Oops, didnt see that. Though I think I would rather be blind than wear a VR set with SXGA resolution.
The minimum for VR devices should be in the 33 Megapixel range (per eye). Like the UHDV standard exept stereoscopic. Then I think VR might actually kick off.
Uhm.. 1280x1024 per eye for VR is already extremely kicking.. I would love to see a 'cheap' VR-helmet having a resolution like that.. 640x480 per eye is already good looking, so twice the resolution is awesome (some people think more pixels is better, but there is a limit ofcourse, your computer should be able to handle 2x 1280x1024 with everything set on high, and that's a showstopper for most computers as they can't handle that...
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"...all manners of simulation devices"
Oops, didnt see that. Though I think I would rather be blind than wear a VR set with SXGA resolution.
The minimum for VR devices should be in the 33 Megapixel range (per eye). Like the UHDV standard exept stereoscopic. Then I think VR might actually kick off.
Uhm.. 1280x1024 per eye for VR is already extremely kicking.. I would love to see a 'cheap' VR-helmet having a resolution like that.. 640x480 per eye is already good looking, so twice the resolution is awesome (some people think more pixels is better, but there is a limit ofcourse, your computer should be able to handle 2x 1280x1024 with everything set on high, and that's a showstopper for most computers as they can't handle that...
Why 33 megapixels? Is that equivalent to the resolving ability of human sight?
Sorry, I was so taken aback that I stopped reading at 33 megapixels, so I missed the "UHDV standard" part.