this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Hardware
33 readers
1 users here now
A place for quality hardware news, reviews, and intelligent discussion.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the article failed to mention the major drawbacks of aspheric glass lenses, namely:
weight
cost
massively increased pupil swim to the large population that is bothered by it.
this is why fresnel lenses were universally chosen for the first few sets if devices that weren't cheap insert-phone-vr.
this is why nearly every next-gen device is using pancake lenses.
and the only device (besides this one) that uses something better is vrgineer's xtal with parametrically computed optics... which is one reason those devices run $10k+... a set of these lenses is easily several kilobuck$ to make.
the varjo hmds do tend to use aspheric lenses, but compensate for pupil swim by eye/pupil tracking and adjusting the rendering... something the pimax crystal doesn't do (afaik).
The pimax can do eye tracking for DFR so I’m surprised they don’t also adjust rendering to account for pupil swim.
What is pupil swim?
Similarly, I love DF. But I'm not sold on their VR headset reviews due to how little they pay attention to some of the drawbacks of a headset.
Their PSVR2 review from earlier this year didn't call any attention to how absolutely tiny the sweet spot for that headset is. If it moves even a small amount, you'll drift out of the sweet spot for the fresnel lenses and get significant chromatic aberration (or worse). It's distinctly smaller than other VR headsets and quite unforgiving, so it's something that should have been mentioned. (The fit of the headset is also rubbish for a lot of people, but I can accept that it may not have been an issue for them)