cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Index vs Rift S ?

JeremyC85
Heroic Explorer
I'm the type that upgrades WAY too often, and I already have the itch! 

As a loyal Oculus fanboy, the Valve Index looks phenomenal... I am having a hard time pulling the trigger on the Rift S with its compromises (mostly the audio downgrade) Is anyone jumping ship and if so, what pushed you over the edge? I love the Oculus Home and HATE steamVR with such a passion I can't see myself leaving just yet...
79 REPLIES 79

Morgrum
Expert Trustee

nalex66 said:

When it comes to movies, I really dislike the effect of higher frame rate. It looks like the "soap opera effect"--it somehow seems less cinematic and more like people in costumes acting.

Of course, VR is a different thing entirely, and higher frame rate should improve immersion, as Cyber said above.


I can get that a few years ago movies came out in theaters with such high definition and resolution that it looked so real that it actually killed the immersion for me somehow.

WAAAGH!

Comic_Book_Guy
Superstar

Morgrum said:


nalex66 said:

When it comes to movies, I really dislike the effect of higher frame rate. It looks like the "soap opera effect"--it somehow seems less cinematic and more like people in costumes acting.

Of course, VR is a different thing entirely, and higher frame rate should improve immersion, as Cyber said above.


I can get that a few years ago movies came out in theaters with such high definition and resolution that it looked so real that it actually killed the immersion for me somehow.



I can't think of one case of this topic that applies to movies at movie theaters. No one likes the soap opera effect. they aren't going to use frame interpolation in movie theaters. 

Morgrum
Expert Trustee
I honestly dont give a shit about the soap opera effect i was responding to how the higher def and resolution used in the past by a few movie companies actually degraded my experience.
IMAX became so real it looked fake.

Considered how folks in this trend have been bashing each other about framerates, resolution, and definition I figgered I would throw in a view on something else similar but different.

But shit on it I guess we can only post bashing vs one headset or the other now.

So now I just need to find out where to direct foolish anger at when I am directed to whichever team am I going to be sorted to skins or shirts.
WAAAGH!

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

Morgrum said:

I honestly dont give a shit about the soap opera effect i was responding to how the higher def and resolution used in the past by a few movie companies actually degraded my experience.
IMAX became so real it looked fake.



Exactly. HD eventually ruined "movie magic." The film sets looked fake, and the actors looked like they were merely rehearsing lines.

Wildt
Consultant

Zenbane said:


Morgrum said:

I honestly dont give a shit about the soap opera effect i was responding to how the higher def and resolution used in the past by a few movie companies actually degraded my experience.
IMAX became so real it looked fake.



Exactly. HD eventually ruined "movie magic." The film sets looked fake, and the actors looked like they were merely rehearsing lines.


Good thing movies make more money than ever, so they can afford to put more effort into the CGI, sets and makeup 🙂
PCVR: CV1 || 4 sensors || TPcast wireless adapter || MamutVR Gun stock V3
PSVR: PS4 Pro || Move Controllers || Aim controller
WMR: HP Reverb

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

10 Reasons Why CGI is Getting Worse, Not Better

  • CGI has transitioned from a complimentary dish to the main course.
  • The physics are off.
  • The move to HD and 4K make CGI less convincing.
  • Stylized grades and CGI don’t mix.

Morgrum
Expert Trustee
Cgi has gotten out of hand.
I mean look at this WB gem that was supposed to be flagship quality cgi!
Its becomming a crutch.
Wished Superman had his facial hair after this abomination.
odcs5b7h35ra.jpeg
WAAAGH!

JeremyC85
Heroic Explorer
^^^ off topic, but I totally agree. I HATE cgi in movies the vast majority of the time. Absolutely HATE it

kevinw729
Honored Visionary
They can be overdone @JeremyC85, end up being a crutch to bad story telling.

ghgrhmle1m9c.png

But I am a sucker for good particle effects - the bigger the better  B)  

https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

RuneSR2
Grand Champion
Fun thing - maybe - I wrote a guide to high refresh rates in 2004, using the old crt king - my Sony 21" F520 Trinitron (2048x1536 in 85 Hz - 137 Khz). It's in Danish (testing Q3A in up to 150 Hz/fps - similar to 144 Hz/fps):

http://www.hardwaretidende.dk/hard/artikel/04/02/21/3591575

In short - 120+ Hz/fps is more noticeable on fast (hand) movements, which felt really lifelike. One person also wrote that he couldn't consciously see beyond 100 Hz/fps, but he got a better score in fast multiplayer shooters with 100+ Hz/fps, and he might just have a point. 

When testing IQ using the WAIS-IV (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV), processing speed is very important and professor Helmuth Nyborg (he did a lot of IQ research also in the US) once told me that one of the most "g factor loaded" tests was a test measuring how many milliseconds a person needed to see if a symbol was turning left or right. The less milliseconds needed the higher the IQ. I haven't done such an experiment but I wouldn't be surprised if high IQ (gifted) individuals can see many more fps than a person of average IQ (and of course some may have special skills like Rain Man 😉 Maybe not all will be able to perceive 120+ fps. And some of us may just try to convince ourselves that we can see the 144 Hz/fps 😄    

The link to this old article from 2002 still works - maybe still a nice read:

" The Human Eye perceiving 220 Frames Per second has been proven, game developers, video card manufacturers, and monitor manufacturers all admit they've only scratched the surface of Frames Per Second. With a high quality non-interlaced display (like plasma or a large LCD FPD) and a nice video card capable of HDTV resolution, you can today see well above 120 FPS with a matching refresh rate. 

[...]

The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS."
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

I think the possibility to use 144 Hz is awesome, even if it can't be used in all games and apps due to GPU limitations. It's a step toward creating a virtual reality as close to the real world as possible. I think Palmer and Iribe would agree  😉

PS. And:

"Professor Thomas Busey, associate department chair at Indiana University’s Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences said:

Certainly 60 Hz is better than 30 Hz, demonstrably better. Whether that plateaus at 120 Hz or whether you get an additional boost up to 180 Hz, I just don’t know.

Meanwhile, Jordan DeLong – assistant professor of psychology at St Joseph’s College – added:

I think typically, once you get up above 200 fps it just looks like regular, real-life motion – Sure, aficionados might be able to tell teeny tiny differences, but for the rest of us it’s like red wine is red wine."

https://www.unilad.co.uk/gaming/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/ (haven't checked PubMed if some real science has been done, maybe later 😉

Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD
"Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"