Meant to be Seen

I hope so much that the FOV of the consumer version will be significant larger.
Do you think it is possible ?
Maybe with use of a smaller panel size ?

best regards FR3D

I hope so too! I would prefer better use of available screen estate though!

Could you explain your rational that a small screen would help ? - Or are you finding the current one too bulky & heavy ?

zacherynuk wrote:I hope so too! I would prefer better use of available screen estate though!

Could you explain your rational that a small screen would help ? - Or are you finding the current one too bulky & heavy ?

I believe the horizonal FOV is currently 90 degrees, and the consumer version is 110 degrees. I believe the verticle FOV will remain the same

the current horizontal is 90 and current diagonal is 110

I don't think they have announced any final specs for the consumer version

zacherynuk wrote:I hope so too! I would prefer better use of available screen estate though!

Could you explain your rational that a small screen would help ? - Or are you finding the current one too bulky & heavy ?

With use of smaller panels e.g. 5" - i assume that the distortion of the lenses will be more easy to be corrected and the sharpness of the picture will be even better .
( on the assumption the consumer version will be a single lens sytem like the developer version )

I'm not an optician - it's just my "feeling"

best regards FR3D

FR3D wrote:I hope so much that the FOV of the consumer version will be significant larger.

increased FOV = decreased angular resolution

Sounds like a bad idea.

A never-ending subjective argument, but personally - if I had to make a choice between resolution and FOV, I would choose FOV every time. The 1080p screens feels completely sufficient for my needs and all I every want to do now is pull back the "ski-goggle" edges and push all the way into the scene. FYI: These are my personal opinions as a VR enthusiast, and I am in no way a decision maker on the hardware specs.

Edit: Or put specifically - if I could somehow spread 1920x1080 across a wider FOV so that the optical density was equivalent to the Dev Kit, I would prefer that to 1920x1080 within the same FOV at an increased optical density.

brantlew wrote:A never-ending subjective argument, but personally - if I had to make a choice between resolution and FOV, I would choose FOV every time..

whole-heartedly agree. I would gladly trade some peripheral resolution for some FOV.

jpkrautw wrote:

brantlew wrote:A never-ending subjective argument, but personally - if I had to make a choice between resolution and FOV, I would choose FOV every time..

whole-heartedly agree. I would gladly trade some peripheral resolution for some FOV.

You might not have too, there is unused screenspace that could be used for low res fov.

Id love to see a slightly greater FOV tbh, it is a little smaller than I hoped on the dev kit, still amazing but just a little bigger would be great

I'd rather go with bigger resolution and keep the FOV more or less the same

Why not both?

Get rid of the round lenses and see more of the screen. That would help increase FOV/immersion with a high resolution panel of the right size.

You either need a curved screen, two screens or different lenses in order to get a greater horisontal fov. Screen size has little relevence when it comes to horisontal fov.

I really hope the FOV is almost completely immersive when the consumer version is released however. Perhaps not 180 but at least closer to that number than to 100 so we get rid of the binocular/skimask effect.

Inscothen wrote:Why not both?

Get rid of the round lenses and see more of the screen. That would help increase FOV/immersion with a high resolution panel of the right size.

The lenses are what makes you able to actually focus on what you are seeing, and the FOV would be way lower without them.

"Get rid of the round lenses..."

I meant change from round to a different shape like more of a rectangle.

The current fov works for me. Adding a bit would be great, but it's currently so much better then anything else on the market.

I DO think they need to keep ahead of everyone else on the market (and, yes, there will be a lot of companies trying to make their own).

If another company comes up with a 180 degree fov, they will take over the market. But same with resolution (especially because it's an easy selling point, but not all that important. reducing the dot pitch / screen door would help more then resolution imho).

IE, they need to do both or a Sony/MS/ect will try and drown them out of the market.

btw, if they came up with a dual lens setup. Wouldn't this allow them to do a bunch more for fov and have a smaller LCD? Maybe even allow it to get closer to the eye?
btw2, is there a reason (other then external looks) to goto a 5" screen? weight could help a bit, but the current weight is a non-issue to me?
btw3, is multi btw really show that I didn't think about what I wanted to say when I started the post?

Lilwolf wrote:btw2, is there a reason (other then external looks) to goto a 5" screen? weight could help a bit, but the current weight is a non-issue to me?

The size of the panel and the style of the optics are intrinsically linked. The current 7" panel is actually a bit too large; there is a non-trivial amount of wasted screen space around the peripheral of the screen, because you just can't see it. A smaller screen than the current dev kit's will have less wasted, non-visible pixels, resulting in a higher perceived resolution, even if the actual resolution remained the same (note that there is also a minimum screen size we'd like, because if you go too small you can see the edges of the screen).