Oculus Rift? Tchah, try 'Oculus Thrift' ... You bet your vrAse we tested these bargain VR specs

If you thought dressing smartly had something to do with not wearing jeans, then the "smart" clobber at the Wearable Technology Show in London this month wasn't for you. If you think it’s about having as many ARM processors attached to your body as possible, well, then now we're talking. Cameras that you can pin to your lapel …

[Pete 2]

Might want to re-think the name

Maybe I'm just having a Paris in the the spring moment, but I keep reading the product name as v-arse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Might want to re-think the name

You and the rest of the planet!

[LaeMing]

Re: Might want to re-think the name

Oh for the days when I had a v-arse!

[frank ly]

@LaeMing Re: Might want to re-think the name

Is it a www-arse nowadays?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Might want to re-think the name

Not just me then, that's a relief.

[Fink-Nottle]

Re: Might want to re-think the name

In retrospect, it was a mistake to put Father Jack in charge of marketing ...

[auburnman]

Re: Might want to re-think the name

Agreed, I kept seeing vrArse.

[John Bailey]

Re: Might want to re-think the name

Well stoppit. It's all in your mind.

Now go do something else like play with your wii.

[JMcL]

Re: Might want to re-think the name

Well, it'll lend substance to accusations of users having their heads up their (vr)Arse.

[JDX]

Interesting stuff

Even if most of these are commercial flops, it's nice to see people pushing in different directions. Who knows what will suddenly take off.

[Boothy]

Modern Victorian diablerie

I quite like the idea of a modern Victorian diablerie, especially using tech you already have around the house (i.e. phone), as it will improve each time you get a new device).

Can't say I'm bothered about games on the device, (I have a PC for that, so will probably get the Oculus Rift at some point).

But I could see this as a poor man's 3D IMAX without the need to replace the perfectly good 2D HD TV I have now.

[JDX]

Re: Modern Victorian diablerie

So how does this work; does your device need to show content in a special way (e.g. left/right split-screen) or do you literally stick two lenses pointing at the same screen?

[Boothy]

Re: Modern Victorian diablerie

If it's the same process as the Diableries, then it's a split screen. Left half, right half.

Years ago (hmm, try decades ago...) I created a home brew version. I just used an old cereal box, plus some reading glasses. I'd had a book given as a gift that was full of stereoscopic pictures, everything from Victorian photos, to modern ones, to artificial creations of impossible 3D images etc..

The simplest way is just to hold a piece of card in between you're eye's, in line with your nose. And hold this against an stereo image. So each eye can only sees one image. But warning, this causes eye strain after a while, hence why the lensed versions are better for a movie etc.

If you acquire a 3D movie, then playback on a normal 2D device, you'll see the left right split. (You can also get top/bottom split, but left/right is more common I believe). So if this played on your phone with these goggles, then viola, 3D (well stereoscopic) playback :-)

[JDX]

Re: Modern Victorian diablerie

I guess I "invented" this then because when I saw BBC showing Wimbledon in 3D as horizontal split-screen on regular TV, I wondered if I could get 3D by making one eye look at each half of the screen. It didn't work at all, are you saying it would've if I'd persevered?

[NumptyScrub]

Re: Modern Victorian diablerie

quote: "I guess I "invented" this then because when I saw BBC showing Wimbledon in 3D as horizontal split-screen on regular TV, I wondered if I could get 3D by making one eye look at each half of the screen. It didn't work at all, are you saying it would've if I'd persevered?"

Yep. Depending on how the frames were split, you would either have needed card between the eyes, or to go cross-eyed; depends on whether the left eye frame is physically on the left or not.

[Gene Cash]

Re: Modern Victorian diablerie

"you're eye's"

Nice one. Two in one sentence. I'm impressed.

[imanidiot]

VR (motion) Sickness

Those vrArse units are going to make a lot of people very sick. At those distances most telephone screens just don't have the resolution to give a good image in the first place. Then display persistence comes rearing its ugly head. Coupled to the slight lag and incorrectness of the head tracking and it'll have a lot of people losing their lunch in a short while.

[Boothy]

Re: VR (motion) Sickness

You are aware that most new 5" phones comes typically with 1080P (or similar) displays now? With many optimised for HD movie recording and playback.

So I'd expect viewing stereoscopic images and movies will be fine.

But for rendered gfx (i.e. games), as you say, I suspect there'd be too much delay between head movement and screen updating. It's one of the main challenges they have had with the Oculus Rift, and they are using dedicated hardware and a high end PC.

[imanidiot]

Re: VR (motion) Sickness

You are aware that you have only HALVE that 1080p per eye? And that most VR systems are now looking at 1080p PER EYE? Individual pixels WILL be easily discernible at 540p at that size.