I would like to know the reason Fresnel Lenses were used in the CV1.
The only reasons I am aware of are to reduce chromatic aberration away from the center of the lens and to improve focus away form the center. Are these the main reasons? Are there other reasons?
It seems to me there should be other reasons because after using the DK2 now for the last month or so at home and the CV1 at work I can say that I would rather have chromatic aberration and the worse focus away from the center of the lenses than putting up with god rays in games such as ED. God rays also make it a challenge for text which tends to have strong contrast (e.g. black on white). Without Fresnel lenses you can always look in the center of the lens which would have no god rays, no chromatic aberration, and good focus but with Fresnel lenses you can't avoid the god rays by looking in the center of the lens.
You're going to find text very blurry if you go back to Elite with a DK2 from a CV1. There is a way to turn your interface green which helps due to the pentile layout. I found it helped mitigate the lower resolution, somewhat.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C Clarke
As someone who persists with DK2 I don't find CA troublesome - in fact, it's hardly noticeable. Devs may learn to minimise lens-flare, but for video it's here to stay. I cannot believe Oculus will continue with Fresnel lenses unless it can be fixed.
It can at least be reduced. It's just the particular tradeoff they made with the CV1.
The trade off is to do what Vive did, but at the same time - there are other lens technology coming out soon that might work a little better from control to the weight it self, but stuff like this is always around the ben in the river - the question is do you wait or just do what you can with what you have?
This is the problem. People talk about Vive and Oculus choosing to use Fresnel as if there was a cheaper, lighter, sharper lens with no drawbacks. It's not like both of these companies had a better option and stubbornly chose to use an inferior one out of spite.
Fresnel lenses have advantages and disadvantages. To both of these cutting-edge companies, the juice was worth the squeeze. Fresnel lenses give you a large sweet-spot, sharp focus, and reduce chromatic aberration. They're also light, and give a fairly consistent focal depth from middle to edge. Unfortunately Fresnel lenses suffer blooming when non-incident light hits the ridges, resulting in what everyone calls "god rays".
This is a problem with optics, not with poor design choices. I'm interested to see PSVR because they used more traditional lenses (IIRC) and according to many people that's the route Vive and Oculus should go. I have a feeling people are simply not recognizing all the drawbacks those traditional lenses bring to PSVR.
The solution isn't just to spend more money and suddenly get perfect optics. High end glass costs a lot, but it also adds weight. If people honestly see PSVR's image as the best compromise, maybe Oculus and HTC will choose that route for the next gen devices. In terms of lens performance Fresnel offers a lot of advantages, but it does appear that some people can't look past god rays (pardon the pun).
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C Clarke
From a personal point of view the rays don't really bother me. It's also interesting that lens flare and ghosting is often added to games and movies to add a sense of realism.
Another important factor is cost. How much more do the Fresnel lenses cost (if they cost more)? Are Fresnel lenses one reason the CV1 is so much more expensive than the DK2?
Another important factor is cost. How much more do the Fresnel lenses cost (if they cost more)? Are Fresnel lenses one reason the CV1 is so much more expensive than the DK2?
Well there are a few reasons behind why the CV1 cost different than the DK2. 1) Dual screens (125 a screen) = 250$ 2) DK2 wasn't design with a refine design (you can find customer grade elections inside it) 3) DK2 didn't have mark up either.. but was also design for in house limited support compare to CV1 4) etc
The lenses themselves might have added cost, but it would've been around 60-90$ a pop once you remove the worker cost, the mark up, the headset design/elections, the cost of working on the design etc etc. Lenses themselves don't cost much to make once you go mas market (yes your glasses are overprice as most glasses are design and solid by one company that controls most the market - by as high as 80%).
I wonder if Oculus could have used a single screen with much higher resolution to compensate for the wasted pixels. I mean is it cheaper to use a single screen with higher resolution or dual screens with lower resolution. I would guess that due to the economics of scale that a single cell phone screen could be cheaper but maybe Oculus uses mass produced dual screens anyway.
I have a pair of those. BUT there is a drawback to this tech at the moment, if you dont look directly into the centre of the image looses quality. It is a beautiful display when it looks 100%, you cant see any pixels, the clarity and colours are like looking at an 4k OLED screen BUT it is not full view ... its like looking at a medium sized cinema screen.
The biggest issue with this tech is field of view. If you are not in the sweet-spot it degrades considerably.
Core i7-7700k @ 4.9 Ghz | 32 GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance @ 3000Mhz | 2x 1TB Samsung Evo | 2x 4GB WD Black ASUS MAXIMUS IX HERO | MSI AERO GTX 1080 OC @ 2000Mhz | Corsair Carbide Series 400C White (RGB FTW!)
I would love for CV1(+1) to have removable lenses as DK2. Make a good seal and users responsibility for dust if opened. We could have 1st/3rd-party lenses with different properties: fresnel/not, weight less/more, focus spot size, god rays/not, built-in prescription, and more. New marked with personalized preferences.
Yes, would probably need a lens distortion plug-in interface. But make it a feature, not a limitation.
