Pimax 8k and 5K+ reviews are up. And it's looking good!

Creig said:
It's all marketing. Unlike computer monitors, there is no set aspect ratio for VR headsets. And as the 8K is 7,680 pixels wide, they do have a legitimate reason for calling it the 8K.
Click to expand...

Well, we're talking about broadcast standards, and the use of the 'k' terminology does imply a more standard 16:9 ratio in the context of consumer hardware, which is where I'm coming from.

And I get the marketing angle- don't really want to do anything to inhibit adoption, and that's kind of why I'm pointing it out. 8k is twice the work of 4k per eye, and calling it 8k when it's really half 8k makes it sound less accessible than it really is.
 
^^^^^ Ya, the VR market could really use some good term standardization, but unfortunately, it's a rather new area and is non-existent.

Also marketing and "standards" don't typically hold each other up in exulted reverence all that much.

Marketing has this long and storied history of doing anything and everything possible to make you open your wallet wide and get eviscerated, thinking you did a smart or good thing in buying whatever product it is that they are peddling/pushing. They'd happily call it "Next Generation XXX Retinal 1000X Orgasm M/F Extreme Display Technology" if that moves the product and they could get away with it.

Caveat Emptor!
 
not just marketing, those tech guys also do it to try and appear innovative amongt their fellow epeensters

I have to say, in this case, the K terminology is a nice upgrade from P... we see left to right moreso than up to down, it's a bit more intuitive
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Well, we're talking about broadcast standards, and the use of the 'k' terminology does imply a more standard 16:9 ratio in the context of consumer hardware, which is where I'm coming from.

And I get the marketing angle- don't really want to do anything to inhibit adoption, and that's kind of why I'm pointing it out. 8k is twice the work of 4k per eye, and calling it 8k when it's really half 8k makes it sound less accessible than it really is.
Click to expand...

The k stands for kilo which means thousand - as in 8 kilopixels (thousand pixels). It has nothing to do with 16:9 or broadcast standards. The headset is 8 thousand pixels across, just like the 5k is 5 thousand pixels across. The model names make perfect sense to me and are not confusing.

Any confusion actually stems from the stupid display manufacturers that decided to switch from vertical resolution for all previous displays (720p, 1080p, 1440p) to horizontal for '4k'. It really should have been 2160p.
 
Last edited:
bobzdar said:
The k stands for kilo which means thousand - as in 8 kilopixels (thousand pixels). It has nothing to do with 16:9 or broadcast standards. The headset is 8 thousand pixels across, just like the 5k is 5 thousand pixels across. The model names make perfect sense to me and are not confusing.

Any confusion actually stems from the stupid display manufacturers that decided to switch from vertical resolution for all previous displays (720p, 1080p, 1440p) to horizontal for '4k'. It really should have been 2160p.
Click to expand...

Whatever you think it should be, there's a standard for 4k and 8k that can be referenced that well precedes this current misuse of the nomenclature.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Whatever you think it should be, there's a standard for 4k and 8k that can be referenced that well precedes this current misuse of the nomenclature.
Click to expand...

There is no 8k standard - there is an "8k uhd" standard, but 8k just means a display with around 8k horizontal resolution, which guess what, the pimax has. If it were named "8k uhd" you'd have an argument.
 
Every few years new standards are created or updated. I don't think anyone created a standard for VR.
 
bobzdar said:
There is no 8k standard - there is an "8k uhd" standard, but 8k just means a display with around 8k horizontal resolution, which guess what, the pimax has. If it were named "8k uhd" you'd have an argument.
Click to expand...

The 'UHD' is implied with consumer usage, lol. Or are you going to argue that perhaps a consumer might confuse '8k' as being the 8k x 8k used in planetariums?

;)
 
it's not confusing when you learn that K refers to horizontal resolution, which is what all standards so far seem to follow no matter the aspect ratio...
 
IdiotInCharge said:
The 'UHD' is implied with consumer usage, lol. Or are you going to argue that perhaps a consumer might confuse '8k' as being the 8k x 8k used in planetariums?

;)
Click to expand...

Maybe in your head it's implied, but that's not my (or pimax) fault. Nor is it their fault if some idiot decides to buy it with zero research expecting it to have a vertical fov exceeding human vision limits (which is what an 8k uhd headset with 200 horizontal fov would have - it'd have around 220 vertical fov and we can only see 140). So even if it were 8k uhd, those extra pixels would be completely wasted as you wouldn't see them unless they reduced the horizontal fov, which would defeat the purpose of the whole enterprise.

In other words, only pedants care, it has 8k horizontal pixels and if it were 8k uhd, it'd just be wasted pixels nobody could see.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Well duh, but again, saying '4k' or '8k' in consumer context implies the 'UHD' standard, which is what I said above, and that is why using 8k for something that is 2 x 4k would be confusing for consumers.
Click to expand...
As bobzadar rightly pointed out, nowhere does Pimax claim that their headset is 8K UHD. The only standard the Pimax 5K and 8K need to satisfy is horizontal pixel count. Which they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Youn
like this
Youn said:
it's not confusing when you learn that K refers to horizontal resolution, which is what all standards so far seem to follow no matter the aspect ratio...
Click to expand...

I know what it refers to. What part of the standard applies is based on the context. If you just say you have a Freesync 4k monitor for gaming, are we going to assume that you have a DCI 4k monitor instead of UHD 4k? How does that make any sense?

So why would it make sense for an 8k consumer product to actually be half 8k?

It doesn't. Arguing otherwise is silly. Worse, marketing the headset as 8k when it's half 8k UHD does damage to the image of the product, as on the one hand the resolution delivered is half what the standard would apply in a consumer context, and on the other hand, by implying that the headset is 8k UHD the marketers are implying that the headset would be far harder to drive than it really is at half 8k UHD.
 
8k, 4k, 99999k, who really cares. If you can read the info for the product its there. Whatever makes it easier for the consumer.
 
consumers can't read or comprehend simple numbers, it's just too much responsibility :)
 
Youn said:
so your solution is what... call it 2x4K?
Click to expand...

I'm not marketing, I'm pointing out the bad marketing. I'm sure if they wanted to accurately portray the product they could have. I just hope that it doesn't inhibit sales.

"8K VR headset!"*

*not actually 8k UHD
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I know what it refers to. What part of the standard applies is based on the context. If you just say you have a Freesync 4k monitor for gaming, are we going to assume that you have a DCI 4k monitor instead of UHD 4k? How does that make any sense?

So why would it make sense for an 8k consumer product to actually be half 8k?

It doesn't. Arguing otherwise is silly. Worse, marketing the headset as 8k when it's half 8k UHD does damage to the image of the product, as on the one hand the resolution delivered is half what the standard would apply in a consumer context, and on the other hand, by implying that the headset is 8k UHD the marketers are implying that the headset would be far harder to drive than it really is at half 8k UHD.
Click to expand...

It does not imply anything other than 8 thousand horizontal pixels. 8k uhd implies it's 16:9, 8k without the uhd doesn't, just that it has 8k horizontal pixels.

If I buy a monitor and all it says is 4k, I will check the aspect ratio because I'm not a complete idiot, and any consumer that doesn't won't care because they won't have a clue what they're looking at anyway. I actually have a 4k super wide monitor and I believe it was advertised as just that (or 4k whd or something like that) which means 4k horizontal pixels, but vertically it's not 2160 but 1440. Which is what I wanted and perfectly fine. Some are advertised as 5k2k, 4k ultra wide etc, but whatever, you're being obtuse and nobody is confused what they're getting with either the 5k or 8k pimax, especially here on [H]. 8k is PERFECTLY accurate, 8k UHD would not be.
 
bobzdar said:
nobody is confused what they're getting with either the 5k or 8k pimax, especially here on [H]
Click to expand...

You seem confused. I'm not talking about yourself or myself; we wouldn't be confused, we'd look it up to be sure.

I'm talking about your average consumer, and yeah, if they happen to even know what 8k implies in the consumer context, they'll have no idea that it's possible for something to be technically '8k' but nothing like the 8k TVs that'll soon be peddled on retailers' walls.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
You seem confused. I'm not talking about yourself or myself; we wouldn't be confused, we'd look it up to be sure.

I'm talking about your average consumer, and yeah, if they happen to even know what 8k implies in the consumer context, they'll have no idea that it's possible for something to be technically '8k' but nothing like the 8k TVs that'll soon be peddled on retailers' walls.
Click to expand...
Since these average consumers don't know (and probably don't care) what the difference is between 8K and 8K UHD, there is no issue.
 
Creig said:
Since these average consumers don't know (and probably don't care) what the difference is between 8K and 8K UHD, there is no issue.
Click to expand...

Actually that clearly is the issue!

To the average consumer, '8k' means 8k UHD. That's why calling this headset just '8k' is misleading, both because the resolution isn't there as would be expected, but also it implies that the resolution is there and that it would require more processing power to drive than it really will.

It's detrimental marketing to the product. That's why I'm pointing it out.
 
they are marketing this for pc gamer enthusiasts, not clueless moms shopping at walmart for their little jimmy
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Actually that clearly is the issue!

To the average consumer, '8k' means 8k UHD. That's why calling this headset just '8k' is misleading, both because the resolution isn't there as would be expected, but also it implies that the resolution is there and that it would require more processing power to drive than it really will.

It's detrimental marketing to the product. That's why I'm pointing it out.
Click to expand...
It's not detrimental to anything. In my opinion, comparing the view of an 8K UHD television to that of an 8K VR headset is like comparing apples and oranges. They are simply too dissimilar.

And processing power required does not necessarily correlate to display resolution. The 5K and 8K headsets have different display resolutions, yet both will only accept a 1440P input signal. The 8K upscales the image internally within the headset while the 5K displays it as its native resolution. So we're right back to 'caveat emptor'.

If someone can't be bothered to look up the specs of a $500+ VR headset prior to purchasing it then it's their own fault if they don't receive what they thought they were getting.
 
bobzdar said:
It does not imply anything other than 8 thousand horizontal pixels. 8k uhd implies it's 16:9, 8k without the uhd doesn't, just that it has 8k horizontal pixels.

If I buy a monitor and all it says is 4k, I will check the aspect ratio because I'm not a complete idiot, and any consumer that doesn't won't care because they won't have a clue what they're looking at anyway. I actually have a 4k super wide monitor and I believe it was advertised as just that (or 4k whd or something like that) which means 4k horizontal pixels, but vertically it's not 2160 but 1440. Which is what I wanted and perfectly fine. Some are advertised as 5k2k, 4k ultra wide etc, but whatever, you're being obtuse and nobody is confused what they're getting with either the 5k or 8k pimax, especially here on [H]. 8k is PERFECTLY accurate, 8k UHD would not be.
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe I just like a good arguement. :-p

8K is NOT perfectly accurate when it comes to describing this VR product, especially using your monitor analogy. With a TV or monitor, yes, but in VR in this particular product, there are two separate screens used showing the same image from slightly shifted vantages. Each screen is 4K when it comes to this product... An eye doesn't get to see 8k, it only gets to see 4k. Combining the horizontal resolution as if it can all be perceived at once as 8k is misleading. Like Creig says, its an apples to oranges comparison.
 
Supercharged_Z06 said:
Ok, maybe I just like a good arguement. :-p

8K is NOT perfectly accurate when it comes to describing this VR product, especially using your monitor analogy. With a TV or monitor, yes, but in VR in this particular product, there are two separate screens used showing the same image from slightly shifted vantages. Each screen is 4K when it comes to this product... An eye doesn't get to see 8k, it only gets to see 4k. Combining the horizontal resolution as if it can all be perceived at once as 8k is misleading. Like Creig says, its an apples to oranges comparison.
Click to expand...

Um, combined, both of your eyes, and hence your brain, see 8 thousand horizontal pixels. Unless you're blind in one eye, then yes, you only see 4k pixels, but if both of your eyes work your brain is getting 8k horizontal pixels worth of information. It's ridiculous this is even an argument.
 
bobzdar said:
Um, combined, both of your eyes, and hence your brain, see 8 thousand horizontal pixels. Unless you're blind in one eye, then yes, you only see 4k pixels, but if both of your eyes work your brain is getting 8k horizontal pixels worth of information. It's ridiculous this is even an argument.
Click to expand...
Really? So distance, screen size and PPI don't factor in? I have a 50" 1080P television in my living room. You know why I haven't upgraded to a 4K yet? Because my entertainment center is 12' away from my couch. According to television distance/size/resolution charts, I could have gotten a 720P television and there would not have been any visual difference at that distance. The "average consumer" you're so worried about is completely clueless regarding the relationship between those three variables. They go to Best Buy, look at a television on the wall from about 3' away and base their decision on that. After they get it home and on their wall (without adjusting any color balance, white/black levels, or even taking it off the over saturated display mode), they conclude that it looks fantastic. End of story. They have no idea whatsoever that they probably could have gotten a much cheaper, lower resolution TV that would have looked just as good from the distance they intend to view it from.

Again, we're back to people needing to do their own research when purchasing things. And the fact that the 5K and 8K are accurately named due to their horizontal pixel counts.
 
bobzdar said:
Um, combined, both of your eyes, and hence your brain, see 8 thousand horizontal pixels. Unless you're blind in one eye, then yes, you only see 4k pixels, but if both of your eyes work your brain is getting 8k horizontal pixels worth of information. It's ridiculous this is even an argument.
Click to expand...

The point being each of your eyes don't get to see a single 8k panel. They aren't seeing two completely different images that combine to present an 8k image, but the same 4k scene presented from a left/right view perspective to form a single stereoscopic image. Yes, your brain is combining them, but the end result is not an 8k view of the scene as in viewing it on a flat monitor, but a 3d visual experience that's a hell of a lot closer to 4K. Again, It's a very different thing than looking at a 8k panel on a TV or monitor as there are lenses involved in an HMD in presenting the image. Bottom line, using VR is VERY different than using a monitor or a TV and using the same specs that they use for VR simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever. What we should be using for a VR system to gauge its capability/specs is a measurement of the maximum visual acuity that a given HMD can offer the viewer. Or even simply the pixels per degree (ppd) the HMD offers. Slapping a "4k" or "8k" moniker onto an HMD for marketing purposes and running with it is a very apples to oranges exercise.

Here's a pretty good read on the subject: http://doc-ok.org/?p=1631
 
It makes sense, you just don't like it. So you propose to market VR as "You can see as well as an 80 year old with 10 year old glasses"? Nobody wants to be reminded that we're no where near close to 20/20 vision. Maybe we'll do that when we get to 16k per eye and there is a light at the end of the tunnel to get to perfect acuity. For now, it takes all of 1 minute and 2 brain cells to understand what PiMax 8K means.
 
Supercharged_Z06 said:
The point being each of your eyes don't get to see a single 8k panel. They aren't seeing two completely different images that combine to present an 8k image, but the same 4k scene presented from a left/right view perspective to form a single stereoscopic image. Yes, your brain is combining them, but the end result is not an 8k view of the scene as in viewing it on a flat monitor, but a 3d visual experience that's a hell of a lot closer to 4K. Again, It's a very different thing than looking at a 8k panel on a TV or monitor as there are lenses involved in an HMD in presenting the image. Bottom line, using VR is VERY different than using a monitor or a TV and using the same specs that they use for VR simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever. What we should be using for a VR system to gauge its capability/specs is a measurement of the maximum visual acuity that a given HMD can offer the viewer. Or even simply the pixels per degree (ppd) the HMD offers. Slapping a "4k" or "8k" moniker onto an HMD for marketing purposes and running with it is a very apples to oranges exercise.

Here's a pretty good read on the subject: http://doc-ok.org/?p=1631
Click to expand...

What? Yes, both views are unique and you get more information in your brain by seeing two different 4k images than by seeing a single 8k image with both eyes. You can't get 3d with a single image, and combined your brain is getting 8k horizontal pixels worth of information to construct a 3d image. Pimax said "hey, we're using 8k horizontal pixels to make a 3d image, which is over 3x what anyone else is doing, so lets give it a nice simple name that communicates that." Not "hey, let's call it 8k so we can trick people into thinking they're getting 16:9 8k uhd which is useless and would make no sense for vr anyway, but we'll eventually be able to trick ignorant consumers that'd never look at a high end vr headset anyway." Wow what a plan that is.

Seems like the only people the naming is confusing are self styled tech experts.
 
^^^ This is like arguing with a 5 year old. Bobzdar, unless you are a freaking chameleon who can look in two completely different directions at once and fully process what you are seeing (god I hope you can't do that... pretty sure you can't), you are seeing far less of a scene in VR than you are when using both of your eyes to look at a 8K monitor image. Here, let's try drawing some pictures so that you can better understand:

vr1.png
vr2.png

So again, using the convention that TVs and monitors use (E.G. 1080, 1440, 4K, 8K) for a marketing spec to convey horizontal resolution doesn't "fit" when it comes to the VR world. The perceived scene in the Pimax is not even remotely representative of the scene perceived when viewing the 8K monitor image. As more and more VR devices come to market, we'll just need something better to describe VR capability than recycling and using the TV/Monitor spec of horizontal resolution. 8K via two 4K panels in VR simply isn't the same thing as 8K on a monitor as to a perceived image. So again, apples to oranges. So no Youn, it doesn't make sense. We need something better than slapping 4K, 8K, 8Kx, etc. monikers on VR products because while that works for montiors/TVs, that does not represent things very well when it comes to VR. A measure of the pixels per degree (ppd) the HMD offers would be a much better marketing indicator and assist potential buyers in determining what a given VR product is offering. It'll just take time for the VR industry to come up with some standardized specs for use in product comparison.
 
it doesn't make sense
Click to expand...
nice graphic, send it to PiMax, maybe they haven't put as much thought into it as you have...

I do agree with you it's not the best moving forward, and it's a bit cringy to say 8K/8Kx/8xxx, but the company is asian or something and they might find the marketing style cute, they aren't as tightly wound as some american/brits... obviously :D I just wonder what they'll call true 8K-per-eye display... 18K+EX (the extra 2K is for the included smellovision and eye tracking)? I think you'll love that one, right? :p
 
Youn said:
I do agree with you it's not the best moving forward
Click to expand...

That's really the main reason I brought it up. I'd like to see the market grow to the point that newer technologies can be engineered into products faster, and misleading and inconsistent naming schemes aren't going to help that.
 
Supercharged_Z06 said:
^^^ This is like arguing with a 5 year old. Bobzdar, unless you are a freaking chameleon who can look in two completely different directions at once and fully process what you are seeing (god I hope you can't do that... pretty sure you can't), you are seeing far less of a scene in VR than you are when using both of your eyes to look at a 8K monitor image. Here, let's try drawing some pictures so that you can better understand:

View attachment 107784 View attachment 107790
So again, using the convention that TVs and monitors use (E.G. 1080, 1440, 4K, 8K) for a marketing spec to convey horizontal resolution doesn't "fit" when it comes to the VR world. The perceived scene in the Pimax is not even remotely representative of the scene perceived when viewing the 8K monitor image. As more and more VR devices come to market, we'll just need something better to describe VR capability than recycling and using the TV/Monitor spec of horizontal resolution. 8K via two 4K panels in VR simply isn't the same thing as 8K on a monitor as to a perceived image. So again, apples to oranges. So no Youn, it doesn't make sense. We need something better than slapping 4K, 8K, 8Kx, etc. monikers on VR products because while that works for montiors/TVs, that does not represent things very well when it comes to VR. A measure of the pixels per degree (ppd) the HMD offers would be a much better marketing indicator and assist potential buyers in determining what a given VR product is offering. It'll just take time for the VR industry to come up with some standardized specs for use in product comparison.
Click to expand...

You make more than one bad assumption in your diagram that invalidates the comparison, and one that a 5 year old might not pick up on, much like yourself - and that's that each eye is seeing a different perspective of the scene in pimax, and not on the 2d monitor. You see less of the scene (and not as much less as you show), but get a lot more information about it for your brain to use. The other bad assumption is that each eye sees the same piece of the scene, which it doesn't. There's around 80 deg of overlap in the center of the fov, but the rest is unique to each eye, so maybe try again. You'll find that there's less than half the reduced view than you show, and that ignores that one has depth and the other doesn't.

And yeah, if you want to clear up consumer confusion start talking in pixels per degree (which is even more meaningless than just pixels without knowing the fov), that won't confuse them. I can produce an insane pixel per degree display if I just show you a postage stamp view of the world, but it would suck (no sde though!). I think a good name would actually be 8k200, as that gives you the basic info you really need, 8k horizontal pixels over a 200fov. Maybe you could suggest that. But given they pretty prominently list the fov, we already know that.
 
Ok, maybe not 5, perhaps more a 6 year old. My apologies. :)

You keep repeating the obvious to anyone familiar with 3D vision tech. You are the one making the assumption within the drawing I provided. Of course there are two different rendered images from separate perspectives and they are two separate panels being used to display them, but the whole point here was that "8k" is not what the Pimax is providing as in a traditional monitor image display which is what I was showing you. One loses a good portion of the overall 8k scene from a 8K monitor display in order to provide that stereoscopic synthesis that is occurring within an HMD in order to give you the 3D experience and that horizontal span IS NOT the same scene "width" as an 8k monitor image's width. The Pimax "8K" branding is a misrepresentation in that it simply doesn't fit into what folks use for regular displays because of how differently things are handled within a VR system. Finally, Pimax is upscaling a 1440p signal to a 4k panel for each eye. They are NOT providing your brain with "8k" worth of image detail. Far from it. Would you be happy with a regular 2D monitor sold as "4k" if it only accepted a 1440p signal and scaled it up? Even you are coming around and starting to admit that including the FOV in some sort of number spec would be better.

This whole discourse with you began with your stance that the Pimax was an "8k" HMD. I've just held that this is misleading when compared to what most folks will use as a reference/comparison to normal 2D monitor resolutions and that we need a better spec to compare VR products.
 
Supercharged_Z06 said:
Ok, maybe not 5, perhaps more a 6 year old. My apologies. :)

You keep repeating the obvious to anyone familiar with 3D vision tech. You are the one making the assumption within the drawing I provided. Of course there are two different rendered images from separate perspectives and they are two separate panels being used to display them, but the whole point here was that "8k" is not what the Pimax is providing as in a traditional monitor image display which is what I was showing you. One loses a good portion of the overall 8k scene from a 8K monitor display in order to provide that stereoscopic synthesis that is occurring within an HMD in order to give you the 3D experience and that horizontal span IS NOT the same scene "width" as an 8k monitor image's width. The Pimax "8K" branding is a misrepresentation in that it simply doesn't fit into what folks use for regular displays because of how differently things are handled within a VR system. Finally, Pimax is upscaling a 1440p signal to a 4k panel for each eye. They are NOT providing your brain with "8k" worth of image detail. Far from it. Would you be happy with a regular 2D monitor sold as "4k" if it only accepted a 1440p signal and scaled it up? Even you are coming around and starting to admit that including the FOV in some sort of number spec would be better.

This whole discourse with you began with your stance that the Pimax was an "8k" HMD. I've just held that this is misleading when compared to what most folks will use as a reference/comparison to normal 2D monitor resolutions and that we need a better spec to compare VR products.
Click to expand...

You're still missing that you show complete overlap of the two views, which is not how it works. But regardless, there are 8k pixels horizontally, anyone with any knowledge of what vr is will know that it won't look anything like an 8k uhd set, the whole purpose of VR is to get away from a flat 2d image that doesn't change when you move your head, so nobody that is in the market for a headset would expect that it looks anything like a tv. They're not comparable, it's like comparing motorcycle horsepower to car horsepower (or to horses themselves!). Anyone with half a brain knows they're not remotely comparable, even though they're both transportation modes. 200hp in a motorcycle means something completely different to the performance of it vs 200hp in a car, but nobody says we shouldn't use it to measure how much power it has. Heck, even 200hp in a 2000lb car is vastly different to 200hp in a 4000lb car (think fov), and even dumb consumers can figure that out.
 
No, I'm not missing the point. You just are repeating yourself over and over acting like I don't get it and that you do. The two images very much do overlap as to the what they are viewing as to the scene, the 3D scene - again just viewed from two different perspectives - and yes, they are not synthesized from the same flat 2D image. When you look at an apple held in front of you, you are saying that you are viewing two apples which is bullshit. You are viewing the same object from two slightly different perspectives, forming a single image in your brain of that apple with your brain providing the depth perception. Take away the 3D synthesis that's occurring (just for arguments sake) and look at it as a 2D image again. Yes, now you can compare that 2D image and its resolution to a monitor image if you want, but in the case of the Pimax 8k, comparing that 4k sized image is not the same thing as a 8k monitor image. They are simply not comparable in that the 8k flat scene has a larger vista and provides you with more of the landscape view. 3D images and 2D images can't be lumped into the same single resolution spec as they are so different that the comparison makes no sense.

And now you are getting horsepower all confused. 200hp is 200hp regardless of whether it is being produced by a car or a motorcycle. It is a fundamental spec that means the same thing. There is no difference as to what produces it. They both will turn that dyno and produce the same value in horsepower if both are rated the same. WTF are you on about with horsepower here? HP is not a spec about "perceived" perfomance. It a measure of the work output capacity of a machine/animal.

You've turned this around full circle here. A resolution spec like 8K is going to tell you fuck all about the 3D performance of a VR HMD. Especially if that 8K is split across two panels that are upscaling a 1440p input signal.
 
Supercharged_Z06 said:
^^^ This is like arguing with a 5 year old. Bobzdar, unless you are a freaking chameleon who can look in two completely different directions at once and fully process what you are seeing (god I hope you can't do that... pretty sure you can't), you are seeing far less of a scene in VR than you are when using both of your eyes to look at a 8K monitor image. Here, let's try drawing some pictures so that you can better understand:
Click to expand...

Wow, those illustrations are so misguided and fallacious it's hard to know where to start. The FOV of a game's camera is not related to the resolution of the display device. They are entirely independent quantities, as you can tell from any game that has an FOV slider. The resolution has the same advantages (and disadvantages) in both cases, ie increasing the detail you can resolve at the expense of computing cost. But a HMD display with a 170deg fov is absolutely rendering a wider view of the scene than anyone (in their right mind) would choose to render on a regular monitor or TV.
 
the illustrations are just a way some people interpret things, accurate or not this is one reason why using terms like 8K can be problematic for some...

Supercharged_Z06 said:
you are viewing two apples
Click to expand...
wait... you mean when I look at titties I'm not seeing 4 but actually 2? how disappointing... I'm leaving this thread now before you guys reveal more sad facts of life :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top