So, first of all, I do think that Apple entering the AR/VR Space will change it significantly.
But I also think in a lot of ways, this is the worst Display Apple has released in quite a while.
I’m being a little unfair, because it’s still (one of) the best in the market, but even if it’s the best, being the best doesn’t necessarily make it good.
assuming they have the same FOV as the Meta Quest 2 (106° horizontal and 96° vertical), fixing the resolution to the same aspect ratio I get 33.6px/°. The Information’s Wayne Ma claimed 120° horizontal months ago, which would be ~28,3px/° (depending on vertical FoV, I’m assuming 120° as well for this)
Typically Apple was going for >50px/° to consider something “retina”
It seems that generally speaking you’d need roughly 60px/° or 1px per arcminute or 1px per 60arcseconds for Displays in which you can’t discern pixels any more.
furthermore (same source, further up) the average projected distance between cones in your eyes is ~30arcseconds, so while it seems impossible to discern Pixels starting at ~60px/°, the overall image clarity should still go up notably until ~120px/° (that seems a lot like the old Nyquist showing up again, at least to me).
Accounting for higher peak densities in cones which can reach roughly double the average density, some people should notice significant improvements up until ~240px/°, while some will only get significantly diminishing returns from effectively just “super-sampling” their eyes.
And given the fact that Apple is trying to make this (in my view) fundamentally VR Headset an AR one with Camera passthrough, requirements for exceptional Displays are high, because suddenly it’s not a game looking slightly pixelated, but the real world (even your Children, in their own Demo).
But I’m excited what will happen with this in the next 10 years, when we may get really good, reasonably cheap VR/AR devices.
So, first of all, I do think that Apple entering the AR/VR Space will change it significantly.
But I also think in a lot of ways, this is the worst Display Apple has released in quite a while.
I’m being a little unfair, because it’s still (one of) the best in the market, but even if it’s the best, being the best doesn’t necessarily make it good.
assuming they have the same FOV as the Meta Quest 2 (106° horizontal and 96° vertical), fixing the resolution to the same aspect ratio I get 33.6px/°. The Information’s Wayne Ma claimed 120° horizontal months ago, which would be ~28,3px/° (depending on vertical FoV, I’m assuming 120° as well for this)
Typically Apple was going for >50px/° to consider something “retina”
It seems that generally speaking you’d need roughly 60px/° or 1px per arcminute or 1px per 60arcseconds for Displays in which you can’t discern pixels any more.
furthermore (same source, further up) the average projected distance between cones in your eyes is ~30arcseconds, so while it seems impossible to discern Pixels starting at ~60px/°, the overall image clarity should still go up notably until ~120px/° (that seems a lot like the old Nyquist showing up again, at least to me).
Accounting for higher peak densities in cones which can reach roughly double the average density, some people should notice significant improvements up until ~240px/°, while some will only get significantly diminishing returns from effectively just “super-sampling” their eyes.
And given the fact that Apple is trying to make this (in my view) fundamentally VR Headset an AR one with Camera passthrough, requirements for exceptional Displays are high, because suddenly it’s not a game looking slightly pixelated, but the real world (even your Children, in their own Demo).
But I’m excited what will happen with this in the next 10 years, when we may get really good, reasonably cheap VR/AR devices.