Thanks for the Interview... I must say that I was little concerned after your last video about your experience in VR1. Got to try it last Friday in Prague and boy, was it perfect. I can confirm that I have seen no distortion you described. So hopefully Artur will be able to send you a test unit.
That is great news! Thank you for the info... I find myself getting more hopeful that I just encountered a software glitch or something wasn't right and trying the VR1 again will yield a different result for me. I guess time will tell. Thanks for watching.
It looks like I'm the first to like and comment on this video. Thanks for uploading this longer/full version of the interview! While the distortion you (and a few others) saw is still a little concerning, the consistency with which Artur and others working at Somnium have confidently stated the settings offered in their software will enable each person to easily adjust the warping/distortion profiles as needed to make the image as perfect for them as possible has been confidence inspiring. It is also nice to have now seen multiple people speaking excitedly about how clear everything is through the VR1's they have tried and how comfortable it is now. I definitely don't share your perspective about price in general, but I understand things can't always be as cheap as other products tend to make us used to. That said, the price still stings, especially when looking at the difference for just adding eye tracking - this is why I ordered a Classic instead of a Visionary. That was not a decision I wanted to make, and I still do not understand how that price gap can be justified. I am still looking forward to receiving, testing, and enjoying the VR1, so I'm watching all the content and opinions on it I can! Thanks again!
You are welcome and thanks for watching. Honestly if I truly find the blacks to be OLED like and no glare I'll have to consider getting this... I'm assuming what I saw was a fluke or bad software setting for that morning or something. Now I never said the price wouldn't "sting" believe me it does... but if this headset delivers, then I shouldn't need to buy another one for a long time. I think you are wise to buy the Classic... I've been thinking about it and for the extra $500 (or so) you would get eye tracking that would help in DCS... if I take that $500 and apply it to a new RTX 5090, then I get improvement across the board. At least that is my current thinking on it right now. Please do let me know what you think when you get yours. I'm still cautiously optimistic that this is the headset I've been waiting for for a long time. I guess we will see. Thanks for being first, and thanks for leaving a comment.
Interesting conversation👍. I know you were wearing contacts and not glasses, but a extra lens can cause issues irrespective of were it sits from your eyes. There is no guarantee that the contact lens was optically perfect.
Ya I get that, but I think if that was the issue I'd see it in other VR experiences as well don't you think? Unless it just has something to do with the dual aspheric lens design of the VR1? Plus I've had corrected vision for a LONG TIME, and this didn't feel like a normal "bad vision" experience... it was too pronounced and localized, I hope that makes sense? Thanks for watching and the comment.
@@seattime4075 No not with glasses, I had very limited time with the headset as I had to work the Expo that day. I'd love to get one to test and see if it was just a fluke deal or if I still see the distortion, maybe Artur will have an extra demo unit to send my way someday. We will see.
@@Rlmfx Yes that was also talked about in his first review video, but is not what we are talking about here. Go back to his last video and have a look at the time stamp 'computer recreation of my visual issue'. All the best.
Very good you made this interview. There is something though that in my opinion is quite frustrating and we never ever hear about it, neither from Somnium, nor from Pimax or others. Speaking of image quality everyone talks about hardware and GPU. But hardware doesn't matter if you don't have the bandwidth! Now if we talk about "futureproof" products, I never even once heard to mention any reason why sticking to DP1.4 instead of DP2.1 (RTX5000 cards will have DP2.1 ports), especially that DP2.1 is backward compatible. Please ask this major question next time, or if you have any answer, be so kind to tell it.
That is a great question... I think DP1.4 is fully capable of delivering the bandwidth of current headsets. There is no compression from a direst DP port and I think the reason everyone talks about the GPU is because that is the bottleneck... the GPU can't push the frames and it's not an issue that the frames are being generated and just not transmitted if that makes sense. I'm sure down the road they will switch to DP2.1 but for now I don't think it is needed quite yet. I'll try to ask this question if I get Artur back on the channel and that way you can get an "official" answer. If anyone else in the comments is an expert at this, please share your info as mine is just an educated guess. Thanks for the question.
@@GYGOtv Thanks for your response. I'm not an expert either, but here is what I think. So VR1 uses 4K per eye resolution. If you want to run the headset native on 120Hz you will need to display 240 4K images per second, right? (Not to mention Crystal Super with 3840x3840 resolution...). Now I'm not sure even RTX5090 will be able to do that and due to other DP limitations some compression will be inevitable, but the less compression you have on your image the better it is, right? DP1.4 has got a total bandwidth of 32,4 Gbps while DP2.1 offers 80 Gbps, which is a significant difference. VESA announced version 2.1 of the DisplayPort standard on the 17th of October 2022, which was almost two years ago, former AMD cards already had been manufactured with DP2.1 ports, so it is not a new technology at all. And from this point of view I'm not really interested about that present GPUs are not capable of delivering this performance. Sure they can't. BUT you see people still use 5-6 years old headsets to this day! And some years from now GPUs will easily handle those requirements we struggle with today. So again: if we do have DP2.1 technology for two years now, and it offers almost triple the bandwidth of DP1.4 and if DP2.1 is backward compatible to DP1.4, then WHAT could be the reason not making these headsets at full potential regarding futureproof usage? This is beyond my comprehension.
@@Szabby999 I get your theory there and I think it comes down to "squeaky wheel gets the grease". So as you mentioned, no video card is capable of pushing 240 4k images per second ESPECIALLY with flight sims... Hell you are lucky to get 90 (with Dynamic Foveated Rendering). Because this hasn't been an issue yet I don't think anyone is worrying about it. PLUS price is always an issue so I'd guess DP2.1 comes with a higher cost to implement than 1.4... so if 1.4 works then why spend the extra? Again I get what you are saying with future proofing, but realistically we are probably 2 generations of video cards from being able to push that kind of performance (more likely 3 for mainstream instead of the premium XX90 series doing it) so you are talking another 5 years anyway before 2.1 would be needed. By then new VR tech will likely lead to you getting a newer headset then... and I bet it WILL have that 2.1 standard included. Again just my armchair thoughts but that is what I got for you. Great question!
@@GYGOtv Thanks, I think you write really good points here and it makes sense. And what about RTX5090? This GPU is in the corner and I'm wondering if DP1.4 will be enough when you max out that card (which surely will get DP2.1 ports).
Mark, any thoughts about PSVR2? Was a sale recently, I missed it, but might be another one. True oled, I believe. Or will there be disappointment as several features (hdr etc) are said to not cross over to the pc? I wonder how important hdr really is.
The problem with the PSVR2 is that is uses Fresnel lenses, which are worst than Pancake as far as glare and god rays. I was thinking to myself, I might be tempted to try it if it gets down to about $300 but I can't see using it over the Crystal. From what I understand it has bad mura and also a pretty small FOV. I don't know... we will see if it gets cheap. As for HDR, probably not as big a deal, the glare will be the big problem. Thanks for the question and watching our channel.
I've already purchased my VR1 Ultimate, but OLED is better. Period. My Oculus CV1 had OLEDs and it was awesome. No other headset to date has come close to giving me that contrast. Period. Modern oleds are fast and look better than LCD screens. Now maybe there is a difference between the small screens in a VR headset and TVs/monitors, but OLED tech is superior.
Man I agree with you 100%!!!!! I think what Artur is missing is that those Deep Blacks add so much immersion in certain scenarios. I understand you can't get as big of FOV with OLED... but I DON'T CARE about that. I'll take a smaller FOV and OLED any day of the week. I'm just hopeful that Somnium's Local Dimming is as good as Artrur says it is.. then I might be satisfied until a new headset comes out with OLED panels behind Aspheric Lenses (my dream headset!). Thanks for the comment!
@@GYGOtv fov has nothing to do with OLED vs LCD. You can have just as wide of fov with either display tech. Now if you're talking about pancake lenses and something like the big screen beyond that is a bit different, those are tiny displays. The aero uses aspheric lenses and could get the exact same fov with LCD or standard OLEDs.
@@GYGOtv it's possibly the VR1 would just be to expensive with quality OLEDs though. It bugs me a bit he is willing to die on the hill that LCD is better than OLED. It's just not.
@@sirgriffinman Ya I was referring to Micro OLEDS... At Somnium Connect they did a whole presentation justifying the uses of LCD vs. Micro OLED because of the Field of View ua-cam.com/video/uOKWjW6SZVk/v-deo.html This is what I was referencing.
@@sirgriffinman You are preaching to the choir... I will admit that there is smearing (or ghosting) possible with fast action with OLED, I saw it when dogfighting jets with my Vive Pro and that is simply the lag time to turn off the pixels in OLED but I'm fine with that to get the rest of the benefits from OLED. I think that is the position he is taking for the benefit for gaming etc. Again IF his local dimming can get close to OLED blacks then you could make the argument it is better because of the lack of smearing/ghosting, but that would be the tradeoff where I'm sure you will still have some bloom with local dimming unless your dimming zones match your screen resolution. You are probably right however, a quality OLED would make the headset too expensive. Personally I'd pay $5000 for a good OLED Panel behind Aspheric Lenses but I'm sure I'm a small minority that would.
it does look like the bottom 5 percent is warped and the lines are bending in a slight u shape downward in the TTL artur sent. But maybe your corrective contacts exaggerated that. The headset also looks too deep which has to make it too front heavy
Surprisingly it wasn't too heavy to me... but I've been running the OG Crystal with a weighted comfort kit so maybe it is all relative. The warping on the bottom went away once I got the headset a little lower on my face. The only problem I still had was that distortion bubble that I talk about in my first impressions video ua-cam.com/video/1xKzWlDOk8s/v-deo.html If you haven't watched that one, this is a follow-up to that original video. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for the Interview... I must say that I was little concerned after your last video about your experience in VR1. Got to try it last Friday in Prague and boy, was it perfect. I can confirm that I have seen no distortion you described. So hopefully Artur will be able to send you a test unit.
That is great news! Thank you for the info... I find myself getting more hopeful that I just encountered a software glitch or something wasn't right and trying the VR1 again will yield a different result for me. I guess time will tell. Thanks for watching.
It looks like I'm the first to like and comment on this video.
Thanks for uploading this longer/full version of the interview!
While the distortion you (and a few others) saw is still a little concerning, the consistency with which Artur and others working at Somnium have confidently stated the settings offered in their software will enable each person to easily adjust the warping/distortion profiles as needed to make the image as perfect for them as possible has been confidence inspiring.
It is also nice to have now seen multiple people speaking excitedly about how clear everything is through the VR1's they have tried and how comfortable it is now.
I definitely don't share your perspective about price in general, but I understand things can't always be as cheap as other products tend to make us used to. That said, the price still stings, especially when looking at the difference for just adding eye tracking - this is why I ordered a Classic instead of a Visionary. That was not a decision I wanted to make, and I still do not understand how that price gap can be justified.
I am still looking forward to receiving, testing, and enjoying the VR1, so I'm watching all the content and opinions on it I can! Thanks again!
You are welcome and thanks for watching. Honestly if I truly find the blacks to be OLED like and no glare I'll have to consider getting this... I'm assuming what I saw was a fluke or bad software setting for that morning or something. Now I never said the price wouldn't "sting" believe me it does... but if this headset delivers, then I shouldn't need to buy another one for a long time. I think you are wise to buy the Classic... I've been thinking about it and for the extra $500 (or so) you would get eye tracking that would help in DCS... if I take that $500 and apply it to a new RTX 5090, then I get improvement across the board. At least that is my current thinking on it right now. Please do let me know what you think when you get yours. I'm still cautiously optimistic that this is the headset I've been waiting for for a long time. I guess we will see. Thanks for being first, and thanks for leaving a comment.
Thank you for my request
You are very welcome, I hope you enjoyed it! Thank You for watching our content!
Interesting conversation👍. I know you were wearing contacts and not glasses, but a extra lens can cause issues irrespective of were it sits from your eyes. There is no guarantee that the contact lens was optically perfect.
Ya I get that, but I think if that was the issue I'd see it in other VR experiences as well don't you think? Unless it just has something to do with the dual aspheric lens design of the VR1? Plus I've had corrected vision for a LONG TIME, and this didn't feel like a normal "bad vision" experience... it was too pronounced and localized, I hope that makes sense? Thanks for watching and the comment.
@@GYGOtv I know, but the calibration picture looked near perfect for distortion...Did you try it with just your glasses as well?
@@seattime4075 No not with glasses, I had very limited time with the headset as I had to work the Expo that day. I'd love to get one to test and see if it was just a fluke deal or if I still see the distortion, maybe Artur will have an extra demo unit to send my way someday. We will see.
@@seattime4075 looked like bottom 5 percent was warped in the line image artur sent
@@Rlmfx Yes that was also talked about in his first review video, but is not what we are talking about here. Go back to his last video and have a look at the time stamp 'computer recreation of my visual issue'. All the best.
Very good you made this interview. There is something though that in my opinion is quite frustrating and we never ever hear about it, neither from Somnium, nor from Pimax or others. Speaking of image quality everyone talks about hardware and GPU. But hardware doesn't matter if you don't have the bandwidth! Now if we talk about "futureproof" products, I never even once heard to mention any reason why sticking to DP1.4 instead of DP2.1 (RTX5000 cards will have DP2.1 ports), especially that DP2.1 is backward compatible. Please ask this major question next time, or if you have any answer, be so kind to tell it.
That is a great question... I think DP1.4 is fully capable of delivering the bandwidth of current headsets. There is no compression from a direst DP port and I think the reason everyone talks about the GPU is because that is the bottleneck... the GPU can't push the frames and it's not an issue that the frames are being generated and just not transmitted if that makes sense. I'm sure down the road they will switch to DP2.1 but for now I don't think it is needed quite yet. I'll try to ask this question if I get Artur back on the channel and that way you can get an "official" answer. If anyone else in the comments is an expert at this, please share your info as mine is just an educated guess. Thanks for the question.
@@GYGOtv Thanks for your response. I'm not an expert either, but here is what I think. So VR1 uses 4K per eye resolution. If you want to run the headset native on 120Hz you will need to display 240 4K images per second, right? (Not to mention Crystal Super with 3840x3840 resolution...). Now I'm not sure even RTX5090 will be able to do that and due to other DP limitations some compression will be inevitable, but the less compression you have on your image the better it is, right? DP1.4 has got a total bandwidth of 32,4 Gbps while DP2.1 offers 80 Gbps, which is a significant difference. VESA announced version 2.1 of the DisplayPort standard on the 17th of October 2022, which was almost two years ago, former AMD cards already had been manufactured with DP2.1 ports, so it is not a new technology at all. And from this point of view I'm not really interested about that present GPUs are not capable of delivering this performance. Sure they can't. BUT you see people still use 5-6 years old headsets to this day! And some years from now GPUs will easily handle those requirements we struggle with today. So again: if we do have DP2.1 technology for two years now, and it offers almost triple the bandwidth of DP1.4 and if DP2.1 is backward compatible to DP1.4, then WHAT could be the reason not making these headsets at full potential regarding futureproof usage? This is beyond my comprehension.
@@Szabby999 I get your theory there and I think it comes down to "squeaky wheel gets the grease". So as you mentioned, no video card is capable of pushing 240 4k images per second ESPECIALLY with flight sims... Hell you are lucky to get 90 (with Dynamic Foveated Rendering). Because this hasn't been an issue yet I don't think anyone is worrying about it. PLUS price is always an issue so I'd guess DP2.1 comes with a higher cost to implement than 1.4... so if 1.4 works then why spend the extra? Again I get what you are saying with future proofing, but realistically we are probably 2 generations of video cards from being able to push that kind of performance (more likely 3 for mainstream instead of the premium XX90 series doing it) so you are talking another 5 years anyway before 2.1 would be needed. By then new VR tech will likely lead to you getting a newer headset then... and I bet it WILL have that 2.1 standard included. Again just my armchair thoughts but that is what I got for you. Great question!
@@GYGOtv Thanks, I think you write really good points here and it makes sense. And what about RTX5090? This GPU is in the corner and I'm wondering if DP1.4 will be enough when you max out that card (which surely will get DP2.1 ports).
@@Szabby999 Ya I don't think the 5090 is going to overload the 1.4, I don't think that will be an issue until about the 7090 or so. Just my guess.
Mark, any thoughts about PSVR2? Was a sale recently, I missed it, but might be another one. True oled, I believe. Or will there be disappointment as several features (hdr etc) are said to not cross over to the pc? I wonder how important hdr really is.
The problem with the PSVR2 is that is uses Fresnel lenses, which are worst than Pancake as far as glare and god rays. I was thinking to myself, I might be tempted to try it if it gets down to about $300 but I can't see using it over the Crystal. From what I understand it has bad mura and also a pretty small FOV. I don't know... we will see if it gets cheap. As for HDR, probably not as big a deal, the glare will be the big problem. Thanks for the question and watching our channel.
I've already purchased my VR1 Ultimate, but OLED is better. Period.
My Oculus CV1 had OLEDs and it was awesome. No other headset to date has
come close to giving me that contrast. Period.
Modern oleds are fast and look better than LCD screens.
Now maybe there is a difference between the small screens in a VR headset and TVs/monitors, but OLED tech is superior.
Man I agree with you 100%!!!!! I think what Artur is missing is that those Deep Blacks add so much immersion in certain scenarios. I understand you can't get as big of FOV with OLED... but I DON'T CARE about that. I'll take a smaller FOV and OLED any day of the week. I'm just hopeful that Somnium's Local Dimming is as good as Artrur says it is.. then I might be satisfied until a new headset comes out with OLED panels behind Aspheric Lenses (my dream headset!). Thanks for the comment!
@@GYGOtv fov has nothing to do with OLED vs LCD. You can have just as wide of fov with either display tech. Now if you're talking about pancake lenses and something like the big screen beyond that is a bit different, those are tiny displays.
The aero uses aspheric lenses and could get the exact same fov with LCD or standard OLEDs.
@@GYGOtv it's possibly the VR1 would just be to expensive with quality OLEDs though. It bugs me a bit he is willing to die on the hill that LCD is better than OLED.
It's just not.
@@sirgriffinman Ya I was referring to Micro OLEDS... At Somnium Connect they did a whole presentation justifying the uses of LCD vs. Micro OLED because of the Field of View ua-cam.com/video/uOKWjW6SZVk/v-deo.html This is what I was referencing.
@@sirgriffinman You are preaching to the choir... I will admit that there is smearing (or ghosting) possible with fast action with OLED, I saw it when dogfighting jets with my Vive Pro and that is simply the lag time to turn off the pixels in OLED but I'm fine with that to get the rest of the benefits from OLED. I think that is the position he is taking for the benefit for gaming etc. Again IF his local dimming can get close to OLED blacks then you could make the argument it is better because of the lack of smearing/ghosting, but that would be the tradeoff where I'm sure you will still have some bloom with local dimming unless your dimming zones match your screen resolution. You are probably right however, a quality OLED would make the headset too expensive. Personally I'd pay $5000 for a good OLED Panel behind Aspheric Lenses but I'm sure I'm a small minority that would.
it does look like the bottom 5 percent is warped and the lines are bending in a slight u shape downward in the TTL artur sent. But maybe your corrective contacts exaggerated that. The headset also looks too deep which has to make it too front heavy
Surprisingly it wasn't too heavy to me... but I've been running the OG Crystal with a weighted comfort kit so maybe it is all relative. The warping on the bottom went away once I got the headset a little lower on my face. The only problem I still had was that distortion bubble that I talk about in my first impressions video ua-cam.com/video/1xKzWlDOk8s/v-deo.html If you haven't watched that one, this is a follow-up to that original video. Thanks for watching!