cgp44 wrote:...Regarding a lens for dual displays, you are reducing the magnification by 2 (sqrt 2?)
so you see a larger area of the screen. Has anyone explored this and found a source?...
I did try many lenses in my iPad retina screen Frankenrift fun. Also lenses with less magnification (2.4x, 3x, fresnels, etc.).
I can tell you, that if using the original RiftDK housing it is not optimal to use lenses with a big difference in magnification than the RiftDK, because the size of the housing is optimized for the magnification of the riftDK lenses. To use MORE magnification is stupid because making screendoor, pixelization worse. To use LESS magnification you INCREASE the area viewed on the screen, so screendoor and pixelization is much better, BUT you have to also increase the overall diameter of the rendered picture to fit if you do not change the distance lens to screen. This is what i first did with my iPad retina Frankenrift. I used less magnification (around half, one fresnel only) and doubled the distance lens to screen (~10cm). Worked good, BUT was heavy as hell on my nose and VERY bulky. Also there is a much bigger area of the eye seperator visible.
So what you propose will not work with the standard distance to the screen, and if you put two screens in greater distance you will see the up&down (landscape) or left&right (portrait) borders BIG TIME.
I.m.h.o., a dual setup is only a way to go if you do a complete DIY like the InfinitEYE, OR you want to use exactly the same screen area as the RiftDK, so no hassle with the reduced screen area, but you have to use a dual 5.9" setup for that. And double weight of screen plus driver board for something which will very likely not be a problem when faking EDID is the way i will only go if i have no other option...
EDIT for mixing up screen area size