Cheeky bugger - altergaze

In the video on their site one of the guys says that the iphone 5 pixel density is better than any VR device they've seen.
Ok, maybe the pixel density is high, but it's only 568x640 per eye, spread over 110 degrees. So lower resolution than the DK1.

Hey Guys, it's Liviu (the cheeky bugger :)) ).

I didn't want to correct anyone in the video as I wanted to use only honest first reactions to the product. I think he is referring to the quality of the display itself / screen door effect.

The retina display is really amazing.

I don't own a DK1 (unfortunately). So I've worked on this project 'in the dark'. Only had a go at the Oculus once about 6-7 months ago. I was just as surprised when DK1 owners repeatedly has the same first reaction: 'the resolution is so much better on this' when the resolution is actually lower.

I guess the effect is probably down to one of 2 things:
1. either is the retina display is really really good with lower screen door effect (again can't check as I don't have a DK1)
2. either is the use of 3 lenses that distort the image much more then a single on (based on my estimates the side pixels are 2.5 times bigger then the centre ones), making the actual pixel density higher in the centre of the screen.

Hope this helps...

Well it's not cheeky really. It's based on the very simple concept of a stereoscopic viewer.

There are a lot of Smartphone VR viewers out there..
Durovis Dive, VRase and the C1-Glass etc.

Gameface is also working on a wireless solution based on mobile phone tech and the Android OS.

It really depends on how well these viewers work regarding optics (FOV), adjustability, build quality and ease of use if they will be successful or not. The one thing these Mobile Viewers lack is Content, which is what I assume many of them will focus on now.

As for screen rez my HTC One display is very good.
Actually I was also pretty impressed with it's low gyroscope/accelerometer lag.

I do like the idea of places like museums being able to hand out hundreds of altergazes to people to use with their own phones after grabbing an app. Very cheap and convenient. Maybe take a small deposit on them so if they aren't handed back in it's not much of a loss (I don't know how much a complete altergaze would cost). That's something the Rift really isn't suited to.

"Ravere" wrote:
Well it's not cheeky really. It's based on the very simple concept of a stereoscopic viewer.

There are a lot of Smartphone VR viewers out there..
Durovis Dive, VRase and the C1-Glass etc.

Gameface is also working on a wireless solution based on mobile phone tech and the Android OS.

It really depends on how well these viewers work regarding optics (FOV), adjustability, build quality and ease of use if they will be successful or not. The one thing these Mobile Viewers lack is Content, which is what I assume many of them will focus on now.

As for screen rez my HTC One display is very good.
Actually I was also pretty impressed with it's low gyroscope/accelerometer lag.

Yup.

I've meet Ed from Gameface and the guys there did an amazing job in getting content for mobile. Of course, a lot of the games are aimed for 'heavy gamers', something that the Altergaze might not be as a good fit as Gameface. On the other hand, what I hope Altergaze will do is introduce more people to VR. Especially those that might not look at it from a pure gaming point of view.

"kojack" wrote:
I do like the idea of places like museums being able to hand out hundreds of altergazes to people to use with their own phones after grabbing an app. Very cheap and convenient. Maybe take a small deposit on them so if they aren't handed back in it's not much of a loss (I don't know how much a complete altergaze would cost). That's something the Rift really isn't suited to.

Yes :)

Museums, visiting historical sites, VR disco-night (kinda' like silent disco), some really funky opera nights maybe, 360 movies / images, used for learning applications in schools, the next VR equivalent to Flappy Bird... I think there are loads of uses where something like Altergaze is not necessary a better fit, but a more 'convenient one' due to the 3D printing aspects.

Regarding the price, I am not sure how much it will be for someone who doesn't have a 3D printer and has to purchase it from us / Altergaze distributor. I guess it will be down to what price works for the altergaze distributor.

For orders like these - museums, schools etc, they can use their own 3D printer to print 50 of these bespoke version of the Altergaze with their name on the front plate and will sell them 50 Altergaze Pandora Boxes at a discount price. The PLA used for each Altergaze is less then £10, even £5 if you buy a low quality filament... you just need time (4 to 6 hrs for each print).