line up with the image inside the frames, and I can see the frames as well. But I never give it a second thought and it doesn't bother me at all. And if I'm wearing rimless glasses, it's even less of a problem So I'm thinking that if you are basically always looking straight ahead, except when you shift where you are looking as you are turning to focus on the new spot, that the quality of the image way out there shouldn't really matter that much. I mean, I rarely try to side-eye something. I turn my head and my gaze darts around a fairly narrow FOV in the center. I just want there to be some image out there so I don't feel like I'm looking through an old round diving mask. I'd really like to try some of these newer HMDs.

[@TonyDrecaps]

Good honest review

[@dalynzeras]

just found your channel today, keep it up dude ! amazing work here.

[@jamescampbell8482]

I'm still curious if you tried almalance on the 42 PPD lenses? I know you said they were pretty meh but I was just curious

[@Omniwhatever]

Not possible. No profile made for it and no eye tracking.

[@paulct91]

Any thoughts on a good large FOV standalone HMD?

[@Omniwhatever]

None exist.

[@calvin7799]

Always a pleasure to watch review video from you! Awesome work buddy!

[@theegodelpozo]

Crystal light for almost $1000 or used Crystal for $1100?

[@nilsrossi4217]

you made me very sad. :( I know Almalence project is now closed. I tried it with the 35ppd and was nice! i think the Crystal needs some lenses Crystal clear edge to edge as the quest 3 lenses.

[@nilsrossi4217]

we want almalence! after tried it.. is very sad stay without it.