Sony VR headset unveiled

[Hydrazine]

Think I edited before you answered. Where does it state its 3D?

It's a VR headset. By convention, VR headsets send images spereately to each eye, which is what stereo 3D is. Look at all the other VR headsets from recently, Oculus, Avegant, Gameface, VRase, etc. They're ALL 3D. Every single one.

Where does it say on Lamborghini's website that their cars have seatbelts.

 

[Hydrazine]

...that's not how pixels work. At all.

Whatever native resolution you run, 1 pixels always references 1 pixel - 720p isn't any more pixelated than 1080p. What actually changes is the size of pixels, which is a different matter entirely. Since LCD and other similar panels have a fixed amount of physical pixels, scaling algorithms are used to resize the image from a smaller resolution to a larger one, approximating the colours of pixels - this is what causes "pixelation". It's a decrease in quality, but said decrease highly depends on the algorithm utilized to approximate.

The complaints regarding the first Oculus Rift did not concern upscaling of any kind, they concerned the physical size of pixels. Although not ideal, upscaling from 720p to 1080p or something along those lines is better than displaying 720p on a 720p screen because the physical size of pixels is smaller.

Maybe pixelated isn't right word, but upscaling still makes the image looks muddy. Not ideal for VR, or gaming in general. Unless Sony want the headset to be a "I forgot my glasses simulator", it will be far from ideal.

 

[osirisjem]

IWhere does it say on Lamborghini's website that their cars have seatbelts.

Oh wait. I get it. That was rhetorical.



Definitely not alot !

 

[Foxi4]

Maybe pixelated isn't right word, but upscaling still makes the image looks muddy. Not ideal for VR, or gaming in general. Unless Sony want the headset to be a "I forgot my glasses simulator", it will be far from ideal.

Muddy, yes, which is why the algorithm would have to be spot-on and the VR set would require a dedicated scaler specifically designed for this task. Of course this is all speculation at this point, so the conversation has very little sense. My point is, when the screen is an inch away from your eyeballs, you want the physical pixels to be as small as humanly possible - upscaling the final image is the least of your worries. It's better to upscale than to see visible gaps between the pixels.

For anyone who wants to see what I mean, take a 256x192 picture, full-screen it on a phone with a high resolution display, put it close to your eye, then display the same image on a DS and do the same. One image will be crap and one will be managable to look at. This is because with a higher physical resolution, you can at least approximate the correct colours. With a small physical resolution, you can do nothing - it's just small and you have to grim and bear it.

 

[Hydrazine]

Muddy, yes, which is why the algorithm would have to be spot-on and the VR set would require a dedicated scaler specifically designed for this task. Of course this is all speculation at this point, so the conversation has very little sense. My point is, when the screen is an inch away from your eyeballs, you want the physical pixels to be as small as humanly possible - upscaling the final image is the least of your worries. It's better to upscale than to see visible gaps between the pixels.

For anyone who wants to see what I mean, take a 256x192 picture, full-screen it on a phone with a high resolution display, put it close to your eye, then display the same image on a DS and do the same. One image will be crap and one will be managable to look at. This is because with a higher physical resolution, you can at least approximate the correct colours. With a small physical resolution, you can do nothing - it's just small and you have to grim and bear it.

Even a perfect algorithm cannot make it as sharp as native resolution. It's simply a matter of the amount of data available. I take a 1080p picture, downscale it to 720p, and give the 720p version to you. No matter how many photoshop filters and post-processing you do on it, it'll never look as sharp as the native 1080p resolution picture. And if there is a dedicated scaler, that'll simply add to the cost of the headset, which should already be more than the Oculus as Sony likes to overprice.

 

[Foxi4]

Even a perfect algorithm cannot make it as sharp as native resolution. It's simply a matter of the amount of data available. I take a 1080p picture, downscale it to 720p, and give the 720p version to you. No matter how many photoshop filters and post-processing you do on it, it'll never look as sharp as the native 1080p resolution picture. And if there is a dedicated scaler, that'll simply add to the cost of the headset, which should already be more than the Oculus as Sony likes to overprice.

Downscaling is hardly as harmful as upcaling which is what we're talking about, and yes, you're right, you can't really do it in a lossless way. As for dedicated scalers, come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the PS4 already has one built-in, so that's covered. Either way, again, the conversation is pointless since we don't know if the games will even be scaled in the first place. Developers who want to take advantage of this can simply keep in mind that the native resolution has to be 1080p - simple. Right now they're A) Taking liberties in programming since they don't have such a requirement and B) Aren't terribly familiar with the SDK yet. We'll see how things go later down the line.

 

[Hydrazine]

Downscaling is hardly as harmful as upcaling which is what we're talking about, and yes, you're right, you can't really do it in a lossless way. As for dedicated scalers, come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the PS4 already has one built-in, so that's covered. Either way, again, the conversation is pointless since we don't know if the games will even be scaled in the first place. Developers who want to take advantage of this can simply keep in mind that the native resolution has to be 1080p - simple. Right now they're A) Taking liberties in programming since they don't have such a requirement and B) Aren't terribly familiar with the SDK yet. We'll see how things go later down the line.

Um... yeah I think you misunderstood me. I mean if you have a 1080p (native) picture and 720p (native) picture, you can't make the 720p pic as sharp as the 1080p pic through post FX. But back on topic.

Yes, the best way is to keep native resolution at 1080p. But can the PS4 run games with modern visuals at 1080p native 60fps stereo 3D? No. So upscaling the the only way to have games run. But upscaling makes the game look bad, and that's bad. The other option is to have worse textures/effects/shaders/meshes, but that also makes the game look bad.

Therefore Sony headset will not offer the optimal VR experience. Oculus DK2 is still king.

 

[Foxi4]

Yes, the best way is to keep native resolution at 1080p. But can the PS4 run games with modern visuals at 1080p native 60fps stereo 3D? No. So upscaling the the only way to have games run. But upscaling makes the game look bad, and that's bad. The other option is to have worse textures/effects/shaders/meshes, but that also makes the game look bad. Therefore Sony headset will not offer the optimal VR experience. Oculus DK2 is still king.

The Oculus Rift is just a VR headset - what you wanted to say is that PC is still king, which is something we already know. It's also a more expensive solution. I suppose everything depends on what you treat as modern visuals. Again, engines are scalable - if the developers will feel like taking advantage of the headset functionality, they'll keep that in mind when designing the game.

 

[Hydrazine]

The Oculus Rift is just a VR headset - what you wanted to say is that PC is still king, which is something we already know. It's also a more expensive solution. I suppose everything depends on what you treat as modern visuals. Again, engines are scalable - if the developers will feel like taking advantage of the headset functionality, they'll keep that in mind when designing the game.

Cost all depends on how much sony prices this. Sony's other HMD, the HMZ-T3, costs $1000. The HMZ was from less than 1 year ago, so it's not like sony's gotten so affordable in a few months. The HMZ also has around the same specs, so it costs around the same to make. Therefore, this VR headset will probably costs at least $500, and that's being conservative. $500 (headset) + $400 (console) + $50 (PS+ service) + $60 (Game) = $1010. If you go the Oculus route you have this. $700 (gaming PC) + $300 (Oculus) + $40 (Game) = $1040. Pretty much same cost.

 

[Foxi4]

Cost all depends on how much sony prices this. Sony's other HMD, the HMZ-T3, costs $1000. The HMZ was from less than 1 year ago, so it's not like sony's gotten so affordable in a few months. The HMZ also has around the same specs, so it costs around the same to make. Therefore, this VR headset will probably costs at least $500, and that's being conservative. $500 (headset) + $400 (console) + $50 (PS+ service) + $60 (Game) = $1010. If you go the Oculus route you have this. $700 (gaming PC) + $300 (Oculus) + $40 (Game) = $1040. Pretty much same cost.

The HMZ-T3 is using OLED panels with a resolution of 1280x720 per eye, this is probably based on LCD and it has a smaller per-eye resolution which substantially lowers production costs.

 

[Hydrazine]

The HMZ-T3 is using OLED panels with a resolution of 1280x720 per eye, this is probably based on LCD and it has a smaller per-eye resolution which substantially lowers production costs.

Right, which means it's probably only going to cost about half as much as the HMZ, making it $500. This VR headset has the added cost of motion sensors as well, don't forget that. Sony isn't a company to make affordable products.

 

[Foxi4]

Right, which means it's probably only going to cost about half as much as the HMZ, making it $500. This VR headset has the added cost of motion sensors as well, don't forget that. Sony isn't a company to make affordable products.

Mmm, yeah - gyros are not expensive. All of Sony's controllers have built-in SIXAXIS and they're not terribly expensive - you're making it sound as if gyros would inflate the price by hundreds of dollars when they really won't. In any case, I guess we'll wait and see. They'll have to price it competitively - this much is obvious. If a no-name company that popped out of nowhere overnight can manufacture a VR set for $300 then Sony with established connections and their own manufacturing plants can match that.

 

[kristianity77]

Right, which means it's probably only going to cost about half as much as the HMZ, making it $500. This VR headset has the added cost of motion sensors as well, don't forget that. Sony isn't a company to make affordable products.

Right, so Sony are going to develop and release a VR headset which is going to be more expensive than the console itself, is that what you are saying?

I think what it is, is that the PC elitist in you just cannot begin to comprehend that something could come out, that is arguably on par with this PC oculus rift that you speak of but for a lot less money.

No way in the world are sony going to release an accessory for $500 as A: the capture rate for people that own the PS4 to buying this would be what....5% at best? And at 5%, they won't get any developers on board to give it any consideration.

 

[Hydrazine]

Right, so Sony are going to develop and release a VR headset which is going to be more expensive than the console itself, is that what you are saying?

I think what it is, is that the PC elitist in you just cannot begin to comprehend that something could come out, that is arguably on par with this PC oculus rift that you speak of but for a lot less money.

No way in the world are sony going to release an accessory for $500 as A: the capture rate for people that own the PS4 to buying this would be what....5% at best? And at 5%, they won't get any developers on board to give it any consideration.

On par with the Oculus Rift and PC? Is this a joke? It *might* be cheaper, but definitely not on par.

The Oculus is objectively superior to Sony's headset. (Oculus is OLED 75Hz screen 100FOV vs Sony's LCD 60Hz screen 90FOV)
PC is objective superior to the PS4. (A high-end gaming PC is over 5 times more powerful as the PS4)

Therefore Oculus + PC is superior to Sony headset + PS4.

 

[kristianity77]

On par with the Oculus Rift and PC? Is this a joke? It *might* be cheaper, but definitely not on par.

The Oculus is objectively superior to Sony's headset. (Oculus is OLED 75Hz screen 100FOV vs Sony's LCD 60Hz screen 90FOV)
PC is objective superior to the PS4. (A high-end gaming PC is over 5 times more powerful as the PS4)

Therefore Oculus + PC is superior to Sony headset + PS4.

Its plainly obvious that the only reason your on this thread though it to just hail to all who will listen about how the PC + the oculus is the better option. Yet anyone who is going to read this thread isn't going to care about that....

 

[Hydrazine]

Its plainly obvious that the only reason your on this thread though it to just hail to all who will listen about how the PC + the oculus is the better option. Yet anyone who is going to read this thread isn't going to care about that....

Alright fine, I get some people don't want the best VR experience. That's completely fine with me.

 

[Joe88]

I think what it is, is that the PC elitist in you just cannot begin to comprehend that something could come out, that is arguably on par with this PC oculus rift that you speak of but for a lot less money.

Now that you mention it, this might be kirito-kun under an alt account

 

[Hydrazine]

Now that you mention it, this might be kirito-kun under an alt account

Isn't Kirito a character from SAO?

 

[Densetsu]

they tried VR already in the 90's...it failed

Yes but why did it fail?

The world wasn't ready for it

Spoiler

Were I rich enough to afford the $180 price tag at the time, I think the red monochrome and overall craptastic graphics probably would've killed it for me. And the abundance of nogaems.

 

[DaVince]

Its plainly obvious that the only reason your on this thread though it to just hail to all who will listen about how the PC + the oculus is the better option. Yet anyone who is going to read this thread isn't going to care about that....

Objectively speaking, though... it is. As was clearly stated through the specs. VR also needs a lot of processing power and the very best hardware - Oculus themselves claim that "good enough" just isn't good enough for the immersive experience. And they're right about this. I'm not sure a 60 Hz LCD display is going to work well when the bare minimum for good immersion seems to be 72 Hz, and Oculus themselves moved from LCD screens to OLED screens to solve one of the major issues they encountered with the prototypes before it.

All that said: Sony still has plenty of time to adjust their specs, and it seems likely to me that they will. Especially since they're not out to make a failing product, and a lot can still change (well, except for the PS4's internal hardware, which is one of the possible issues here).