The Widest FoV Pancake Lenses I've ever Seen!

[@adr2t]

140 is all we are asking for for the most part. 240 is just super amazing really. Its crazy we're still on 100 fov as it is with some still getting less.

[@CharlesVanNoland]

I just want to have peripheral vision. It doesn't have to be full rez on the sides, just let me have some light shining into my eyes from the scene around me so I can have some kind of sense of what's happening. We don't need full rez outside of where we can even point our eyes - which is about 90 degrees. Everything outside of 90 deg can be way lower rez. They added a new extension to OpenGL a few years ago called "multiview" where a single draw call can result in rendering to multiple framebuffer targets, and in the vertex/pixel shaders the framebuffer being rendered to can be incorporated into how the rendering occurs - allowing a single draw call to render two separate views simultaneously. We need an extension to that which allows us to render a super low rez view that can be stretched around the high rez

[@snowwsquire]

@@CharlesVanNoland You aren't looking directly at things all the time though, your eyes can move without your head moving. And foveated rendering like the psvr2 would be much better than a static blurry perihpery

[@mckirkus]

Tried to give a speech to a few people in VR, and the lack of FOV meant I had to scan back and forth constantly, with my entire head, it was super awkward. FOV is important for lots of reasons.

[@coffeebreakhero3743]

this is solvable with software I think, no?

[@dec1lent448]

@@coffeebreakhero3743 The problem is that increasing the fov in software will make it look distorted and out of sync with your brain, causing at best confusion and at worst a bit of nausea.

[@chippdbanjo]

this is why I love my pimax.

[@thomoebth8184]

We now know what the next step is for Bigscreen lol

[@carroux4050]

Please with inside out tracking. Even though base stations are better, for 95% of the content it doesn't matter anymore...

[@lifelesshawk5725]

@@carroux4050It’s not even about the tracking quality, as much as the small form factor and weight, since you’d have to add several cameras adding to the weight, and they’d need to create their own inside out mapping system since there’s no set standard for that kind of tracking method. Unlike base stations which only requires small sensors that are already standardized, and they don’t require good lighting in order for them to work as they can work in the dark. Additionally they would have to create their own controllers if they did inside out, vs being compatible with any base station tracked controller, like the Vive wands/index.

[@lau6438]

FOV is such a limiting factor in VR atm. It is such an integral part to our vision, and without it, it feels claustrophobic.

[@blizado3675]

Very interesting, a good FoV with a very nice edge to edge clarity is exactly what I want. So this lenses sound really very good.

[@Meccarox]

A wide field of view is super important for immersion

[@CalebK64]

This is so exciting!! I was expecting big sacrifices on image clarity, but I was pleasantly surprised! I would absolutely buy a headset with these lenses if it was lighthouse tracked!!

[@socks2441]

keep your dirty hands off this tech please meta. we dont want it disappearing to never be seen or heard of again.

[@Shlooomth]

bruh you turned it around to the camera and i involuntarily said out loud "YOo WHat tHE fUUuCcK?" Pancake lenses are so awesome.

[@jklappenbach]

Thanks for your updates! Every time your videos appear in my feed, my view of the world is usually changed for the better.

[@DonJohn87_YT]

Tried out some vr with the fairly normal 105 degrees fov or close to that and honestly the lack of peripheral view pretty much kills the immersion for me, this tech is what will REALLY make it interesting

[@DarvonBrown]

HOLY SHIT

[@waedi_]

thanks bradly

[@bigbangerz5856]

Yes, now thats what I’m talking about

[@Dubb_]

One problem I could see with these lenses is that glasses wearers would either have to wear contacts or risk scratching the lenses to the side as it would be significantly harder to make prescription filters for something like these lenses.

[@SadlyItsBradley]

This is true.

[@Dubb_]

@@SadlyItsBradley Although I was just thinking about it, would it be possible to have a dioptre in the lenses in front of your eyes and leave the lenses to the sides of the eyes the same?

[@Dubb_]

or even having a hardpoint to attach the glasses frames to so that the glasses aren't able to move and so can't scratch the sideways lenses.

[@brianschwarm8267]

I would love for the next valve headset to have a version of both 140 and 240 FOV set ups.

[@p1st0ls44]

pancake large fov and projection screen small fov will be the future. its just gonna take a while to get there. i dont consider micro led until i see one happening.

[@staffanstuff]

Thanks

[@Green0Photon]

Stan + Brad = ?

[@CharlesVanNoland]

I imagine it's more than 15% of the emitted light from the display that makes it through the optics. Optics that only pass 15% of the light is not something I would ship. I wouldn't even ship a headset with optics that only pass 50% of the light. Also, Bradley, why do you look baked?

[@arthur999r]

This is how VR pancake lenses are working. 75% of light versus other VR lenses are wasted. From the remaining 25% we get between 20% to 15% - depends on view angle and specific pancake lens module implementation. On other side, display are made brighter at least x4 times, not necessary by more power consumption but by backlight design of fast LCD that is better directing the light energy. So at the end you get about the same brightness like with Fresnel or Aspheric lens (that are using less bright displays)

[@ItsMeLuke69]

Hi Brad, I'm Luke.

[@Vandel212]

I'm honestly more excited about the 140 fov. 240 isn't really feasible for stand alone headsets, and that's what interests me most. But a jump from 100 to 140 would add so much immersion to the experience. It would be a huge game changer in my opinion.

[@OMNI_INFINITY]

And guess where hypervision probably was "inspired" to make such a prototype...

[@olternaut]

Are you going to do a pre-game show before Apple's WWDC's announcement?

[@Jkauppa]

lenticular displays to have two eyes on one display

[@Jkauppa]

I still believe

[@VRBug]

Yep it’s all about FOV for me! It’s time Industry….

[@KarmaCoyote]

♥️

[@MrKlawUK]

were they using lower resolution in the side panels? presumably the periphery is more for motion/noticing changes but you’re still going to move your head to pay attention/read an active position so lower res should be ok in those side panels (and easier to drive)

[@adr2t]

I mean the answer is to use DFR - then as you scan with your eyes - you get teh full res while lowering the res where you are not looking. Just as easy to drive.

[@RobertA-hq3vz]

There's a VR tech war happening around us. All these companies are coming up with better ways to do VR and as soon as new stuff like pancake lenses come out its being made obsolete by something better like this. Eventually all the companies will be using the same tech and focusing less on pushing the limits, and more on cutting costs.

[@svenhoeylaerts3249]

VR is so slow, started with Oculus CV1 and now still on Reverb G2 after G1 because their simply is nothing on the market worthwhile changing to. I bought a Pimax and returned it after two weeks and back to G2. Tried the Varjo aero hated the Vertical Fov and the lack of builtin mic. Preorderd the Crystal and cancelled it because of need for battery even when doing only pcvr! Valve 2 is taking ages to build!!! Had my hope on Somnium VR1 but they are dead silent after january!!!

[@Shizzymynizzy]

Brad how excited are you for apples headset?

[@SadlyItsBradley]

8/10 hype

[@peanutpomsky520]

woof

[@MIKEDIAMONDZ]

the reason i dint buy these crap lenses is bcz of FOV ... no FOV no VR otherwise is a 1 time experience

[@arsteel2388]

Sounds super cool, but computer hardware needs to catch up before we can power those displays. With how tiny transistors are getting... I'm not sure how much better our GPUs and CPUs can get. Ultra graphics with a single 4k display on some modern games is still well under 100 FPS on a 4090. Running two 4k displays in a headset is an insane ask, and now we're talking about going up to four displays. It's going to be interesting watching companies try to find a way around the computer hardware limitations now that the screens are here.

[@robinbenzinger5646]

Keep in mind that with eye tracked foveated rendering a lot of performance can still be gained if titles properly utilize it (see PSVR2 where performance upflift is reported to be around 2,4 times iirc). This especially applies to the periphery where you really dont need a high rendering resolution.

[@SargonDragon]

I'm playing all my games on dual 4K displays with a Pimax 8KX and 4090 at a solid 90Hz _now_. People keep talking about this like it's impossible to handle high FOV and high resolution with modern GPUs. And yet there's a whole population of Pimax customers who have already been doing it for a good while! I was also able to do this with my previous 3080 Ti, too.

[@arsteel2388]

@@robinbenzinger5646 Definitely a big factor to watch out for going forward.

[@arsteel2388]

@@SargonDragon A 4090 can struggle with top graphic games in 4k on a single screen. Going up to two 4k screens makes it significantly more difficult, so games get to be lighter on the graphics as a result. It's not impossible, but it does limit what can be done with graphics on games compared to a single flat screen. Not that every game needs to look like Cyberpunk, though.

[@adr2t]

@@arsteel2388 Eh, there is still a lot of GPU performance we havent tap into yet weirdly enough, but we're no were near that for mobile SoC such as the XR(#) lines going forward for sure :P There is still stuff like eye tracking (DFR) we havent tap into yet either. A lot of moden games don't account for VR too wasting resources they could save on. Rendering methods as well havent been improve either for VR. Over all I think there is still some performance left on the table we havent tap into that only VR can get performance wise. For example, Culling and nanite could get see improvements with DFR support.

[@3d1stp3rs0n]

I learned that there are issues with oled, like color degradation and burn-in. Are there strategies to prevent this from occurring in VR-headsets with oled?

[@SadlyItsBradley]

These problems are becoming less of an issue these days. Tandem architectures and phosphorous blue is solving these issues on a long time scale. I’m guessing you heard this from someone who relies on LCD tech

[@Kryojenix]

Darn, it's being developed in an apartheid state ... 😢

[@craigbeare9770]

Humans can see 180 degrees why would we want 240 degrees lol maybe im missing something here

[@Sofian375]

"Humans can see 180 degrees" No, you need your eyes checked.

[@namegoeshere197]

Our binocular fov is around 120 degrees. According to wiki we have 200/220 degrees (both eyes) without moving our eyes. So I guess 240 make sense when we have to consider that we also move our eyes

[@DDracee]

think about that again, 180 degrees would mean you cant see further than directly left of you by just moving your eyes, but you can totally see further than that. put you hand behind your ear and move it out slowly, you'll be able to see your hand without needing to bring you hand forward

[@adr2t]

Huh? We see without moving our eyes 180, but when we move them - we can get closer to 210 to 220.

[@EvieDoesYouTube]

If a display manufacturer made a display where the pixels were organized and addressed in concentric circles then you could have hemispherical displays and FOV wouldn't be an issue any longer.

[@CupOfNoodlesMusic]

WAAAAAAT?! Yes plz i want to have the virtual wrapped around me entirely

[@Key_Capz_]

With 3d polarization, so even when your eyes move the aspect of your view changes.

[@silversobe]

Better FOV has been one of my most desired improvements for VR. This is awesome.

[@SargonDragon]

Thanks for mentioning about how the VR industry has been ignoring FOV. I've been very frustrated that not only is the trend in newer VR headsets to not attempt to increase FOV at all, but they're actually getting even narrower! I think the industry is going in that direction not because customers don't want wide FOV, but because most of them don't know that they want it and don't understand it. Most people will have never experienced it and so there's a significant degree to which they don't miss what they've never tried. Add to this the mess that is manufacturer claims about FOV measurements which are consistently flat out lies. And the FOV side of the VR equation is just clouded in smoke. Whereas the clarity side is... well.. clear and easy for consumers to understand. But once you've tried wide FOV, I think most people find it hard to go back. It's an enormous competitive advantage. It's what has kept Pimax in business despite the company making otherwise poor products. They're the only game in town for wide FOV for consumers. If a reputable VR company started making wide FOV VR headsets, I believe they would immediately dominate narrow FOV headsets anywhere near the same price point.

[@kazioo2]

Oculus DK1 had worse image quality than HMDs from the 90s, but it was revolutionary in FOV and it sold more units than any HMD in history before it. Abandoning microdisplays is the whole reason VR industry was reborn, so it's super ironic seeing this hype around them. To be fair, this time with pancakes it's different and they can finally be usable for VR, but the trade-offs are still serious.

[@bullshitdepartment]

I think people just prioritize clarify over fov. No point in having all that fov if it's a blurry mess

[@adr2t]

@@kazioo2 Thing is , its still not going to be used in lower end products. A single LCD has such a low cost, Meta for example wont be switching to microdisplays any time soon on their Quest lines. So yes, you are right, but also, the move forward is to have more than one sku that we all have been saying any of these companies should be aiming at. One headset for the guy that talks non stop about their headset + company | another one for little Jimmy that got to play with their uncle's unit and wants to try VR before they then turn into the higher end again later down the road.

[@carroux4050]

​@bullshitdepartment7638 why not have both? Today it should be possible to have a wide fov plus a high resolution.

[@-Elaphe-]

@@bullshitdepartment I could also say that there's no point in having a crisp and perfect image with narrow FOV (I already enjoy that in my PC monitor).

[@deddrz2549]

if a second bigscreen beyond headset happens, this would be the perfect upgrade

[@TonyDrecaps]

Pretty cool! I hope more companies expand on wide FOV. I'd like to see these with aspheric lenses

[@arthur999r]

You can't get edge to edge clarity with single aspheric lens, just because laws of optics

[@Alexcolin12-kw5gn]

Just awesome, I can't wait to see this lenses on headset 😍 game changer

[@rod4309]

i feel like we need more events that celebrate/encourage the software side of vr. It's hard to feel excited about all this new hardware when there's very little to use it for.

[@adr2t]

Software follows hardware in a lot of cases. If the hardware isnt there - then software will either have a harder time getting there or simply don't see the value to create some thing for it. Software can be paid off to make a few titles to get people in... but you can't do that really with hardware as we have real limits in how hardware works. Lets be real, if you could get your hands on your prefect hardware set - you would jump ship from any company to get that headset esp if that headset (hardware wise) can start replacing the needs of other items such as your monitor, console, pc, etc.

[@rod4309]

Because of how blurry your sight is at the edges, i feel like the side panels could be much lower ?resolution? without impacting the benefit of having them.

[@SadlyItsBradley]

I agree

[@Trevokable]

But don't you need to be able to turn your eyes without turning your head?

[@CalebK64]

I kinda agree, but i also agree with what Trevokable said. He's right, in alot of cases, you'll wanna use these lenses to look side to side without turning your head. Maybe they can still be clear, and not pixelated to the point where it's noticeable.

[@laartwork]

​@@Trevokable yeah... you know like in real life ... unless you are a shifty eyed mf

[@artursychov]

It depends on application. For military you would want a bit higher resolution but for casual SocialVR use you are right.

[@danfarrik]

Yes! Larger FOV is what I am waiting for, still. I’m perfectly okay with the resolution of the Quest 2, but FOV needs to improve for it to be an option for productivity and full immersion.

[@TiredNull]

I'm glad someone in the VR industry is focused on a wide FOV. Perhaps in the near future these will be the new norm. Makes me hopeful.

[@SpaceDust_97]

Yes!! I am totally dying for high FOV and higher resolution, but not willing to go for Pimax

[@blkcyborg92]

Why not?

[@Mr.Cheeseburger24]

@@blkcyborg92Are you serious? Even with the launch of the Crystal they fkd up numerous things like people getting copper cables or plastic lenses instead of glass lenses. Why should I give a company my money if I have to play lottery to get what I was promised and ordered???

[@FieryMeltman]

​​@@blkcyborg92Broken promises, poor quality control, specification lies, big and heavy form factor, etc.

[@bryndal36]

This stitching of the lenses looks much like what sim racers do when they have a 3 monitor setup by the looks of it. It will increase the immersiveness quite a bit, especially when they use special strips of plastic along the bezels to help "fuse" the separate images into one.

[@artursychov]

The stitching is done in such way that you do not feel it unless you are deliberately looking for it! It is quite amazing

[@BakersTuts]

Can’t wait for a readily available headset that has everything!

[@CaptainPanick]

For no more than $200

[@vroreo5019]

yes please cure cancer while you’re at it

[@kazioo2]

Image quality vs FoV will be a huge trade off to choose in this decade.

[@handlemonium]

@@kazioo2 I'll be happy with 140°. Valve Deckard/Index 2 and Lynx R2 will probably do it for me. Maybe whatever Google has cooking up for AR/MR glasses too alongside since they acquired Focals couple years ago.

[@stormvr1070]

@@CaptainPanick Let's be realistic.

[@chaosfire321]

Very WIDE!

[@artursychov]

I am super excited to support Hypervision in their journey and to use their optics for future Somnium, Lynx, Vrgineers VR headsets.

[@SINfromPL]

The future is now old man, still no pancake

[@simracingjunky9679]

Thanks for another great video. 140 degree Quest pro quality type lens with that 4k x 4k moled display you showed us would be a dream.

[@arthur999r]

Yes, with 4K display 2.56" the HO140 lens provides 43ppd

[@-Elaphe-]

I'm very excited about this. As a simracing fan, I know how important FOV is for immersion (much more, in my opinion, than resolution or display quality).

[@jamesoloughlin]

You rock Brad. So much interesting stuff.

[@jesterlampoon-t1j]

Yeah, fov is really the last piece that's missing. I'm happy to see some progress here.

[@taja1976]

Resolution is important but I've always felt immersion is relative to FoV. This is exciting progress.

[@skinnyraf]

I'm somehow more hyped for what's coming in VR than I was when I saw The Blu on Vive for the first time, because now, I know what I want.

[@SnrubSource]

FOV, comfort and black levels have always been the most important thing for me in VR. My Quest 2 is way higher res than my old PSVR1 and the tracking is way better as well, but the PSVR1 felt miles better to use because dark areas were actually nice to look at and the headset was comfortable. Using the Quest 2 feels like looking through binoculars, and dark areas in Half-Life Alyx look completely gray.

[@proffmongo]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH I'M LOSING MY MIND!!!!!!!!!!!! I was thinking about the Varjo Aero because I might just be able to afford it next month but then all this good stuff is showing it's face. My Mind Is MELTING!!!!!

[@gerardsitja]

Give me 140 all day long! That's the sweet spot. No need for 240, we will loose too much definition with such fov.

[@Cinnabuns2009]

What sucks super hard is when Apple buys the IP out from under these companies and then say, "this is a great tech 'end point' that we'll get to in 20 years" and in the mean time they provide tiny incremental upgrades so they can make the same amount of money over and over on 20 iterations of the same hmd.

[@Janninatore]

Honestly, Somnium seems like a huge scam to me. I think they only announced the headset to pump their trash coin. The game is dead, as is their discord server. I doubt we will ever even see a prototype or something.

[@mrburns366]

Eye tracking and foveated rendering are going to be mandatory when pushing this many pixels.

[@gogreengameon2146]

VR innovation is just AMAZING! I can't believe how good things are getting. Folded lenses looks like a real breakthrough. My only thoughts were people with small IPDs and large heads (if the design might not fit their faces properly). That might be a minority though. If Valve does folded optics in the next headset I'll die and go to VR heaven lol.

[@waterflame321]

Can't wait for Apple or Facebook to buy out this company....

[@liontuga155]

Thanks Brad. I can see foldable screens, like Samsung’s, being used in future hyper-wide FOV VR headsets. The question then is if they can support the necessary high pixel density VR requires and if the lens can align well enough to avoid the seams altogether.

[@SargonDragon]

The term "Diagonal FOV" should be stomped out. This is a nonsensical term which is a core of manufacturers lying about the FOV of their products. It's a hold over from marketing for flat monitors, but FOV in VR is always round. So the corners they're measuring for diagonal FOV are not actually visible area. That makes the diagonal FOV measurement literally meaningless in every sense. It would be like car manufacturers listing the cylinder capacity of their engines, but also including unused airspace in the cylinder head. Completely unused portions should not be part of the measurement. Consumers should not accept this. That could start with KZbin influencers refusing to use the term and not acknowledging manufacturer claims about diagonal FOV. Horizontal FOV and vertical FOV are the only measurements that have any meaning in VR gear. If VR manufacturers don't get the hint, then it should become a class action lawsuit.

[@arthur999r]

For 2.56" display, HO140 lenses @ER=10mm provide FoV-H x FoV-V: 140x121 deg

[@milescoleman910]

Why is there no curved screens. Would take a lot of software to adjust he picture but less real estate surely.. why would you need anything more than 180’ ever?

[@drewsalvigsen6171]

I agree save 200+ for the far future lol

[@SjaakSchulteis]

Probably one day if I buy a headset with a wide FOV I will notice what I have been missing. I already notice the difference between the Pico4 and Quest2, so much that I always prefer to use the Pico4 instead of the Quest2.

[@Dionyzos]

I often use my Pico 4 without the face gasket increasing the FOV even more with a small towel resting on my forehead so it doesn't press on my nose

[@SjaakSchulteis]

@ExpandingCircle I think the AMVR facemask is also the reason for a bigger FOV than with the original mask..

[@BringTheRain]

I need this FOV... so badly - what do we do to make this happen? Who do we need to wave our hands at hahaha

[@quantumsoftware1424]

Just throw them the money already..

[@Maebbie]

with that you cant watch VR180 without having a black border on all sides lol

[@artifica0]

This what we’ve been waiting for

[@whoiskomet]

I wonder how prescription lenses would work with something like this 🤔

[@goobydntfear]

good point

[@thisguysgaming7246]

240 fov, clear passthrough, OLED screens, and good cameras on the front

[@manuelbarreto7032]

Brad the VR Chad ❤😊

[@Verociity]

If we can get an HMD with 240° in a small form factor Pimax will be sweating in their boots.

[@mamorutoriyama]

220-degrees with a crisp 4k+ per eye micro OLED displays is all I've ever wanted.... Who ever does it first can take all my $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I'll sign-up for a new credit card just to buy dat $3000 headset, haha

[@Wooskii1]

I've been waiting since getting the Quest 1 for a good (not Pimax) wide FOV headset that just works. It seems like every year I go back to strongly considering buying a full Index kit before deciding to hold on a bit longer. If a company can nail a headset with 140+ FOV, 120hz, good resolution without distortion, 360° tracking, with wireless PCVR I would buy it pretty fast even if it's as expensive as the Quest Pro when it launched. Why is it 2023 but we still don't have an upgraded version of the Index? It's all sidegrades. I'm starting to get the feeling that even the Deckard will have sacrifices when compared to the Index. TLDR - I want a wireless PCVR headset that I can't say "the Index is better" in any way, even if it's just a slight bump in specs with a wireless module.

[@Sam-gf1eb]

Big FOVs won't start showing up more until the businesses decide to change how their lenses are made. They can't keep doing flat screens with one flat lens if they want a large FOV in an average size VR headset. Take the StarVR One and the Pimax 5k Super. The StarVR One has curved lenses and maybe curved screens (hard to determine the screens from videos), giving it a 210⁰ FOV. The Pimax 5k Super is pretty bulky with its flat lenses and screens, giving it a 200⁰ FOV. The Crystal is close to the same size as the StarVR One, but has a 140⁰ FOV. This could be because they didn't need a full vision FOV for this, or there wasn't enough space for bigger lenses. To get better vision, the lenses have to either be how they are shown in the video by combining 2 flat lenses together with 2 flat screens per side, or better, curved lenses with curved screens Using curved lenses would also require companies to start making their own custom lenses, being more expensive than making flat ones. TLDR: Companies need to stop laying on what they have and start designing their headsets in new ways.

[@fablegarmeth6897]

This thing is my Roman empire. I've thought about it at least once every couple of days since this video came out. Add some eye tracking for foveated rendering. You would have my money.

[@fruityoverlord9937]

The FOV issue has stopped be buying a VR headset. Got a water cooled RTX4090 rig all setup that can push these headsets but I need FOV. Looking at the Pimax but I note that while the reviews for the Pimax Crystal are great, the FOV has come down from its past version.

[@JimBobJoeB0b]

You know, the stuff that allows for accurately rendering the FOV for both displays on each eye without distortion has been around for a while; Nvidia has its own implementation of this for, say, multi-monitor setups that are set up angled around the user, that unfortunately very few games utilize.

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

This is kinda why im not so interested in micro panels, you end up needing larger panels for wider fov because its too hard to design wide FOV (or high resolution) lenses for micro panels. And there is really no reason to have tiny panels, the gain in overall headset size is not that significant. Micro panels are mostly for AR glasses.

[@arthur999r]

Even though Hypervision pancake lens IP allows wide FoV with micro-OLED, the eyebox will be inferior versus pancake lens design for fast LCD

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

@@arthur999r It is a pancake lens, it just needs a panel size of 2-2.5". It can still be micro panel basically if the resolution is high and pixels small.

[@SpringChickensOnlyMan]

You probably can notice the line. They added more lenses on the edges of the current two so that might need some work. This could look great on your head but probably not perfect. You're probably gonna see a line

[@ItsMeKevinFPV]

Cool stuff ! thanks Brad(ley).

[@OMNI_INFINITY]

Thanks for posting that! I am visiting shenzhen now and would like to prototype a new HMD. Any info about DIY pancake lenses or micro-lens arrays?

[@irondennis1]

I would much rather have more fov and hz than resolution. In my experience, It's more immersive when it's fluid rather than choppy with good resolution.

[@Skrenja]

And peak brightness. According to Meta, the most important factor to VR immersion for their internal testers was peak brightness.

[@nevoh4940]

woah first

[@youdontneedmyrealname]

7 months old video...where is my all in one vr headset optics... I don't want to waste money on a headset that makes me feel like I'm looking through a window or a tube...

[@mikeb3172]

There's already curved display technology... where is that in VR?

[@ivaniuk123]

I hope this gets adopted by a headset that caters to the flight sim community. A large FOV and PPD is a requirement.

[@zackmac5917]

Even the significantly smaller FoV version would be huge compared to existing pancake lens headsets, which is amazing. 120 hfov! So glad this technology is finally happening. VR is closing in on the dream tech we all have hoped for.

[@chajoojunja8864]

I just hope it's not acquired by a company with a walled garden ecosystem like apple

[@InvidiousIgnoramus]

I certainly hope this sort of lense tech would be compatible with eye prescriptions, otherwise I'm afraid it won't do much for me.

[@jjhw2941]

They could use Frore System's Airjet cooling to cool the displays.

[@wagnerrodrigues6440]

I don't understand how you can have a FOV greater than 180, are you able to see things that are behind you?

[@CraigMansfield]

Could they not use those flexible screens that are in mobile phones, now? Have each screen, wrap around the eyes? Or go back to having one screen, that bends all around the area of vision? Or create displays that are specifically for wider fov VR? I wish you could just project images into the eyes, so there isn't any screen.

[@adr2t]

Short answer - lenses are not able to handle that right now

[@aboucard93]

Peripheral vision was designed to protect us. It's an evolutionarily trait