Sweviver does a XTAL video - this is a whole new level

[etherbattx]

Sweviver does a XTAL video - this is a whole new level

 

it may not be what some of us hoped, but i suspect the new Rift will sell very well and be a “successful” product for them.

[Colmillo]

I only need one kidney-right ?

 

hahahahahahahah, ha... ha. h. Is not a bad idea...:lol:

[mdee]

I'd buy it at approx. half the price. Sounds like a VR headset which finally makes sense to use and not look like blurry mess. They need to get this out of prototype.

[mhe]

StarVR seems to be equally impressive and the latest price was 3200, so not that far off from the half price of the XTAL. Still, a steep investment.

[rjetster1]

On the positive, sooner or later this will be the norm and affordable.

[twistking]

I understand how superior lenses yield you much higher effectiv resolution by utilizing the full resolution of the display without cropping, however i don't really understand how the Xtal is able to perform better than headsets with similar display resoultion, as those "conventional" headsets crop the image at the edges and therefor have to calculate way less pixels!!

The actual distortion correction in softare should just be a shader effect that should run very fast without impacting overall performance.

 

I would be happy to be proven wrong, otherwise we should maybe manage our expectation until the headset gets truly unbiased reviews?!

Edited April 25, 2019 by twistking

[Gnadentod]

I understand how superior lenses yield you much higher effectiv resolution by utilizing the full resolution of the display without cropping, however i don't really understand how the Xtal is able to perform better than headsets with similar display resoultion, ...

Maybe you get a glimpse if you watch the videos, the Sweviver one explains some things.

... as those "conventional" headsets crop the image at the edges and therefor have to calculate way less pixels!!

Wrong, watch the video first. The XTAL has the best performance because it's the only one actually only rendering the displays resolution. Pimax for example renders a much higher resolution than it has advertised output. It's less like: "The XTAL developers have put some magic into their VR headset" but "Pimax is selling you crap in terms of picture quality plus performance". Either they really can't build it better or they do (did) it on purpose because they thought everyone thinks the Pimax is the non plus ultra and will buy their stuff anyway.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Der Hirte

[Svsmokey]

On the positive, sooner or later this will be the norm and affordable.

 

Yep , adequately-capitalised and mass-produced , the Xtal could sell at a Vive Pro price-that is to say a Pro wit lighthouses and controllers-say $1200 . Even the most financially-challenged DCS VR player would find a way to make that happen !

Edited April 25, 2019 by Svsmokey

[33-DFTC]

I'm not sure a price drop would ever happen regarding this kind of lenses.

 

If a company needs a very specific lens with a very low tolerance error the price may never go under a minimum price. If I take my experience with photography, I paid a premium for my Leica lense and its price never dropped under a very hefty price.

 

I hope time wil prove me wrong. Let's wait for the consumer version they're working on.

[Svsmokey]

Order 1000 of anything , vs 20 , and watch the price drop . Mass-produce anything , vs hand-assembling at low-volume , and watch the price drop further . Your point regarding Leica is well-taken (best camera i ever had) but there are prolly more lenses in a camara "lens" than a headset , there is a generous amount in a $1200 headset for lenses , and in this case , i would take a Minolta !

[Nagilem]

I think the lens comparison is apt. Good lenses retain value due to expensive glass. Not sure that will change with headsets.

[Jyge]

Apparently they are planning a consumer version. Oculus also indicated a different type of lense last year wave panel or something. So I think the price can change quite a lot. The comforting thought is that apparently a lot can be achieved without upping the resolution. Just to clarify one misunderstanding, the reason why the picture is clearer and the performance is better, you do the rendering only once for the native resolution. The scaling that Pimax and others do needs sampling and processing. If you can run with pixel density 1.0 on top of that the impact is minimal.

 

 

I think that a bigger sweet spot was mentioned. This is all actually very comforting, because I originally thought that the only way to increase the pixel density on focus would be even higher resolution and foveated rendering. Unfortunately, I think that this will all take time, but the game is on.

 

 

 

I just would not want to sit with a bucket like that on my head.

[VirusAM]

Just a question as a profane in the matter...if the lens are a so big game changer...would be possible to change lens to an existing headset lile the rift or the Samsung odyssey?

If yes, would be possible for a third party to offer upgraded lens design?

[wormeaten]

The point with the expansive lens is only when it is hand made prototype. So far XTAL is made in dozens of numbers maybe best case hundreds. that is the major reason why it is so expensive.

Once when you use this prototype as a template for the serious serial production price will drop significantly.

 

Price of the tools for create lens is almost the same no matter did you produce 200 or 20.000 lenses but it is not the same when you divide that cost with 200 or 20.000 that is why now this lens could easily cost 3000$ and when will be produced in higher numbers like 20.000 units cost per lens could drop to 30$ per lens.

[Svsmokey]

Just a question as a profane in the matter...if the lens are a so big game changer...would be possible to change lens to an existing headset lile the rift or the Samsung odyssey?

If yes, would be possible for a third party to offer upgraded lens design?

 

Some headsets support easy lens changes , (Vive for example) and some do not (Rift) .

[Harlikwin]

Just a question as a profane in the matter...if the lens are a so big game changer...would be possible to change lens to an existing headset lile the rift or the Samsung odyssey?

If yes, would be possible for a third party to offer upgraded lens design?

 

Probably not. At least not at a price you'd want to pay since you'd likely be re-designing the whole optical system which would likely mean a physical redesign of the headset as well.

[Harlikwin]

The point with the expansive lens is only when it is hand made prototype. So far XTAL is made in dozens of numbers maybe best case hundreds. that is the major reason why it is so expensive.

Once when you use this prototype as a template for the serious serial production price will drop significantly.

 

Price of the tools for create lens is almost the same no matter did you produce 200 or 20.000 lenses but it is not the same when you divide that cost with 200 or 20.000 that is why now this lens could easily cost 3000$ and when will be produced in higher numbers like 20.000 units cost per lens could drop to 30$ per lens.

 

Hard to say really. But even in "large scale" optics manufacturing quality lenses still cost a pile of money. But yes going from custom made lenses, to production lens numbers should cut the price significantly.

[Harlikwin]

Some headsets support easy lens changes , (Vive for example) and some do not (Rift) .

 

Yeah, but its not just a lens change, its redesigning the whole optical path.

[Svsmokey]

I was referring to the gear vr lens change option for the Vive , and the mechanics of doing so , in answer to a specific question . Nothing more . Optical path considerations would be the responsibility of the hypothetical third party , not the user installing the lenses .

Edited April 26, 2019 by Svsmokey

[twistking]

I understand how superior lenses yield you much higher effectiv resolution by utilizing the full resolution of the display without cropping, however i don't really understand how the Xtal is able to perform better than headsets with similar display resoultion...

Maybe you get a glimpse if you watch the videos, the Sweviver one explains some things.

I watched it two times already and i'm yet not satisfied with the explanation given. I think it is deliberately vague at some points, which is weird considering that the guy has direct access to the developers!!!

as those "conventional" headsets crop the image at the edges and therefor have to calculate way less pixels!!

Wrong, watch the video first. The XTAL has the best performance because it's the only one actually only rendering the displays resolution. Pimax for example renders a much higher resolution than it has advertised output.

To be honest, i think this part of the video is either a lie, missleading information or just badly researched.

I don't consider myself to be an expert,that's why i was asking if someone could explain the "magic" a bit more in detail.

I understand how the XTAL runs more effectiv because it has less processing going on (distortion and scaling), however it also has way more actual resolution.

While those black pixels on Pimax still need to get post-processed (distort correction, scaling), they should not have a big impact on the rendering pipeline.

 

I would conclude, that if the video is correct (which i doubt), than the Pimax and Software are just a terribly concieved piece of engineering and performance should be terrible compared to oculus, native steamVR or native WMR headsets (hard to compare, due to different screen resoultions).

I do not believe that ocuus, steam vr or WMR would have such crude performance bottlenecks built into them.

Sure: All mainstream headsets should in theory suffer from the lower resoulution from dist. correctio and scaling, however this lower resoultion should in turn help with performance, since less pixels need to get rendered.

Edited April 26, 2019 by twistking

[Nagilem]

I think the missing piece here in what you're asking is the difference between fresnel vs aspherical lenses.

 

 

The current crop of HMDs we have today are the best of what can be done with fresnel single lenses. These are on the market because they are cheap to make and weigh less than the alternative.

 

 

The reason XTAL is different is the LENS. The use of aspherical lenses means less magnification of the panels, which equals lower software rendering and higher ppi because the software doesn't have to compensate for the zoom affect of the lens.

 

 

 

With less rendering and reprocessing necessary, the performance gets better.

 

 

 

As to why the current crop hasn't gone for aspherical lenses, I think the costs were much higher as the glass is not as simple or cost effective to make.

[Harlikwin]

I was referring to the gear vr lens change option for the Vive , and the mechanics of doing so , in answer to a specific question . Nothing more . Optical path considerations would be the responsibility of the hypothetical third party , not the user installing the lenses .

 

I get it, but the reason the XTAL is so good is the optical design, of which lenses are only a part. So retrofitting better lenses might help a bit, but you aren't gonna turn a Vive into an Xtal with a lens swap.

[Harlikwin]

 

As to why the current crop hasn't gone for aspherical lenses, I think the costs were much higher as the glass is not as simple or cost effective to make.

 

You can get fresnel asphericals too.

[Svsmokey]

I get it, but the reason the XTAL is so good is the optical design, of which lenses are only a part. So retrofitting better lenses might help a bit, but you aren't gonna turn a Vive into an Xtal with a lens swap.

 

I never suggested you could :) Again , i responded to a question regarding replaceable lenses . Vive/Vive Pro users have reported quite good results using Gear Vr lenses , albeit with a software requirement to correct barrel distortion . The Rift design , on the other hand , pretty much precludes replacement due to the lenses being bonded in place , as well as having a specialised form .

[pegon]

To sober things up a bit. Anything ED can do to speed up the DCS engine matters more than the XTAL. Imagine being able to really turn up the image settings and what it can do to the experience. A system is only as good as its weakest link. Right now it is DCS.