JAV VR: News, comments about releases, recommendations, hardware

[akibaun]

I've been eyeing the Pimax Crystal Light for a while, but I can't quite make up my mind... Which ones do you have? The Pimax 8K X?

I currently use a Pimax8KX. The added immersion you get when you can actually see (and feel) the other girls at your side, in your periphery... it's a total game changer. And it's just less claustrophobic overall (even in 1on1 scenes).

I also have perfect vision (well, I don't need glasses at least), so when the video is recorded/lit/encoded properly, I swear the clarity is indistinguishable from real life. I don't see any advantage in more pixels/better screens.

I don't care that it's not OLED (there are rarely any 'true blacks' in porn). I also don't care that it's not inside out tracking (I have base stations, but I don't use them, since VR porn doesn't benefit from positional tracking).

My only real complaint about the 8KX is maybe the comfort. It's bulky compared to other headsets, and requires some DIY face/nose padding to get the fit just right. These are solvable problems though (especially if you watch porn in a stationary/laying down position, as I suspect most of us do).

Like I said, it's hands down the best way to experience VR porn.

Now here's the bad news. The people running Pimax are complete idiots. They had a total monopoly on the wide FOV market, and squandered it. If they just pressed their advantage, it would have forced Meta/Valve/etc to also adopt wide FOV. Instead, Pimax decided to focus on stuff nobody asked for.

I don't think you can even get a Pimax8KX anymore. The 'Crystal' is your next best option I guess. The FOV is less than the 8KX, but still better than the alternatives.

*and just to clarify, I'm not saying VR porn sucks without a wide FOV. In fact, I would probably recommend a Quest3 to anyone who is new to VR porn (for the simplicity/convenience factor). I'm just saying... damn I wish the HMD manufacturer's cared more about VR porn, so they would care more about FOV.

 

[SamKook]

Right now, for me, the 4K vs. 2K resolution per eye is more important than the greater FOV width

My point is that it's basically the same resolution, it only crops the width. They're both 4k(2160p) if you look at the height.

 

[Walle12]

I also don't care that it's not inside out tracking (I have base stations, but I don't use them, since VR porn doesn't benefit from positional tracking).

I didn't remember that they need base stations. In that case, they're no use to me, since I also play games in VR and inside-out tracking is much more convenient.

After my disappointment with Steam Frame, my next headset will be 4K per eye, so I can take advantage of current 8K movies. Something like Pimax Crystal or similar. I need a good FOV because I have a high IPD. The problem is that they're very expensive and outside my budget.

My point is that it's basically the same resolution, it only crops the width. They're both 4k(2160p) if you look at the height.

OK, I understand, but it's not exactly like that. In VR, you don't cut the image on the sides if you have a smaller FOV. The entire image is always displayed, as it is in 3D, even if you have a small FOV. Since the image surrounds you, when you move your eyes or head slightly, you can see everything.

Although Steam Frame and Pimax 8K X have the same width (2160 pixels), Pimax has a higher pixel density, there are more pixels on the screen, and everything looks much sharper. In VR, everything is magnified, the pixels are huge because you have a screen that covers your entire field of vision, so having more pixels per inch means a huge improvement in definition. The difference must be very noticeable, which is why I want to switch to a headset with 4K per eye.

 

[Itsabiggapepperoni]

My point is that it's basically the same resolution, it only crops the width. They're both 4k(2160p) if you look at the height.

Yes, the main difference here is the sideways fov. Your eyes can see up to 220 degrees horizontally. Even if there's no detail at the edges of vision, it still makes a big difference. Most headsets offer around 100°, so there's always some tunnel vision.

Is Pimax the highest you can get? Even that is "just" 160°

It's a tricky problem to solve, displays that completely fill the field of vision would need to surround your eyes and have ridiculously high resolution.

 

[Itsabiggapepperoni]

Although Steam Frame and Pimax 8K X have the same width (2160 pixels), Pimax has a higher pixel density, there are more pixels on the screen, and everything looks much sharper.

Between Steam Frame and Pimax 8KX vertical resolution is the same, horizontal is the difference. I doubt that pixel density is much higher since most of it is used for wider fov.

 

[SamKook]

I see, I guess the lens displays the distorted video properly where your eye is looking at.
I assumed it moved the video around like the 2D reversal of VR but I guess that's wrong, which makes sense now that I think about it since eye tracking isn't always a thing.

Since VR videos are a square resolution for each eye, it should be the same quality, just a narrower field of view since the wider screen ones must stretch the image.

 

[Walle12]

So, according to your conclusions, a 2K screen per eye looks the same as a 4K screen per eye if you look at the center. But in my experience, that's not the case. Maybe in flat, but not in 3D.

Let's not forget that this is 3D; the video is not panoramic as it appears watching in 2D. To create the 3D effect, the image from the left eye is superimposed on that from the right eye in your brain, and when you focus with your eyes, you see a square image that is a mixture of the two.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you have to take pixel size into account here. A 4K display per eye has millions more pixels than a 2K display per eye, and since the screen sizes are similar (or the same), the pixel size is smaller. Maybe on a 60-inch flat screen it's not very noticeable, but in VR, where the lenses apply a huge magnification to cover your entire field of vision, those smaller pixels make everything look sharper.

I have had four VR headsets, and the improvement in image quality is noticeable even with just a few pixels of difference. For example, my first glasses were Lenovo Explorer, which had 1440 x 1440 pixels per eye. When I switched to Odyssey Plus (1440 x 1600), I noticed a significant improvement in definition, and that's only a difference of 160 pixels. And when I switched to HP Reverg G2 (2160x2160), the improvement was huge, like to switch from DVD to Blu-ray.

I see, I guess the lens displays the distorted video properly where your eye is looking at.

Yes, if you watch VR in 2D, the heads and legs look distorted when they are close to the cameras. When you watch it in VR, the lenses make them look correct.

 

[chewbaka]

When it rains, it pours. Sasaki Saki maid VR coming up - and its not by Zampa!

Wet Puppy ain't so bad even if he was responsible for 1 awful titan camera title.

IPVR-340 - 20 Nov

 

[Walle12]

When it rains,

It's the single topic of the month:

SIVR-454



By the way, @chewbaka , I don't know if you've watched SIVR-446 with Nana Miho and the trailer for SIVR-454, but they were filmed with the camera from Attack on Titan...
They've made adjustments, but I still think the girls look very big and, above all, big-headed...
Please, if you watch them, let me know what you think...

 

[SamKook]

So, according to your conclusions, a 2K screen per eye looks the same as a 4K screen per eye if you look at the center. But in my experience, that's not the case. Maybe in flat, but not in 3D.

What I mean is that the vertical resolution is what matters for quality, that's why the previous standards(480, 720, 1080, etc.) all mentioned only that(+ p for progressive or i for interlaced) and the horizontal pixels would then adjust to whatever the aspect ratio of the screen is.

Typical 4k is 3840x2160 so 2160x2160 is still what people would consider 4k quality and not 2k, which would be 1080p, but it's confusing since the morons switched to using the horizontal resolution that change all the time for calling it 4k. Since it's the same vertical resolution but a different aspect ratio(16:9 vs 1:1), it's the same level of quality because you have the same pixel density, there's just less pixels total horizontally because the screen is physically shorter. You saw a quality difference from the explorer to the odyssey because the vertical resolution actually increased from 1440 to 1600.

That is of course assuming the physical screens are the same height and aren't the same width and that you simply can see less on the sides with the steam frame. If the physical height but not the resolution is different, then that changes things.
The source for VR videos is 2:1(1:1 for each eye side-by-side), the horizontal resolution is just getting stretched in a specific way to fit the desired fov(I'm assuming, not sure how else they would make it fit without distortion otherwise) so a square resolution makes a lot of sense to me, otherwise the pixels get stretched horizontally outwards and then stretched back inwards by the lens, depending on the fov.

I edited that a couple times trying to make it very clear, hopefully it's clear what I mean now and I didn't mess up and forgot to remove/edit some parts of it.

 

[Walle12]

I edited that a couple times trying to make it very clear, hopefully it's clear what I mean now and I didn't mess up and forgot to remove/edit some parts of it.

Thank you, what you say is very clear and I don't disagree, I'm no expert in imaging.
I can only say what my eyes see in the different headsets I've had. I've always noticed an improvement in definition, even with a small difference in horizontal pixels. And people who have Quest 3 and Pimax headsets also notice much more definition with the 4K panel than with the 2K panel. I don't know if there are other factors involved in VR.

 

[SamKook]

The 3 you mentioned all had different vertical resolution so it's normal for you to notice the improvement between each of them.

The quest 3 resolution is 2064x2208 and the pimax 8KX is 3840x2160 so a bit less vertical resolution, but the display technology is different since they use a patented one that is supposedly on par with oled(quest 3 uses lcd, like the frame, which isn't as good) so that will have an impact on quality.

The quality of the lens playing a role in the perceived quality is something I've also heard.

It's a common thing you'll hear in the video community that human perceive change in vertical resolution a lot more than horizontal one(not sure how scientific that is, but I've heard that from multiple people for over 2 decades), but it could also be that having a wider fov from a wider screen also has an impact specifically for VR, hard to say without a proper comparison, which is very hard to get.

 

[Walle12]

The quest 3 resolution is 2064x2208 and the pimax 8KX is 3840x2160 so a bit less vertical resolution

I've realized where the problem lies, @SamKook Many things are called 4K panels, but they are actually very different.
The debate was about the Pimax 8K, which has a resolution of 3840 x 2160. But in my mind, I was thinking about the Pimax Crystal Super, which has a resolution of 3840 × 3840, or Crystal Light (2880 x 2880).

Now it all makes sense. As you say, at the same horizontal resolution, probably don't notice much difference, but the Crystal has much higher horizontal resolution, which is why everyone says they look much better than the Quest 3.
It was my mistake to assume that the Pimax 8K had a similar resolution to the Crystal, but it doesn't. Now everything is clear. Your excellent theoretical explanation matches the references I had about the Pimax... Crystal. Thank you!

 

[Itsabiggapepperoni]

Nobody asked for it but i was bored at work so i made this



I don't really understand why vertical resolution would be more important. VR Video is usually a square image projected onto a half dome, anything other than that would create distortions. When viewing VR videos, you are never seeing the entire frame at once. They are meant to stretch beyond what your screen can display at any given time. That's why 8k videos are becoming the standard while few headsets go higher than 4k.

Higher resolution in a display is always good, but it can do two things: Improve pixel density, or widen the FOV
Pimax 8XK entire selling point is wide FOV so it clearly wins in that regard. But it uses now dated fresnel lenses, has lower refresh rate and is much heavier, so it wouldn't be my first choice. And so far it seems Differences between Quest 3 and Steam Frame are marginal, so i don't see a reason to upgrade

 

[Itsabiggapepperoni]

Anyway, back to smut - did anyone watch HNVR-162 yet?
Directed by Genius Knee and featuring the amazing Jun Kasui, i have high hopes for this one
Not everyone will be stoked by the bunny outfit, but i don't mind and i love the white fishnets

 

[Walle12]

Nobody asked for it but i was bored at work so i made this

Oh, ha ha, thank you very much for your great selfless work. It's a very graphic explanation, thank you!

You come to the same conclusion as SamKook, and the one I finally came to, if you look at the post before yours.
You are both right that the horizontal resolution is the important one, the vertical one provides FOV. My mistake was that I thought the Pimax 8K had a similar resolution to the Pimax Crystal, as both are called 4K panels, but they don't. The Pimax 8K is 2160p, and the Pimax Crystal is 2880p or 3840p, depending on the model.
The Pimax 8K probably only provides FOV and no more definition, as you say, and the Crystal does look much sharper than the Quest 3,which is the data I had, as it has higher horizontal resolution. So now everything is clear...

Anyway, back to smut - did anyone watch HNVR-162 yet?

I haven't watched it, it's not for me. When I saw the rabbit ears, I dismissed it. I hadn't even noticed it was Jun... Now, looking at that photo, all I see are two silicone bags under her breasts...
Let's see if Chewbaka tells you something, he really likes Jun and I don't think he cares about the plastic breasts.

I'm becoming more and more distanced from JAV VR; what I like hardly exists anymore. Western VR kicked me out with the plastic boobs, piercings, and tattoos (and the fact that the immersion is almost non-existent). JAV VR now only makes movies for fetishists, lovers of sex with clothes on, perverts, abusers, and r**ist.
I haven't watched anything new in the last two weeks, and nothing that's been announced interests me. Realistic and immersive virtual reality with nudes has practically disappeared. And when they do exist, they lack basic positions, or they're not immersive, or the girl isn't attractive, or she has plastic boobs.