I don't get why current VR isn't focused on being thin and lightweight.
A fucking phone 10cm away from the face breaks all immersion and looks fucking dumb. Why can't samsung put their bendable OLED displays in to something pic related?
>>53484150
If they could have, they would have.
Because the focus point of your eyes is around 10cm away
>>53484150
They will at some point. The focus at this point is getting VR to work properly at all. Once that's perfected, they can work on making it look prettier.
>>53484184
is there absolutely no way around this?
can glass lenses not trick the eye to a shorter focal range?
can high resolution screens trick the eye into thinking it's focusing farther away?
>>53484150
then do it
>>53484283
The Oculus Rift (just like most other VR headsets) already has a lens so it looks like the screen is infinitely far away to your eyes.
>>53484431
And the frensal lens is expensive
>>53484431
Then, is what op posted currently?
>putting a phone that close to your eyes
Enjoy your cancer or better yet blindness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hLzESOf8SE
>>53484150
We don't have the technology to do so.
>>53484283
You can wear special contact lenses so you can focus on stuff close up.
>>53484150
Give it another 8-10 years (assuming it wont flop completely)
technically, VR has gotten smaller.
VR from the 80's and 90's was only as good as top of the line gaming was. And even arcade games were primarily 2D.
today, while VR headsets might not be that much smaller than 80's and 90's ancestors, there is better technology crammed into the same space. And eventually, that technology will get smaller, and the device with it
>>53487525
but that technology exists now. how hard is it to put a screen and piece of glass in a small box. what is even limiting it? nothing.
>>53488806
Harder than you'd think. Because of the way optics work the screen must be a certain distance from the piece of glass in order to project an image one's retina.
Now there are exotic solutions to this. One is to modify the eye's optics so it can focus on close up stuff:
https://ispr.info/2012/01/19/contact-lenses-upgrade-your-eyes-to-enable-true-immersive-vr/
But now you have to wear contacts in addition to VR glasses.
Another is to use microlens arrays(pic related), but this reduces resolution and requires more computation
Not mention tiny high resolution displays are not currently mass produced. Unlike the repurposed cellphone screens used in most VR today.
One promising possibility is the virtual retina display, which gets rid of the flat display altogether and works by scanning lasers across your eyes.
This has the advantage that you can make any image on the eye you want, change focus depth, and uses very little power. It is hard to do though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display
>>53484939
Or reactive lenses
>>53490196
Is that bottom right photo supposed to be what it looks like? I'd rather just have a screen a few inches from my face if it means it doesn't look like ass.
>>53484543
hurr durr
>>53490455
i'm gonna fork you so hard
>I don't get why current VR isn't focused on being thin and lightweight.
Because first you need a product, then improvements can happen.
its' one thing to make some prototype that literally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, its another thing for a mass produced consumer good.
>>53492446
What's exactly stopping me from
>manufacture cheap china 3k screen prototype
>order +30 dioptre refractive lens
>3dprint an enclosure
There are ways to do this. For now thought it's all very experimental and very far off into the future tech.
>>53490196
why does the screen have to be a certain distance? can't a piece of glass or plastic change focal length?
>>53492619
Do it faggot. Sketch a design and make a bill of materials and we'll tell you why it won't work
>>53492640
See section 3.1 here:
https://research.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/publications/NVIDIA-NELD_0.pdf
>>53492619
Money and motivation. Beer is cheaper
