Posted July 10, 2016
KasperHviid: Yet, while truly breathtaking, its resolution sucks. The visuals are fantastic, but the low-res display makes it feel like some cheap toy from a cereal box. I quickly forgot about the resolution - actually, I find it amusing that we at this day and age still has to deal with geniue crappy resolution. It is a strange mix, subpar, yet futuristic and cutting-edge.
skeletonbow: Wow, you're the first person I've ever heard say that about the production consumer Rift. I've heard many people say that about the DK1 and DK2 developer units before, but they severely ramped up the resolution of the consumer units for the final release (and the Vive matches it as well), so I thought they had the resolution problem sorted out. Can you describe it perhaps a bit more as an experience, how it effects you? I know it's probably hard to describe though. Also, just as an additional side data point, what resolution is your normal day to day computer display, and how big is it? I presume it is 22-24" @ 1920x1080 as that's the most popular however I'm curious how you'd contrast whatever you're using to the visual experience with the Rift.
Oculus Rift has a 1080×1200 px screen for each eye, which is slightly better than the DK2's 960×1080 px. What you should consider here is that we normally watch our screen from a certain distance, as opposite to the Oculus Rift screen which is covering our entire viewing field: When the screen fills out three times as much of our vision, the perceived resolution detail is only a third.
To illustrate what it kinda looks like:
I just took a photograph of a 470x110 pixel image, attached below. Try opening it so it fills out your screen. Now stand up and take a few steps back, so that the pixels in the image are invisible, almost. Now imagine that the entire world around you are like this: It is hyperdetailed and real, but you can notice the screen door effect if you're looking for it.