cant anyone who has tried dk2, cv1 and vive put this to bed as nonsense??

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
because if not it is pretty worrying imo and got me hovering over that cancel button.

alleged comparison of FOV of different HMDs

http://imgur.com/p4le5Vx

i gotta admit those shots have got me worried....... DK2 FOV was ok, but IF those shots are legit, CV1 is a step back, and vive is 2 steps forward.

I really want to get the CV1 over VIVE...... but if those shots are correct I have a big decision to make... roll on reliable confirmed comparisons between the 2.

https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/com...zero_on_twitch_stream_confirms_fov_as/d1hgi7j
 

Spam

Spam
Couldn't someone who has had a direct comparison already do this by comparing the immersiveness of the larger DK1's FOV against the smaller DK2's FOV? Visual fidelity aside I this a good enough baseline?
Does FOV even matter that much in these smallish tolerances when the 6of headtracking provides more of a boost?
And how much of the screen past dead centre do you actually need and your eyes actually use?

Dunno.
 

shadragon

shadragon
OP - FoV is a minor part of the HMD overall. If you get decent framerate, no judder or tearing and a smooth experience with either hardware set, you'll be fine. Both are premium devices and should do what you need done.

Comparing raw specs between manufacturers is never a good idea (AMD / Intel, Beta / VHS, BMW / Mercedes, etc.) All that matters is how well you enjoy the experience. Those images are misleading as one device can use their screen real estate a lot more efficiently than the other.
 

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
shadragon said:
OP - FoV is a minor part of the HMD overall. If you get decent framerate, no judder or tearing and a smooth experience with either hardware set, you'll be fine. Both are premium devices and should do what you need done.

Comparing raw specs between manufacturers is never a good idea (AMD / Intel, Beta / VHS, BMW / Mercedes, etc.) All that matters is how well you enjoy the experience. Those images are misleading as one device can use their screen real estate a lot more efficiently than the other.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right, and i would normally suck it and see.... but its a lot of dough..... i loved my DK2 and never had an issue with FOV...... but I would not want it any LESS than that.
 

JohnnyLee

J
OP, from the YouTube comparisons on the CV1 and Vive, there is a very big difference in the FOV. They said that's the first thing you notice. CV1 is like looking through a coffee can. Vive has a much better FOV and that is why I am buying that one.
 
Last edited:

Frank

Frank
JohnnyLee said:
OP, from the YouTube comparisons on the CV1 and Vive, there is a very big difference in the FOV. They said that's the first thing you notice. CV1 is like looking through a coffee can. Vive has a much better FOV and that is why I am buying that one.
Click to expand...

Weirdly, it's the narrower field of view that's attracting me to the CV1. I can imagine that both headsets will be great but I'm more interested in the headset whose image is more tightly packed and so shows a less pronounced screen door effect.
 

jabokai

jabokai
Depends what you read, and where. What I have gathered from several sources is that the Vive has a greater vertical FOV, but you can see the fresnel lenses, whereas the Rift has a shorter vertical FOV (but, anecdotally, about the same horizontal as the Vive) but a better quality image and no evidence of the fresnel lenses.
 

gapper4

gapper4
Frank said:
Weirdly, it's the narrower field of view that's attracting me to the CV1. I can imagine that both headsets will be great but I'm more interested in the headset whose image is more tightly packed and so shows a less pronounced screen door effect.
Click to expand...

I've read several reviews stating that the FOV on the CV1 is at least as good as the DK2. FOV changes somewhat with eye-to-lens distance.
 
Last edited:

Spam

Spam
Is it a trade off? Lower FOV means higher pixel density?

Again, just how much of this is just specmanship. Would you buy a Ferrari that went 0 - 60 in 3.5 seconds over a car you preferred that does it in 3.6 seconds?

I think the bigger picture stuff like seated/standing or room scale/hand controllers would be a bigger driver.

Ah, first world problems :-]
 

dubsdj

dubsdj
I wonder if the CV2 will have lenses that are bent around your eyes so that when you look left or right with just your eyeballs you see surroundings. If I were you I would Probably seriously consider sticking with DK2 until the next consumer release of the rift. Not only will it come down in price as the market is flooded with these devices.

Sounds to me that DK2 does the job pretty well. I tried DK2 with 1.3 last night and I was surprised how well it ran... ok my left and right control keys stop working for some reason but thats just a minor thing.

I reckon that when the time comes and VR allows you to look left and right without turning your head (looking out the corner of your eye), then they would have truly nailed it. I am not a betting man but I don't think that is far off at all. I would say another year. Stick with DK2 unless forced to upgrade (Lets hope not).
 
Last edited:

Sir.Tj

The Moderator who shall not be Blamed....
Volunteer Moderator
Sir.Tj
dubsdj said:
I wonder if the CV2 will have lenses that are bent around your eyes so that when you look left or right with just your eyeballs you see surroundings. If I were you I would Probably seriously consider sticking with DK2 until the next consumer release of the rift.

Sounds to me that DK2 does the job pretty well. I tried DK2 with 1.3 last night and I was surprised how well it ran... ok my left and right control keys stop working for some reason but thats just a minor thing.

I reckon that when the time comes and VR allows you to look left and right without turning your head (looking out the corner of your eye), then they would have truly nailed it. I don't think that is far off, maybe another year or so.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with this, the next generation specs of VR or a new player to the market will keep things interesting to say the least.

But the DK2 FOV is ok, not brilliant but you soon forget.
 

catanonia

C
Thread has been debunked as scare mongering. When will people learn not to constantly repeat unconfirmed internet speak and treat them as gospel.

The guys that made these images have just posted this:


[–]ZeroInformation 27 points an hour ago

I do apologize for the comment about the measured FOV and was actually going to contact you about this just now. As I said, I never measured it myself and it does look bigger than DK2's and marginally bigger than the Vive's. FOV doesn't work how you think it does. In reality your eye doesn't touch the lense and your eye's cornea doesn't rotate around the eye's perfect center. There is a reason Brandon isn't showing you a comparison of the stereo overlap and the combined FOV of both viewports. It doesn't fit his biased narrative.
In reality you don't get a 110° FOV with a DK1 or a 100° FOV with a DK2. The rendered FOV is not representative of the perceived one. None of the headsets give you a perfect 1:1 translation from rendered to perceived FOV and in my case and from what my co-workers say the perceived FOV of CV1 is higher than that of DK2.
The Rift uses hybrid lenses. The Vive does have circular flare-like artefacts but they are not too bad and the Rift doesn't have them at all.
I stand by that. I don't see artefacts with CV1 and barely with the Vive.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
catanonia said:
Thread has been debunked as scare mongering. When will people learn not to constantly repeat unconfirmed internet speak and treat them as gospel.
Click to expand...

hey i read it, and asked for people who had experienced it to debunk it.

i was not treating as gospel at all...... I thought the point of forums was to ask questions about this sort of thing. thanks for the info, it really is appreciated but no need to be so condescending about it.

PS my post was made way more than an hr ago, so that info was not available when i asked.

Sorry for not having my crystal ball with me but i left it at home today :p
 
Last edited:

Frank

Frank
Spam said:
Is it a trade off? Lower FOV means higher pixel density?

Again, just how much of this is just specmanship. Would you buy a Ferrari that went 0 - 60 in 3.5 seconds over a car you preferred that does it in 3.6 seconds?

I think the bigger picture stuff like seated/standing or room scale/hand controllers would be a bigger driver.

Ah, first world problems :-]
Click to expand...

It's even closer than that... Sorry but I do love to stretch a metaphor.

It like the two cars have roughly the same power but are geared differently. It comes down to personal taste as to whether you want faster acceleration or a higher top speed. But when it comes down to it, both cars are great.
 

megadonkeyx

M
this got me thinking about the fresnel lenses used in the cv1 and vive, wow the vive has some monster ridges all pictures of the cv1 i see look like smooth glass.
anyone with a vive, are those fresnel ridges visible when your peepers are up close? i would hate that more than a lesser fov. i hope not, i paid htc with paypal to make it less easy for me to back out.
ocd mode.
 

D4RK5T4R

D4RK5T4R
Just a heads up.

Scan.co.uk are offering a Vive demo at their Bolton Headquarters.

Might be useful for UK members

RPhtBa5.png
 
Last edited:

catanonia

C
Mad Mike said:
hey i read it, and asked for people who had experienced it to debunk it.

i was not treating as gospel at all...... I thought the point of forums was to ask questions about this sort of thing. thanks for the info, it really is appreciated but no need to be so condescending about it.

PS my post was made way more than an hr ago, so that info was not available when i asked.

Sorry for not having my crystal ball with me but i left it at home today :p
Click to expand...

Apologies, I was not trying to offend and didn't word that at all correctly. There has been a lot of Vive pre-orderer's out there trying to find anything to debunk the CV1 this week and this is the latest.

Sorry.
 

Scrat

Scrat
The FOV of a single lense gives nearly no information about the FOV of the combined stereo image. All you could say from these images is the maximum possible fov you can perceive in 3d is bigger on the vive. But because we don't know how the images overlap we don't know the perceived fov. If you close one eye in reallife you notice it is only a rather small part in the middle of the view which overlaps and the rest of the view is only obtained by one eye. I guess the rift sort of mimics this.

Edit: And it seems the vive has a slightly bigger fov than cv1 but not by such a big amount as these images imply.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom