1 of 14 pictures
"but the Zeiss Cinemizer is a slightly more sensible affair. These video glasses aren’t cheap at £600" Oculus Rift is only 300 usd and and has much better tracking and fills your vision. The Cinemizer has been passed and they need to up their game.
Unless there is a new advance in audio-visual technology on the horizon (painting images on the back of the eye with low powered lasers?) glasses are simply the wrong way to approach the design of these devices. The Occulus Rift is a huge improvement because it takes its design cues from ski goggles, the only style of eyewear that can comfortably accommodate the need for additional, screens, lenses and electronics with a comfortable band holding them in place rather than two plastic arms hooked over your ears. Trying to put this kind of technology into designs based on glasses, even large wrap-around sunglasses, is a technological dead end that always ends up disappointing the user and creating a clumsy uncomfortable viewing experience. Even a big improvement in screen resolution can't get around the physiology of the human face and basic physics because the screen has to be a certain distance from the eye and so do the lenses that allow the eyes to focus on them. Human ears and noses never evolved to balance electronic devices on them. Vuzix, Sony, Zeiss and all the rest are simply barking up the wrong tree design-wise and are forced to make design compromises that create an extremely disappointing narrow field of view. I would go so far as to say that a person would look much less like a dork with an Occulus Rift which has a certain design integrity that giant oversized glasses never will have.
The Oculus Rift may fill your vision but what is the image quality for that extra field of view? That is always the trade off.
Oculus Rift won't be available until 2015, so it's difficult to say how good it will be. But the size of the display is not a measure of quality. They are aiming for a 1,280-x-800 display split between two eyes. So an effective resolution of 640-x-800 per eye. So having the bigger field of vision means merely magnifying the pixels.
The cinemizer has a smaller field of vision, but it is pin-sharp from edge-to-edge, and you won't see pixels (a bit like a Retina Display from Apple). To match that density of pixels at the size the Oculus Rift will display things, they would need a minimum 4K, Ultra HD display to get close. An 8K display would be better. But if course they don't exist at this size.
So it's like having a 40-inch screen at HD resolution, or a 120-inch screen with the same resolution. Bigger doesn't always mean better.
it says the headtracker "...won’t support full movement without a specific driver"
Thats not true. The tracker uses the HID-USB interface and those are standard drivers that come with every OS. What does needs to be done is, the Software has to support the Tracker. This means it needs to be modified by the developers. For this there is exists a free SDK.
"Oculus Rift won't be available until 2015"
The consumer version has not been dated, though Palmer has previously stated that they're aiming to get it out at least before Q4 2014, with the 2nd gen devkit arriving before then. The current devkit is available already: I have one on my desk.
The screen-door is noticeable, but it doesn't matter once you are wearing it. Because it tracks your head movement, and you naturally move your head around without realising it, you brain interpolates between pixels over time to build up an effectively higher resolution view of the world. Plus, enveloping the majority of your field of view with image is such a profound effect that you don't really care about the low resolution.
TR guys: if you want to play around the with devkit for a while, I can cart it down to the Southwark Street office for a few hours or so. My desktop isn't portable, so you'd have to have a decently grunty computer on-hand (a solid 60fps is a requirement to avoid nausea).
I think the entire notion of having huge ski Goggles on is absurd. I would pic the Zeiss Cinemizer over Rift any day. I have a friend who has a Zeiss and its awesome...I'm surprised by all the negitivity...they are super easy to use and are really uber In person , they are not bluky and lightweight on the head...very very comforable very easy to use..and attractive..espeically since you would want to wear them for a long time..and you do not get the 3-D headache like you get when seeing 3-D in a movie threater...they come across very professional and the head tracker is being used by people who like to do RC helicopters they can set it up to see though the helicopters eyes..when flying its super sweet..
I think if people had both sets to try they would pick the Cinemizer over Rift. Rift is so unprofessional looking..and I think a headset like this could be used on more then just games. Spending 300$ for a headset that doesn't look better then something you would sit at home in your PJ's with is a lot of money really. Especally since most gammers spend about 300$ for an entire gamming system..to spend 300 on just a head set that you wouldnt want to leave the house with is a lot of money.
yea, in two years this concept with the Rift will drift away. There will be so many better options.
Well there is your problem. Puting form before function. Oculus offers something the cinemizer only dreams of with it's tiny fov. Oculus provides superior sensors and when the consumer version comes out (we are taking about a dev kit which also destroys your argument because these aren't meant for general public yet) will have a high res screen and decimate the boring, non immersive cinemizer. Where are the lines of people trying the cinemizer and freaking out ;)
I have tried both Oculus and Zeiss (on the same day, at a convention) and I can honestly tell you that the Oculus beat it!
Why you may ask? Simply because the Oculus provided a MUCH more immersive experience. I think this was due to the fact that head-tracking was almost perfect but perhaps more than that was the fact that the Oculus 'screen' took up almost my entire field of vision. It was unbelievably impressive...and this even when the resolution is crap (compared to the Zeiss, oculus res is pathetic) - it doesn't seem to matter, once you find yourself 'immersed'.
Regarding the immersive-power Vs resolution issue. I recall playing a VR arcade game way back in the mid-90s. Graphics: terrible, Framerate: terrible, Experience: incredible! Basically, what I'm saying is that it's not about the graphics/frame-rate/#polygons - it's about how well the overall experience is!
That said, if I had to choose one of the devices to watch a film, I would choose the Zeiss but for anything else it's Oculus all the way!
It wouldn't be so bad if the reviewer managed to give the Correct resolution for the Cinemizers 570x800? NOT.They are 870 × 500 pixels I have a set, they are amazing, I also have 640x480 LCD, these are not so good.I have also tried a 3D BluRay which was impressive.What often gets missed, is the very good contrast with OLED over LCD, where blacks look grey.
Here we are two years later with the DK2 out and future models on the horizon. You were saying?
Update: Awesome Chromecast apps to try
Want to know what some of the most important and interesting gadgets of 2016 were? Read on.
What are the worst phones, tablets and TVs of the year? We round-up the lot in our worst tech of 2016 round-up.
More Gadget Round-ups
Sign up for the
TrustedReviews email newsletter
Get TrustedReviews' award-winning reviews, opinions and advice delivered to your inbox for free!
Plus get great deals and exclusive offers from Time Inc. (UK) Ltd and its partners.
Trusted Reviews is part of the Time Inc. (UK) Ltd Technology Network