Home » News » Peripheral News » Vuzix Widescreen OLED Video Headsets Land In UK » Comments

Comments for Vuzix Widescreen OLED Video Headsets Land In UK

Comments

Please wait while we process your request

Please wait while we retrieve the user's information

Bio

Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.

This profile is private.

This profile is only shared with friends.

This profile is under review.

We were unable to request friendship with this user.

We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

Your friendship request has been sent to this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

You are no longer friends with this user.

We were unable to ignore this user.

We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?

This user is now ignored.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?

This user is no longer ignored.

pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err

Name withheld

Matt G Baish

4:07 PM on 14 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Matt G Baish. Show Details Hide Details

Hey I guess they got to start somewhere but (from site):

"Twin high-resolution 428 x 240 widescreen (WQVGA) LCD displays"

"Equivalent to 52" screen viewed from 9 feet" (through a jamjar?)

is going to look pants surely?

Score:

Name withheld

Gordon394

5:34 PM on 14 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

Not in the slightest, in fact your logic is the wrong way around as the proportional screen size/pixel density is actually higher than HD. They look rather good.

Score:

Name withheld

Joe

3:57 PM on 15 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Joe. Show Details Hide Details

If it is twin screened (one for each eye?) does that mean you can use them for stereoscopic 3D?

Score:

Name withheld

Gordon394

1:32 AM on 16 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

Yep!

Score:

Name withheld

SK

4:41 PM on 16 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore SK. Show Details Hide Details

428 x 240 stretched to "the equivalent of 52 inches" will look just as bad whether you're looking at a 52 inch screen 9 feet away, or a 1 inch screen 1 inch away. The fact remains that you've got a limited number of pixels being stretched to the same arc of the user's vision.

The omission of the actual pixel count in the article, and the subsequent flawed defense by Gordon begins to confirm something I've been noticing about this site for a while: The news stories (not the reviews) on this site are beginning to feel more and more like advertising rather than impartial reporting.

Score:

Name withheld

Gordon394

12:08 AM on 17 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

@ SK - thanks for that, much appreciated - glad to see you HAVE tried these out... oh I forget, you HAVEN'T and I have...

Given that you clearly can't understand the biological differences it makes looking into a 1in screen closely for a 'virtual 52in' image compared to true 52in LCD I feel rather depressed.

And you're mistaken, the most worrying aspect on this site is the comments moderation...

Score:

Name withheld

Keldon

1:24 AM on 17 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Keldon. Show Details Hide Details

The AV230 XL product page linky from the article mentions a SEVENTEEN hour life not seven :) that makes these alot more attractive, very very tempted to get a pair!

Score:

Name withheld

Gordon394

3:06 AM on 17 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

@Keldon - be careful, I'll check that directly with the company for you as looking back at our official launch details pack it clearly states SEVEN hours.

Score:

Name withheld

SK

7:15 AM on 17 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore SK. Show Details Hide Details

@ Gordon. How very mature of you.

I merely made what I hoped would be a constructive criticism regarding missing details in articles. I've been reading this site for years and this is something which has slowly been increasing recently.

As for the intricacies of human vision, you seem to be saying that a small screen very close to the eyes isn't quite the same as a big screen far off. If that's the case, I'm interested to hear what those differences are.

Score:

Name withheld

Keldon

11:54 AM on 17 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Keldon. Show Details Hide Details

Thanks gordon but it looks like the answer is, Both! seven and seventeen... to quote the product page :)

"Works for up to 7 hours with an alkaline battery or 17 hours with a single lithium"

Guess I missed that the first time.

Score:

Name withheld

Gordon394

11:59 AM on 17 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

That does help! I did sent the question back to Vuzix though so we'll see if any extra info on this comes through.

Score:

Name withheld

Gordon394

12:20 PM on 17 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

@SK - errrr, if you haven't noticed: technology has been getting BETTER in recent years correcting our gripes and generally becoming more competent all round. I even famously ranted about this as a developing trend in 2005:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/multimedia/news/2005/08/22/Ministry-of-Sounds-Pathetic-MP3-Player/p1

Guess what... it developed!

I'll happily have a go at products where clearly deserved (harder when you're often talking in theoretical terms about impending kit than when there's a review unit in front of you) but otherwise I take the time to point out potential plus points as well as the potholes or concerns.

The fact you get analysis and opinion in the news section is a bonus you clearly take for granted. 90% of most news coverage around this great Interweb of ours is nothing but straight description.

If hearing that we're impressed with something more regularly these days as tech improves doesn't make you as happy as hearing we're irritated by inept cackhandedness there's nothing I can do about that, but do not question my integrity.

Score:

Name withheld

Riyad

12:41 PM on 17 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Riyad. Show Details Hide Details

I had a play with a Vuzix headset a while back, and I wasn't as enthusiastic as Gordon. However, all this does is highlight how different people react differently. I suffer terribly from migraine headaches, and I'm yet to find any kind of headset that doesn't kick off a migraine attack within minutes.

Gordon on the other hand had no problem with this technology, and I therefore have to assume that there are many people out there who will be greatly impressed with the technology, even if I'm not one of them.

For me though, the biggest problem with this tech, is that watching TV should (to some extent at least) be a social activity. It's fun to curl up on the sofa with your partner, or some mates in front of a 50in screen and enjoy a movie. Sitting down with someone and putting a headset on, isn't quite the same. Although I guess if you're on a train or a plane it has merit.

As for the actual resolution, SK is right to a certain extent. The resolution will be a limiting factor, and that’s something that I pointed out to Vuzix when I spoke to them. Personally I’d want at least an HD Ready resolution, if not a Full HD one. As it stands, even standard definition PAL content is being downscaled, due to the maximum 480 lines (assuming that an interlaced image is being created with half sent to each eye).

Score:

Name withheld

June

1:55 PM on 17 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore June. Show Details Hide Details

I'm dazzled by all your negative speculation about pixel count, and other spec related analysis, but the proof is in the pudding for me! Bottom line is that I use Vuzix goggles for watching BBC iPlayer, which really works well on my shiny new N96 and it's great. I also look at video podcasts and best of YouTube from my iPod Touch - sometimes at home and sometimes away. I had some earlier video glasses from others, and you are right. Small screen bad quality, etc. The last year has brought improvements...

BTW, no headaches yet! (well, not from this anyway)

Score:

Name withheld

Gordon394

2:44 PM on 17 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

Official word back from Vuzix, which should answer a few questions:

"With a lithium AA battery, it is actually possible to get up to 17 (seventeen) hours of battery life. Shocking, huh?"

And regarding the optics: "When you look at a small screen up close, your eyes must cross to a certain extent in order to converge on the image. Over time, this leads to strain and tiredness of the muscles and tendons responsible for eye location. Our optics place the focal plane at a distance of 3 meters, which means that your eyes are looking more straight ahead, and converging together in a much more comfortable spot, which allows significantly more comfort during viewing, as well as the ability to view for longer."

Score:

Name withheld

Keldon

4:40 PM on 17 November, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Keldon. Show Details Hide Details

Thanks for the update Gordon, think I had best shoot santa an email now then if I want these on Xmas!

Score:

Name withheld

Matt G Baish

12:08 PM on 5 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Matt G Baish. Show Details Hide Details

Any chance that we can get a definitive answer re: the resolution - I just don't get Gordon's argument re pixel density being better than HD at all.

"proportional screen size/pixel density is actually higher than HD"?; do you mean the density on the chip is greater than HD? If so then, well yes obviously since the screens are so small! A phone with a crappy VGA camera in it will have a sensor with a pixel density of many times greater than HD but that isn`t the point surely, Shirely? Its the pixel density over the virtual screen size that matters - i.e. WQVGA = not brilliant.

Look I'm not totally knocking these - I just wanted confirmation that they aint HD (or even close to SD for that matter).

Ta, Matt :)

Score:

Name withheld

itsamatteroftrust

2:07 PM on 24 April, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore itsamatteroftrust. Show Details Hide Details

I think it's sort of like with HDTV's the received resolution ends up lower with greater distance (further back you are, the less defined the image will be). That's part of why you have to sit so close to a computer monitor (low pixel pitch). However, for watching video the native resolution is more important than the actual resolution. 480p will look terrible on a 1080p set, but will look wonderful on a 480p set or even 720p set. This is because the individual pixels contrast more fully and create a higher quality image. This is why a relatively low resolution projector (provided it's a good brand) can still look great on a 80-100" screen. So even though this is low resolution, the fact that it simulates a tv seen from 3 meters away means that it should still look great for video. It can be confusing given the current 1080p fad to misunderstand what high definition means. Things have been labelled high definition for some time now (other than tv's and movies) and all it means is that the clarity stands out. I haven't seen these glasses myself, but I would assume since they're OLED instead of LCD screens they're pretty high quality.

Score:

Please wait while we file your abuse report.

We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.

We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.

Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.