Pimax 8K VR Headset Hands-on: Swimming in Color

daworstplaya

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2009
165
100
18,760
0
This 8k headset is a gimmic. So many things wrong with it:

1. The 8k image is up-sampled using a chip, the original signal is 5k.
2. The display is only only 80fps, I guessing due to the up-sampling chip.
3. The actual PPI isn't that much better than the HTC Vive Pro.
4. It's an LCD screen, so the black/dark images aren't going to be as good a AMOLED displays in other headsets.
5. Seems to be cheaply made, reports of headsets already failing.

Linus Tech Tips did a great review on the prototypes, which were basically crap. I'll wait for HTC and Oculus to come out with their true 2nd gen headsets, thanks.
 

computerguy72

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2011
188
0
18,690
1
I finally received Pimax and it blows away my Vive Pro in literally every way. You can see and read things that were not visible at all before. The wide FOV is stunning. To the dude that says Linus did a review - he posted a new one and liked Pimax a lot.
 

rabbit4me1

Commendable
Jan 2, 2017
24
0
1,520
1
Forget this junk.im still waiting for 3d TV's with no glasses needed...now that would be awesome. More wasted web pages with a senseless article.
 
Jan 15, 2019
1
0
10
0
First, CLPL is an interesting way to spell LCD.

Second, you know the editor is making stuff up when they write about "OLED lenses".

And they finally lost me at "hand controllers are supposed to have Leap Motion hand tracking" (Leap Motion provides controller-less solutions for hand tracking).

Also, I just noticed this photo of Tom's Hardware's expert holding the left motion controller... with their right hand.
 

Rob_54

Commendable
Oct 21, 2016
6
1
1,510
0


Yep, I'd hope for better on Tom's.
 

I'm waiting for a 360 degree spherical OLED 3D room-television. In effect, it will be much like a VR headset, only costing as much a small house. : 3

The problem with glasses-free 3D is that you need to direct a pair of different images to the eyes of each viewer. So, either the viewers need to carefully align themselves with some predetermined positions and not move their head more than a few centimeters to the left or right to retain the 3D effect, or the screen needs to perform some form of eye tracking and adjust lenses on the front of its panel to allow viewers to sit wherever they want and move around. The first option would be more or less impractical as a consumer product, since being forced to sit in precise positions to properly view the 3D image would be far less comfortable than putting on a pair of special glasses. The second option tends to only really work well for a single viewer, and would not really work when multiple viewers are involved. So, you don't hear much about glasses-free 3D TVs for the simple fact that at least with today's technology, it probably wouldn't work very well under normal usage scenarios. The Nintendo 3DS was able to get away with this since it's a handheld device that the user can better position to give them a proper view of the 3D scene, though even there it can feel a bit restricting. They added eye tracking with the "New 3DS" to allow the viewer more freedom in positioning, but still the device is only intended for a single viewer.

And the most important thing you're not considering is that VR offers a completely different and far more immersive experience than simply viewing content on a 3D screen. In VR, one is actually surrounded by the scene, and isn't just watching it through a little stationary window. It's not simply a matter of having a stereoscopic effect, as that's only a small part of what VR involves. The main part of VR is that you can look around wherever you want, and feel like you're within the environment, which is something a television can't really replicate.
 

Jeff Fx

Reputable
Jan 2, 2015
328
0
4,780
0


I found wireless to be a hassle, but that was with the TPCast. Outages during co-op VR sessions made it unacceptable. I wouldn't give up the screen of my Odyssey+ to go back to a Vive and wireless now, but do look forward to going back to wireless in the future..

 

Diji1

Distinguished
Oct 29, 2012
32
0
18,530
0
>I wouldn't give up the screen of my Odyssey+

The Oddysee's high resolution screen is basically pointless because they used terrible lenses that blur large percentages of it in a typically poor design decision from Samsung.
 

JollyGreen

Honorable
Jan 25, 2013
9
0
10,510
0
3840x2160 x 2 isn't even 8k.

You would need 4 - 4k monitors to get an 8k resolution.
Yes it is... 8k is any resolution that is 8k pixels across, which that is. It's just not 8k UHD, which is the highest standard 8k resolution, and the quadruple 4k UHD (4k is the same, 4k pixels across) that you're talking about.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS