Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

210 Degrees of Heads-Up Display: Hands-On With the InfinitEye

timothy posted about a year ago | from the better-than-a-sharp-poke-in-the-eye dept.

Displays 80

First time accepted submitter muterobert writes "InfinitEye is a prototype head mounted display that uses dual 1280×800 displays to create a massive 210 degree field of view. I traveled to Toulouse, France to be the first journalist in the world to go hands-on with the unit. These are my thoughts on the trip, the team, and the HMD itself. 'Natural and Panoramic Virtual Reality' is the best phrase I can come up with that summarises the InfinitEye's capabilities. If using the Oculus Rift is like opening the sunroof on a virtual world, the InfinitEye takes the roof clean off — at least if you base your opinion solely on horizontal FOV. But the new HMD also offers 1280×800 per eye in comparison the current Oculus Rift Dev Kit's 640×800 (and only slightly fewer pixels per eye than the Oculus Rift HD prototype)."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Which? (1)

milgram (104453) | about a year ago | (#45269279)

210 or 120? :>

Re:Which? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#45269349)

"210 or 120? :>"

It's 240 but they use 30 degrees to filter out the nose.

Re:Which? (1, Funny)

worf_mo (193770) | about a year ago | (#45269721)

It's 240 but they use 30 degrees to filter out the nose.

They better up that by a couple degrees if they want my business. Apparently my aunt's only comment at my birth was "poor boy with such a huge ugly nose". To my satisfaction the rest of my body has adapted over the years and grown to 6' 6" while my aunt stayed somewhere south of 4' 10", cute nose or not.

No mention of overlap factor (2)

CityZen (464761) | about a year ago | (#45270375)

The Occulus has a ~100% overlap factor, meaning that the same arc of FOV is presented to both eyes. Put another way, the left and right sides of both eye views are the same.

This device has less than 100% overlap. I'm guessing it's around 60% from looking at the monitor images. When the overlap decreases too much, it gives you the impression of having a very large nose that blocks each eye from seeing part of the other eye view. This can be annoying.

The overlap factor for real people varies, of course, due to facial structure. But you don't really want a device that has a much smaller overlap than your actual body has.

It is extremely difficult to maintain a large overlap factor as FOV is increased. The right side of the left display will encroach into the space needed for the left side of the right display. Avoiding this requires making the displays smaller and closer to the eye, which increases the demands on the optical system to refocus the image. In addition, there is less space for eye glasses, and other useability parameters may also be reduced (although weight can be decreased). At some point, you can no longer look at lens-based optics, and have to take a different approach altogether.

Note also that increasing the FOV tends to make the rendering a more difficult job as well. Fortunately, this isn't as big an issue these days.

Re: No mention of overlap factor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45271075)

The *Oculus Rift does not have 100% overlap. The first prototypes used to, but now it's more like 80% overlap. You can tell by looking at meant for rift youtube videos online crosseyed. Some space on the sides just doesn't converge.

Re:No mention of overlap factor (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#45272591)

This device has less than 100% overlap. I'm guessing it's around 60% from looking at the monitor images. When the overlap decreases too much, it gives you the impression of having a very large nose that blocks each eye from seeing part of the other eye view. This can be annoying.

100% overlap is not my any means normal for the human vision system. 60% to 70% is normal for most people.
Abandoning lens based optics seems count-intuitive. Using lenses that more closely copy the human eye would seem the wise choice.

Re:Which? (1)

pigiron (104729) | about a year ago | (#45270919)

How will we see all the snakes???

Re:Which? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45272803)

to filter out the nose

For a moment, I thought that was an amusing misspelling and was about to make some lame joke about "dynamic nose reduction", but now it just seems sad.

It's about time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269329)

People can't handle real reality, so finally e good enough virtual one where you can edit out everything you don't like.

Typo in first word of Headline (4, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year ago | (#45269353)

This might be a new record or maybe not. The headline currently states "120 Degrees..." when it should say "210 Degrees..." Summary and article both state 210 degrees.

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about a year ago | (#45269455)

This might be a new record or maybe not. The headline currently states "120 Degrees..." when it should say "210 Degrees..." Summary and article both state 210 degrees.

How long before 360 degrees is crammed into it? Now that would be cool, but I don't know if it has already been tried yet.

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269531)

Wow, you can look through your skull?

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (2)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about a year ago | (#45269665)

Momma always said she had eyes in the back of her head...

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45271969)

That was mommy 1.0. Mommy 2.0 replaces the 3rd eye with a digital camera.

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a year ago | (#45269485)

The submission had it right in the title. Timmeh fucked it up when trying to edit the title.

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45269567)

Summary and article both state 210 degrees.

210 degrees is far more than the human field of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view [wikipedia.org]

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (3, Informative)

DaTrueDave (992134) | about a year ago | (#45269607)

From your citation: "horizontal field of view is as high as 270"

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269667)

From your link:
>> horizontal field of view is as high as 270 degrees

So it would be fair to say that 210 degrees is much less than the horizontal human FoV.

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (0)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#45269723)

210 degrees is far more than the human field of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view [wikipedia.org]

You didn't even need to cite it - 210 degrees is greater than 180 degrees (or be able to outstretch your hands and see both hands whilst looking forward). 210 degrees means you can look straight ahead and see a little behind you (15 degrees each way) which given human eyes are pointed forwards, means even directly left and right vision is already almost impossible, nevermind vision to the reverse.

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269897)

I don't know about you, but I can move my eyes in their sockets.
Unless we somehow attach screens to eyeballs, not heads, these VR devices need to account for that. Hence a larger field of view.

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45269899)

Your eyes can move in their sockets.

With eyeball rotation of about 90(deg) (head rotation excluded, peripheral vision included), horizontal field of view is as high as 270(deg).

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45278323)

Yes, we all instinctively rotate out eyeballs 45 degrees when we see things in the corner of our eyes.

Oh, wait... We don't. We're not chameleons, we turn our heads.

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45279047)

Yes, we all instinctively rotate out eyeballs 45 degrees when we see things in the corner of our eyes.

Oh, wait... We don't.

Oh wait, we do, so we can get a look at the possible snake as fast as possible. And then we move our heads as well. And if our heads are immobile or we're feeling lazy and not especially threatened, we might not even do that.

I'd say 30 degrees would be a quite normal range of everyday eyeball rotation.

Re: Typo in first word of Headline (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year ago | (#45269919)

I can stick my arms out, and without moving my head (but moving my eyes) see both hands. My hands are further back than my eyes, that implies greater than 180 to me. 210 may do it though.

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (1)

Junta (36770) | about a year ago | (#45269931)

Of course, the eye is not in a fixed location relative to the display. I can see more than 180 degrees without moving my head through solely moving my eyes.

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45270075)

Sure if couldn't move our eyes in their sockets, but I'm confident that most of us can.

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45278325)

Are you a chameleon?

I'm pretty sure we mostly turn our heads instead of rolling our eyes around to look at things.

Re:Typo in first word of Headline (2)

multimediavt (965608) | about a year ago | (#45271107)

This might be a new record or maybe not. The headline currently states "120 Degrees..." when it should say "210 Degrees..." Summary and article both state 210 degrees.

And, lest we not forget "Heads-Up Display"? Really, it's a Head-Mounted Display (HMD), a Head-Up Display (HUD) is something completely different. [wikipedia.org] I think timothy should lose his geek card for this last ungeekly act.

[shakes head and wonders what happened to the real /.]

Not bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269373)

From the video the latency seems acceptably low.

The border edges don't need to be very high res, since our eyes are only high res at a small area, and you don't normally use only your eyes to look all the way to the left/right, you'd normally also move your head a bit towards the area you want to look at.

Come on, Timothy. (2)

Forbo (3035827) | about a year ago | (#45269413)

First you allow a submission with a summary that completely contradicts the article; then you put the wrong specs in the headline when it's clear from both the summary and the article itself what the correct specs should be? Get yourself a cup of coffee, come back and try again.

Re:Come on, Timothy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45270889)

I suspect he's doing stuff like this on purpose for more posts.

When Can I Code With a HUD? (2)

tutufan (2857787) | about a year ago | (#45269433)

Everyone wants these for VR, but I want something I can code with. Anytime, anyplace. Maybe even laying in bed with a feeding tube snaked down my nose. :-) How close are these to being a replacement for a reasonable monitor? (Absolute minimum would be 24x80 text that's usable without headaches/etc for several hours at a stretch.)

Re:When Can I Code With a HUD? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45269517)

Um, Oculus rift is very codeable. The only purchasable version comes as part of a dev kit that includes a C++ SDK, and a specialized version of Unity, both of which support the rift.

(You can also use source or unreal)

Re:When Can I Code With a HUD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269563)

Um, he meant he wants to code while wearing it.

Reading text on the Oculus Rift sucks

Re:When Can I Code With a HUD? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45269781)

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh.
Oh.
I see.

Re:When Can I Code With a HUD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45271151)

i kan reed

Ironic.

Re:When Can I Code With a HUD? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45269593)

??

You're not going to be able to read much source code on the current Oculus Rift.

Re:When Can I Code With a HUD? (1)

Anrego (830717) | about a year ago | (#45269645)

If the oculus rift is any indication, not even close yet.

I've found text that isn't directly in the center of my field of view very hard or impossible to read.

That said, the rift is a fun toy, and maybe the consumer version will be better in this regard.

Re:When Can I Code With a HUD? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#45269649)

We've had technology to replace monitors for well over 20 years now. I tried one on at a trade show back in 2000. It was like the old "Private Eye" [ecloud.org] monitor from the early 1990s, which was red-on-black CGA only, but this one was 1024x768 full-color SVGA IIRC. You wear the device on your head like glasses, and it has a small arm that extends in front of your eye. While wearing it, a virtual screen appears to hover in front of you.

What ever happened to these devices, I have no idea. They'd be great for working privately, or for using with a portable device.

Re:When Can I Code With a HUD? (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about a year ago | (#45269827)

Well if these devices are meant to be visually similar to big screen TVs. Reading text on a 1080p big screen (in the style of source code) is blurry and eye straining. Ergo, these HMD will likewise be less than stellar for the task.

Why not just one ultra wide display (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#45269459)

I'm much more interested in having a single display that is ultra wide, with the possibility of it being curved. For work, it's not bad to have a bunch of monitors as they will most likely contain separate windows anyway. But for gaming, having a single, continuous monitor with no borders in the middle works a lot better. Currently, you either have to have 3 monitors, so the middle of the screen isn't obstructed, or have 1 monitor. Having a single monitor that's as wide as 2 monitors would probably be wide enough for a lot of tasks. Also, even for work, It would be nice to have an ultra wide monitor, because there would be more usable space. There's kind of a dead zone in the middle because you don't want windows sitting between 2 monitors. If you have 2 monitors, it's hard to display 3 things side by side (Firefox , IE, and Chrome for instance).

Re:Why not just one ultra wide display (1)

mythix (2589549) | about a year ago | (#45269557)

Since it's face worn, it's a binocular: the screens are so close it will look like a seemless scene, stitched together by the brain.

also, since it's so close to your eyes, you will probably be blinded by the light in about 10 minutes...

Re:Why not just one ultra wide display (1)

Anaerin (905998) | about a year ago | (#45269575)

You mean like this one [tigerdirect.ca]

Re:Why not just one ultra wide display (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45270483)

I sit in front of 2 30", each of which is 2560 wide. So really wide would be like 4k.
This is going in right direction
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8374070&SRCCODE=WEBGOOKWL&cm_mmc_o=mH4CjC7BBTkwCjCs81CjCE&gclid=CN7ltIe9vLoCFdJZ7AodJWEA-Q

Re:Why not just one ultra wide display (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year ago | (#45271909)

How does Fury even see these?
He turns.
Sounds... exhausting.

Re:Why not just one ultra wide display (3, Informative)

Anonyme Connard (218057) | about a year ago | (#45269639)

As the screen is very close to your face, you need an eyepiece. One for each eye.

Re:Why not just one ultra wide display (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45269661)

If you have 2 monitors, it's hard to display 3 things side by side (Firefox , IE, and Chrome for instance).

Maybe these people can help you: http://www.digitaltigers.com/zenview-arenaelitexl.asp [digitaltigers.com]

Re:Why not just one ultra wide display (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45272881)

See on the top row, screens 3 & 4 have a window straddling across two screens, clumsily split by the bezels?

That's what he doesn't want.

You have two windows, side by side, doesn't work with three displays. Three windows, side by side, doesn't work with two. Large vertical workspace is limited by horizontal rows of displays. While vertical-rotated displays then doesn't work with horizontal workspaces.

Re:Why not just one ultra wide display (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269755)

You want three meters of continuous monitor (not to mention upwards and downwards)? Where as a slender and light AR glasses will do just fine. It is more likely that you will get the glasses before you get the cumbersome monitor setup you want. InfinityEye is a crude version of course.

Display so big 210 becomes 120 (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#45269467)

Yes it is so big, you would type 120 when you mean 210.

Bandwagon jumpers (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45269529)

These people are just jumping on the wave being created by Oculus Rift.

The current Oculus Rift is concentrating on latency, not resolution. Extra resolution is a given once all the other problems are finally sorted out. Delaying the high-res screens is a good move because it gives screen technology a bit of time to advance and keeps the dev kits dirt-cheap at the same time.

So...don't put too much emphasis on big headlines about screen resolution. The final Oculus Rift may well be lag-free and 1080p per eye when everybody else is still figuring out the latency issues on their high-res headsets.

Re:Bandwagon jumpers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269601)

Because the Oculus Rift invented VR HUDs? LOL!

Re:Bandwagon jumpers (3, Interesting)

muterobert (2927951) | about a year ago | (#45269615)

You'll find that the original InfinitEye prototype actually pre-dates the Rift. And it's not just the resolution, it's the Field of View that makes this HMD special, soemthign the Rift in it's current form has no plans to address - unlike resolution.

Re:Bandwagon jumpers (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year ago | (#45272327)

Of all the many serious problems with the Oculus Rift, field of view is not a pressing one... they're planning to address the most serious things as best they can by the consumer launch, but when faced with painfully low resolution (and the InfinitEye has the same perceived resolution as the Rift, since all the extra pixels are shoved into peripheral vision) or near incompatibility with myopia, FoV isn't as important.

90s again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45269553)

There was a lot of hype about VR stuff in the 90s, and the whole thing did not get much traction. Are things significantly better now? From what one can see in the demo video, that does not really seem to be the case.

Re:90s again? (1)

Anrego (830717) | about a year ago | (#45269809)

I think we're approaching a point where it's within the right price range for the most practical consumer use: gaming.

VR was hyped heavily because people thought a 3D world would naturally be more intuitive than a 2D world. Evidently this is no longer a big deal, and VR for the office environment (aside from a few niche areas) probably doesn't really add much at this point.

But the novelty factor and immersion capabilities combined with the decreasing price point (both the head gear and the PC to actually drive it) would seem to make it a big potential for gaming.

Somewhat on-topic: there is an awesome BBC miniseries called "The Machine That Changed The World" from 1992. The first 3 parts are timeless and provide a pretty damn good overview of the history of computers. The last 2 parts aged less well, however they provide a very interesting view into what some very smart people thought the future would be like with regards to AI and user interfaces.

Re:90s again? (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45269847)

There was a lot of hype about VR stuff in the 90s, and the whole thing did not get much traction.

Because they were rubbish. Back in the 90s you'd have to pay $100,000 for something that was worse than the $300 Oculus Rift devkit.

(plus another million for a computer powerful enough to drive it)

Are things significantly better now?

Yes.

Re:90s again? (1)

tgd (2822) | about a year ago | (#45271929)

Because they were rubbish. Back in the 90s you'd have to pay $100,000 for something that was worse than the $300 Oculus Rift devkit.

(plus another million for a computer powerful enough to drive it)

Your second point has more validity than the first. Computing power was the real issue. Reasonable (if heavy) HMDs weren't even $10k, much less $100k. Its been a long time, but I think most of the ones I used in the mid 90's were in the $2k-$3k range.

But even more than that, the market for that kind of device is vastly different now. In the 90's, you didn't have anything close to the kind of market for real forward looking devices like that. It was a time when AOL ruled the space for what little of the general population was doing things on computers, and anything VR related wasn't just nerd but a real fringe of nerd, likely in academia.

Re:90s again? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45278231)

Memory of stuff like that is hazy at best, and it's been 20 years....

I remember trying a few systems back in the '90s and being distinctly underwhelmed(and that was back when just being near an SGI workstation was exciting)

I bought an Oculus VR dev-kit last month and I'm quite impressed. Yes, the screens are low-res, but I knew they would be (and I know it will be addressed). The overall impression is very good though.

Re:90s again? (3, Informative)

lordofthechia (598872) | about a year ago | (#45271435)

There was a lot of hype about VR stuff in the 90s, and the whole thing did not get much traction.

They're developing consumer versions that are far superior (and cheaper) than the $1000 minimum 256 color, low FoV junk from the 90's (looking at you VFX-1!). Better, professional units quickly went up to the 10s of thousands of dollars.

Are things significantly better now?

The reason why it's better now is due to cheap high resolution displays (thanks to phones and tablets) and precise accelerometers and gyros.

On the Occulus Rift side, they sidestepped the old design requiring two separate screens by using one screen split between your two eyes and using optics to make the narrow (per eye) screen appear wide. Also the optics concentrate more pixels in the center of your field of view (where you need them most). The distortions created by this are counteracted in software. So this new approach + cheaper displays + cheaper sensors = time for cheap and awesome consumer VR headsets!

CastAR has it beat already.. (2)

jfalcon (163956) | about a year ago | (#45269659)

CastAR has a higher resolution and it can switch between AR and VR as well as Projected AR. Get on the Kickstarter now!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/technicalillusions/castar-the-most-versatile-ar-and-vr-system

Re:CastAR has it beat already.. (1)

muterobert (2927951) | about a year ago | (#45269793)

CastAR has a lower resolution and a vastly inferior Field of View. It's also primarily an Augmented Reality solution.

Re:CastAR has it beat already.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45270643)

castAR is 1280x768 per eye with 90 degrees FOV in VR. It supports projected AR, AR, and VR.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/technicalillusions/castar-the-most-versatile-ar-and-vr-system

Re:CastAR has it beat already.. (1)

muterobert (2927951) | about a year ago | (#45270855)

Yes and the InfinitEye is 1280x800 per eye and has a 210 degree FOV. I'm interviewing the CastAR team shortly and I'm a backer, trust me. :)

Re:CastAR has it beat already.. (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year ago | (#45272541)

1280x768 per eye on a 90 degree FoV will appear to be enormously higher resolution than 1280x800 per eye on a 210 degree FoV. For a given fixed resolution, the wider a FoV you stretch it over, the less pixels are in the center of your vision that you focus on.

Considering that the InfinitEye and the Rift dev prototype use roughly similar screens at about the same distance from the eye, they should appear to the user to be about the same effective resolution (painfully low): the InfinitEye will just extend further into your peripheral vision.

Re:CastAR has it beat already.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45273891)

And the MOST important for many people, CastAR can be used with prescription glasses.

Wide FOV... Great... (1)

Anaerin (905998) | about a year ago | (#45269921)

In fact, as they were showing, this display has a wider horizontal FOV than you can actually see, leading to wasted space. They also seem to be using last-gen 7" tablet displays (1280x720 or 1280x800), which are good, but something like the display from an iPhone 5S on each side would make it lighter, higher resolution, and somewhat more immersive. Though it also seems to me that this system could be driven by most higher-end video cards natively (albeit with an added software shader to create the fisheye-like effect needed for the fresnel lenses). So make a standard head-tracking mount, with modular and interchangable displays that run off a standard connector (MicroHDMI, for instance, or Micro DisplayPort). You could even have the same lenses, so it's just the display being changed, and then the displays themselves could also be used as tertiary information displays on systems. It would give the product longevity, and upgradability, and would require no software changes (Other than to pick the new, higher resolution for the displays in-game), and no hardware changes to the HMD if you use a standard size and mounting (5" smartphone screen, say).

Re:Wide FOV... Great... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#45270077)

It would be easier to pick the iPhone since it's only one or two shapes that changes a lot less often than the hundreds of Android phones out there.

On the other hand, is there any way to use an iPhone as a low-latency display?

Re:Wide FOV... Great... (1)

Anaerin (905998) | about a year ago | (#45270265)

There is the "iDisplay" app, and I believe there's a port of VNC too, but they're nowhere near low enough latency for this. And I'm not suggesting using android phones, just their displays (Which are generally speaking, standard sizes).

Re:Wide FOV... Great... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#45272013)

So, open up cellphones to get their LCD displays to build your own heads-up display? In this case I guess the earlier iPhones are also good candidates.

Re:Wide FOV... Great... (1)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about a year ago | (#45273207)

So, open up cellphones to get their LCD displays to build your own heads-up display?

No, you don't do that, because it makes no bloody sense. You buy LCDs* from (a middleman who buys them from) the same factories phone makers buy them from. Whether you go through a middleman or talk to the factory depends on the volume you're buying and whether or not you have a presence in China.

*note: don't say "Liquid Crystal Display displays" unless you work for your employer, the Department of Redundancy Bureau.

Re:Wide FOV... Great... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#45273593)

But using LCDs from older cellphones would be a good idea to reduce price, help promote the "hacking" spirit (i.e. hacking as in SparkFun and Adafruit, not as in black hats who target banks) and be more ecological by re-using older technology. BYOLCDP*.

* Panels

New competitor, Welcome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45270941)

Now, is the price comparable to OculusRift? The major selling point there was that it's really cheap. High quality HMDs usually cost thousands of dollars.

Also, a major trend on OR has been the latency issues; framerate of the HMD, the latency from head movement to graphics change, etc. Do they have any expertise on this?

Chromatic aberration (1)

TheSync (5291) | about a year ago | (#45271039)

The problem is that LCD panels have horrible color and brightness shift issues as you view them at an angle, and the eye here is so close that different parts of the screen are at dramatically different angles to the eye.

It _may_ be possible to solve some of that in software. Or it could require the use of OLED displays.

Re:Chromatic aberration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45272487)

IPS panels solve this and are available at increasingly impressive densities.

fiRSt?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45271649)

windows, SUN or very sick and Its Sha8e. FreeBSD is

Why do VR systems have crappy resolution? (1)

msobkow (48369) | about a year ago | (#45274287)

Given the availability of the high density display technology in use in cell phones and such, I think it's absolutely shameful that the VR companies keep plugging crap like this instead of actual high quality displays. There is just flat out no excuse for it.

Re:Why do VR systems have crappy resolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45280101)

It is only recently that full HD displays in cell phones became available.

Head Up Display (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45275461)

Because most people only have one that can see.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?