I've made detailed review on new Vuzix Wrap 920 Augmented Reality HMD.
It's on VRtifacts: http://www.vrtifacts.com/hmds/vuzix-wra ... -hands-on/
![Image](http://max.in.ua/01_wrap_ar.jpg)
![Image](http://max.in.ua/15_netbook.jpg)
![Image](http://max.in.ua/22_inside_3.jpg)
Enjoy, hope you will like an article!
So do all the Wrap 920's have these new optics and we would hope the Wrap 1200 will ?PalmerTech wrote: I am glad to hear that the quality of the optics is improved over the VR920, bodes well for the VR1200.
I also thought it's 640 x 480, even guys from Vuzix say so. But, when I got the device I found that 1024 x 768 mode looks much better than I expected and also a screen itself is a little wider than 4:3 aspect ratio. I tried to run a few test's to get "real" resolution, but get confused quickly3dvison wrote:Hey Johnny your artical says, "Wrap 920 AR have two true 752 x 480 LCD color screens which are located inside visual module casings and project image down into lens/prism system"
Are the LCD screens you look at 752x480 ? I thought all the Wrap 920's and VR920 were 640x480 ?
So what is H and W? Height and Width? Horizontal and... Doesn't match up. Maybe they made other typos.752H x 480W
Can be typos, but they could use some other type of screens in AR version. I'm not sure that my unit have 640 x 480 screens (even if it's pretty logical for Vuzix to use the same visual module). But even if it is 640x480, just like in regular Wrap 920, it looks superior than VR920.cybereality wrote:Thats interesting if Vuzix did this. Kind of strange, seeing as the 1200 line uses 852 x 480 panels, and there are a bunch of models with the 640x480 displays. Wouldn't it be cheaper to use the same panel, and not some odd resolution like 752x480 for just a low-volume product like the 920AR? Maybe its just a typo? I mean it says:So what is H and W? Height and Width? Horizontal and... Doesn't match up. Maybe they made other typos.752H x 480W
Thank you! I really forgot, now it's fixed, link is in the postcybereality wrote:Very cool. I think you forgot the link to the source code, though.