The article focuses on movie viewing but this is just as applicable to the concept of using it as a virtual workstation monitor (or several), the effective resolution of the virtual monitor is tied to how much of your field of view it covers. Even if the headset can resolve ~4K on a giant screen that fills your entire field of view, that's not going to be comfortable or ergonomic for a workstation monitor, and as you scale it down in virtual space it drops to an effective 1440p... 1080p... 720p...
Especially for Apple enthusiasts who have been spoiled by >200dpi laptops and >450dpi phones, I think the practical resolution you get out of a "4K per eye" headset is going to underwhelm.
> Even if the headset can resolve ~4K on a giant screen that fills your entire field of view, that's not going to be comfortable or ergonomic for a workstation monitor
Could you elaborate on this a bit?
I know that most people use a 24"-30" monitor, but there are plenty of people who want max screen real estate and either use a large TV, or multiple monitors which add up to a large TV in size.
I don't see a lot of difference between what you're describing and using a 48" TV as a monitor. The reviews of people who have tried this suggest that it many not be the best for gaming, but for productivity and watching video, it's pretty great.
If I understand correctly they are saying the headset is the 4k screen, and then you are taking a subset of that and creating a floating monitor on it, thus not having the full 4k dedicated to whatever you are doing on that floating monitor inside the AR environment.
I mean sure but this is quite unimaginative thinking. Why would you use a VR workspace as just a virtual desk and monitor? I would love to have just VSCode on my main “monitor” for example and then my music can be out of sight to my right or left that I can turn to if I ever need to change it. Right now I have so much packed in the browser tabs and windows open on my OS.
Just basic apps like notes and calendar would be much better in a “spatial” OS
When I am doing desk work, I want to avoid turning. It’s bad for the neck and back. I could have several monitors at my desk if I asked for them, but me (and my coworkers) usually stick to one or two because the ergonomics are better.
Typically when I see people sitting close to ~48" 4K TVs for productivity they have to rely on window tiling to make it more akin to using four 24" 1080p monitors that happen to be joined together, the display is simply too big to comfortably work fullscreen like you can on a dense 24-27" 4K-5K monitor, which is the "Retina experience" that Mac users are accustomed to. A TV gives you the 4K pixel count, but distributed over so much area that in practice you can only focus on a small subset of it at once, which is basically the same problem the Vision Pro has.
I've had to do this lately and apart from the fact that my portable pc can only do 4K at 30Hz it works quite well and gives you LOTS of room for putting HD sized windows aside but that you can glance as needed. Does anyone have the same experience ?
I use a 43" 4k TV, and I find that splitting the monitor into full height 1/3s is the most useful to me. Vertical resolution is gold for software reading and writing. And 1/3 of the screen is typically enough width that most websites don't look oddly cramped.
Let's see... my 1920x1200 monitor is about 20" wide and my eyes are usually about 20" away from it. That's 60 degrees of vision. I don't know what the horizontal FOV for the AVP is, but found a claim of 110 degrees online. If that's true, I should have around 2000 pixels (horizontal) available for my 1920 monitor. That sounds good on paper, but having used virtual screens in VR I can assure you it's not.
The virtual screen has to be scaled to fit the space it's supposed to occupy on your headset's display. Thanks to perspective, the virtual screen will never scale linearly with your headset's display no matter where you position it relative to your head. And every time you move your head, that scaling will shift slightly.
I'd guess a 1080p virtual screen at comfortable viewing distance in the AVP will be a muddled mess.
Adding to this, your 24" (I think?) 1200p monitor is on the lower end of pixel density at 94dpi, so even if the Vision Pro can produce a similar experience to your monitor it would still be a significant downgrade from any computer display that Apple currently makes, which nowadays are 220-250dpi across the board.
Yeah, it's just a basic 24" Dell office monitor from 2014. Actually, I have two of them.
The primary appeal of the VR desktop is that you'd effectively have infinite screens which can dynamically adapt to the content. But I suspect the sacrifice to visual clarity will be enough to scare away most people from using it that way.
Maybe it would work with 8K+ displays? If you can crank the DPI high enough, I could see the VR desktop taking off. I just think 4K probably isn't enough to make it worthwhile for most people - at least not for extended, professional use.
Yeah, this is all solvable if they can increase the resolution enough. That's not really up to Apple though, they're already on the absolute bleeding edge of display technology with the Vision Pro so now they have to wait for the display manufacturers to come up with something better, and get the prices down.
So the last time I went to a conference, I squeezed a 4K monitor into a suitcase, which was basically empty apart from that (other than 4K monitors, I tend to travel light). Coding on an MBP is possible but for the stuff I do, I tend to have multiple apps running at once, and it's so much easier with real-estate on the screen.
If I can put one of these things in my carry-on, use it during the flight, and still have a 4K-like experience with the monitor in the hotel bedroom for the 3-5 days I'm at the conference, I'm in.
Especially for Apple enthusiasts who have been spoiled by >200dpi laptops and >450dpi phones, I think the practical resolution you get out of a "4K per eye" headset is going to underwhelm.