https://store.insta360.com/product/h...003.1556510281


To use this attachment for 3D viewing you need to shoot your 3D video with the new 3D insta EVO camera that folds up to also shoot 2D 360.

https://store.insta360.com/product/evo


I've seen this camera and it has amazing image stabilization and 5.7K quality with 180 degree wide angle FOV. The 3D is very high quality, especially when viewed with the Oculus Go.

You have my attention!

Is there any way to view the images/videos on a 3D TV?

Not in VR mode as VR180 is severely distorted on a flat screen. 360VR is much worse. So to view on a flat screen the viewing window is a smaller section of the total. There you navigate around with your mouse. But the best presentation for any VR is with an HMD such as the Oculus Go or Oculus Quest. You get the feeling you are in the scene, not just spying through a window of another world.

But the downside of viewing VR is the resolution. Even a 4K or 5.7K video ends up about 720 apparent resolution in an HMD because of the zooming in to a portion of the area of the scene. It's why a concerted effort to make very high pixel density panels in the HMD's. If 720P60 is OK then an Oculus Quest would satisfy especially given the new experience of perfect 3D being in the scene, not just spying though a window.

So it's really 2 different products, you can use any 180 camera to shoot even though it says to buy theirs, what makes theirs special? It's really just their app with this cover.

It's probably a special lenticular layer, the app puts it in 3D mode to show the 2 views. Problem is that's not all handled internally by the phone itself so you have to go to the trouble of preparing it for viewing. It mentions something about a 3D lens on the back but this attaches to the front so their's something amiss with their description. What I see is just a plastic cover for iPhone screen plus an app. I'm skeptical you could have a decent 3D image with this approach. It's only 30.00 though.

And the 5.7K resolution that a lot of these 180 cameras are boasting these days aren't really 5.7K, that's actually combined resolution for both views. It's only half that per eye. That's like saying my 4K rig is 8K because it's 2x 3840x2160. You have to look at what each lens is producing.

Don beat me to it, short answer you wouldn't want to, viewing these square images on a iPhone would look terrible anyway, same as a flat 3D screen, you really need a VR headset.

Thanks for the quick answer.

While I enjoy VR for brief solo fun, I'm really hoping for a 21st Century way to replace my stereo slideshows that can be viewed be a group. I loved using a View-Master Personal Stereo camera to take my own pictures; I even got pretty good at exploiting negative parallax that the VMPS wasn't really designed to do, eliciting gasps in my audience.

I would mount the best images in the reels and project them with the Sawyer's equipment that is nearly as old as I am, but I've found nothing affordable in recent technology that duplicates that living room experience. Meanwhile my film cameras and projectors are stashed away, awaiting a doubtful resurrection.

For the Viewmaster, with film slides. Would have to convert them to digital with a film scanner. Jumbl's only 70.00 on Amazon. From there you'd have to pair them up in something like stereophoto maker or an nle and output to video.

I've been converting my Fuji W3 photos to view on my phone. It takes a little time in Photoshop but it's easy. The results are usually pretty good if the screen will display it or with crosstalk. It's an LCD edge lit glass-free design so it's not perfect but it's mostly built for using the onboard cameras which are close together so viewing images from other cameras is a bonus. It has pretty good viewing angles about 90 deg. so more than one could view an image, better than lenticular design. Hopefully Leia will release larger screens soon, I'm eager to see what glasses-free 3D will look like on something 30 plus inches.

Yes. You need the app to properly format the VR180 3D to the flat screen and display in 3D at 5.7K or at least the pixel density of a 4K screen which I believe is still the highest resolution on a smart phone.

NO NO. The images is corrected for the flat screen. It's just that you have to use the app. Unfortunately, the app can only work with the way the EVO formats their video. If you look at the insta format from the camera each video is two insv files that the app creates a SBS VR180 3D MP4 file. This can be displayed directly in an HMD such as the Oculus GO, or you can use the app with the attached glass screen, select that in the app and the video is corrected for flat screen 3D viewing, glasses free. I haven't seen it yet so not sure how it will look in quality. I did buy a $20 clip on a couple years ago that did something similar for displaying 3D image of an MTS 3D file and it worked about as well as the glasses free screen on the TD10.

This system will not work with other VR180 3D cameras because they format the files differently than the insta camera the app just won't recognize the files. ( I'm guessing here because I obviously haven't tested this. )


No, not in all cases. The elements are 5.7K for each of two lenses in the 360° configuration. In the VR180 3D configuration the VuzeXR is indeed 5.7K per lens as the camera element doesn't change. So by your math then the Vuze XR shold be claiming 11.4K divided by 2.
Now with the older Vuze+ VR360 3D it has 8 cameras, each is a 2K per lens but the stitched and over under 3D composite is sold as a 4K VR360 3D camera.

The Insta360 One X 2D VR360 camera is the same, each half of the sphere is shot with a 5.7K camera.


On all cases the main shortfall is the HMD, Here the manufacturers do fool with the math and often quote 2 times the resolution for each eye. Then claim the HMD resolution is higher than what it really is. There is a movement in the industry now to stop using resolution and spec as PPI or Pixels per inch. But this is still not telling. A better way is to describe the HMD as a % of retina pixel density which is about 300 microradians. This means that a panel per eye must have a pixel density of about 2500 PPI. Most state of the art HMD's are only 10% of that so we have a long way to go. Part of the problem is we are viewing the panels at very close range so the diameter of the pixel has to be about 10 times what Apple claimed is a retina display which is measured at 10 inches, not 1-2 inches.

What is the actual file output resolution Don? I take it these are 5760x2280 total file resolution, correct? So each eye is getting 2880x2880 square imaging.

Examples:
UHD/4K resolution: 3840x2160 or 4096x2160 = 8.3-8.8mp image resolution.

4.6K resolution 4608 x 2592= 11.94mp image.

5.7k resolution 5720 x 3016(from Panasonic EVA1)= 17.25mp image.

Each eye receives only a UHD resolution amount 2880x2880=8.3mp not 16.5-17.5mp for 5.7K.

If it were 4160x4160 per eye for a total file output of 8320x4160 then yes, it would be 5.7k imaging. I doubt that's the case.

What is the actual file output resolution Don?

Depends on the camera- The insta360 is slightly better specification as a 2D 360 camera with two sensors. 6080x3040 per sensor. It outputs two files each at 5760x2880. One for each camera. Then the post software combines these to a 360° equirectangular side by side stitched MP4 container. Bit rate is 120Mbs.

The Vuze XR is 3D capable by eliminating half of the 360 to 180 fov and uses the second camera as the right eye. They use the Sony IMX378 sensor which is a 4K sensor. so each camera file gets 4K. This is output as two circular exposures in a square frame each is 4K across the diameter. The software then combines the two for a SBS 3D file, but the system uses a pixel interpolation method that they claim is 5.7K effective resolution on each side(eye). I think of it like my Sony Projector that uses a pixel interpolation to create a 4K pixel simulation with a 2K input. Sony calls it Reality Creation. So the effective resolution is interpolated as 5.7K (in the brain) from two 4K per eye images. The math dictates that the pixel aspect ration is 2V x 1H. per eye for a 1x1 image AR combined. When projected in an HMD the image sides are not square but curved.

If I do a properties on the final file in the computer of each camera it is listed as 5.7K


There is also a debate whether cutting the 3D resolution spec in half for each eyeball is valid. That's because the 3D stereo image while produced by two left and right cameras, and detected by two eyeballs, these are combined for depth in the brain which would be considered one image with 3 dimensions.

IMO, whatever the numbers say, is not as important as the viewed quality overall, and it can be seen that the quality of the insta360 OneX and VuzeXR is superior quality detail to my 4K cameras, AX53 and GoPro Hero 7 and Vuze+. I can see it on my 2K monitor, my 4K projector, and my HMD's. None of these are higher than 4K.

While resolution can be increased for a scene by using multiple sensors like the Vuze+ and insta Pro cameras, the new problem with multiple cameras is the stitching of these cameras' files for a seamless image. The big GoPro rig with many cameras is not only expensive but a nightmare to stitch. The stitching software is very expensive and only practical for big budget productions.

This is difficult to explain when one's understanding is limited to 3D stereography of a flat screen technology. Things are all different in the HMD and VR world. The geometry is all different and varies depending on the cameras, the FOV, and the displays whether Google Cardboard, Oculus HMD, or now the new wide FOV HMD's such as the PiMax.

It's like trying to explain the difference in sound of a classical orchestra from a rock band to a deaf person who only understands sign language. Even the lenses in an HMD are not simple magnifying lenses like a camera lens they are complex as progressive eyeglasses to shape the image for proper geometry of 3D VR space. The only way to fully appreciate the advantages of this type of 3D is to experience it and then, decide whether you accept the new limitations to get the benefit of what it offers.

My take was it is 2880x2880 per eye for 5760x2880 overall resolution and it was my understanding all of these 180 VR3D cameras produced a single side by side rectangular file in 2:1 aspect ratio with 2 square images contained (2x 1:1 aspect ratio images). That's the same as saying 5.7K half resolution. When I shoot with my 4K rig, it's dual UHD images but I can only produce a UHD half resolution file, it doesn't make it FUHD (7680x2160) because both images combined are 8K, if I could somehow render a file with both UHD images side by side. We look at what each image is producing.

If we look at resolution equivalents the approx. number of pixels wide is where they come up with the "K" standards. 2K is 2,000 pixels wide, 4K is 4,000 pixels wide, 8K is 8,000 pixels wide and so on. Here the imaging is square but we can still calculate the overall pixel resolution. 2880x2880 would equal UHD resolution not 5.7K. If it's only 5760x2880 output that's less than half what 5.7K is, 5.7K is double the pixel count of 4K resolution. 8K is 4 times the pixel count of 4K. (8.8mp x 4= 35mp).

They're taking the 5760x2880 resolution and using the overall width here as 5.7K with both eye views, but that's not correct. They've more than doubled the stated resolution here. You would need 4160x4160 per eye to equal 5.7K resolution. And the sensor resolution doesn't equal the overall resolution of the images. My Sony AX100's have a 20mp sensor, they can take 20mp stills but for video it uses 14.2mp which is then downsampled to 8.3mp image. The resulted image resolution is only UHD 8.3mp not 14.2mp which would be like a 5.2k image.

Keep in mind you are continuing to form opinion based on the math for flat screen cameras. The VR180 cameras are completely different The sensors vary from camera to camera and the lenses produce a circular exposure. The two left and right eye images are full, which is not possible if viewing on a flat screen. That's when you mathj works as the Google Cardboard players have to squish the horizontal in half for the screen. BUT, the cameras don't do that. The original video is still 5.7K in 3D created with two 6K cameras but in the HMD the side by side is full circular, not squished in half.

I might add again that the insta360 One X has the higher resolution than the Vuze XR but the XR is still higher than the UHD cameras. The Vuze+ is a full 4K but that is generated with 8 cameras not 2. It's sensors are only 2K. The Vuze owners are pressuring them to come out with a 3D VR360 using 8 sensors we have in the XR camera. BUT, I say they still have issues with the stitching and if they fix that I would be very happy. Also, the 8 camera system has no gyro image stabilization so a gimble or tripod is required.

BTW- the 2D still photo of the insta360 One X is listed as 18MP I didn't take any stills but here is a VR180 screen capture from my 1920x 1080 monitor of the Vuze XR left eye camera. It's a little jaggie because the 5.7K circle doesn't fit on my screen. I resized it to 45% of the full circle in windows paint from a screen capture.

Attached Thumbnails

 

There's no opinion here, it's just what we know about resolution. That's why I asked what the camera outputs, spherical vs. flat, it's still single frame side by side image when the files are written (5760x2880). They're claiming 5.7k. Yes, with both views. But we've never considered both views before for resolution of a camera in 3D, keep in mind the information in each camera is different just like 3D so you can't combine the images to increase image resolution, it's really just more information from another camera (2 side by side images). They only do this with these VR cameras. It's a marketing ploy.

No image is being squished if each eye is receiving 2880x2880, it's the same resolution for both eyes, which is approx. UHD resolution. Yes, because it's a spherical image but that's reduced down internally when the information is written, part of the recording process.

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/insta36...view-6270.html
and a little info on that holo screen mentioned.

Insta 360 vs. Vuze XR specs (see attached) 2880x2880 is mentioned here as the resolution for each eye.

As far as the sensor, yes you can take a 18mp still image, I'm guessing it's just using 1 of the cameras here for 2D. That's the same as taking a 20mp still with my AX100. Again, doesn't change the fact for video, I only get UHD resolution out of the same sensor not 20mp or 6K which is approx. resolution of 20mp.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Once again you really don't understand how 360 images are done, otherwise you wouldn't be guessing. There is no 360 camera that shoots 360° x 180° with one camera. It requires two minimum. One shoots forward and the other shoots behind. If you use just one camera it is VR180. In the case of the Vuze+ it uses 4 cameras. Each one captures 90° x 180°

To achieve 7680K x 7680K 3D images the Insta pro 2 uses 6 cameras. To achieve this with high bit rate they had to resort to recording each camera to it's own uSD card so you have 6 uSD cards plus one standard size SD card in the camera. This is an expensive system at $5000 before accessories. It's specs also rate it as a maximum 12K x 12K 3D for stills. The highest resolution settings require external stitching but as a 4K 3D stitching of the 6 cameras can be done in the camera processor as well as live 3D streaming.

BTW- there are errors in the chart you found on-line. The VuzeXR is only 12MP for photos. The insta360 One X does not shoot in 180 mode at all but you can take the 360 stitched 2D file in MP4 and then crop it in adobe Premiere Pro to eliminate the back side. The iphone app also allows you to do this. We call this point of view editing and it eliminates scanning around by the viewer. My recent U/W video uses this format when I swam with the turtles in Grand Cayman. Since the full view is 360, you can select a point of view in any direction and control the aspect ratio as desired too. In this format the video is viewable on a flat screen without geometry distortion.

Weren't we discussing the Insta360?

And I'm not guessing. Each lens is 18mp for stills, that's on their spec sheet. For 2D images it's one lens/sensor. 360 doesn't have anything to do with it if you're taking a 2D image.

The Insta Pro 2 is another camera which uses 6 cameras and it's doing the same thing, combining multiple images into one output stream for a total combined resolution of what they're calling "8K". The output resolution is 7680x7680 after it's stitched, this is a top/bottom file if it's set up for 3D for the two views, so actually each eye with the the six cameras is only receiving half of that 7680x3840, not quite FUHD but close, but we still look at what resolution each lens/sensor is producing which is 3840x3840 resolution in real time stitching, that's on their spec page. It's 360 3D with 6 individual lenses and sensors, each lens is producing different imaging than the other 5 lenses. They're merely calling the final post-processed image 8K 7680x7680. Each eye receives 7680x3840 but it took 6 different views of 3840x3840 to achieve that, when you're looking in one direction with two of the lenses (for 3D) that image is only that resolution, you don't view the entire 360 image all at once.

They even list on their spec sheet the real time stitching is 3840x3840 for the Pro 2, that's the resolution of each lens/sensor for video. Stills for each lens is 24mp.

tom real time stitching is limited by the processor speed in the camera, not the camera sensors. They limit the resolution and bit rate to allow streaming at real time. It's intended for streaming live. You wouldn't use that for post production. Even my Vuze+ has real time stitching at a lower resolution and bit rate, but I've never used it. I don't do live. So I set the camera for the highest setting and use the largest storage card for big files. Then let the computer stitch the cameras together.

In this paragraph you are finally getting it. I see you are doing your research! And you were doing fine right up until this final phrase which tells me you need more study on VR- you said "you don't view the entire 360 image all at once. " This is incorrect! It is possible to view the entire image when the scene is edited in what is called "Tiny Planet" view. Here every part of the sphere is viewed in one image. In point of view the window may be quite small. Or you can size it for anything you want in a 360 camera with 2 or more lenses. The more lenses/cameras the higher the resolution. The larger the field of view, the higher the resolution of the viewed window up to full 360 x 360.

The main limits to the resolution by today's technology is the player or HMD. We have cameras that can create over 100,000 pixels x 100,000 pixels using a huge array of GoPro 4K cameras. But the viewers are still lagging.

Whether we see the entire image at once or not isn't really the point. 360 is different than 180 though yes, 180 is closer to what 3D is right now. 360 you have to look around, yes you could look at the 360 framing image flat like a globe earth image on paper or screen and see the entire 8K image at once (ugly). But 360 VR and 360 3D is setup so you can look around in all directions, that's only what I mean by not seeing the entire image at once which is when you view it in its intended method with the viewer. When you look at one area of view within the entire 360 image, you're seeing what one (or 2 for 3D) cameras are resolving for resolution. As they keep increasing cameras resolution this will continue to improve. We can add more and more cameras and call it a higher resolution, it doesn't make each point of view (from 1 or 2 cameras 2D or 3D) any higher, though it does add a higher combined resolution for a larger image which is what they're using here.

The Insta Pro real time stitching on their spec page, so 3840x3840 is for Live view, not individual resolution per lens, got it. They haven't listed each camera's individual video resolution other than they're apparently 24mp for stills so we can only measure the post-processed stitched image at 7680x7680, a rep at Insta would have to provide the video resolution data for each camera so we could know more. I downloaded a sample image from the Insta Pro this morning, it's stacked 360 images for 3D, each eye has 7680x3840 from the entire frame. Bino is the only thing I have to play it and just in 2D flat non head gear, but barely, it's way too much overhead for my laptop. But just viewing to see the stitched layout after Premiere and the resolution format.

There's really no information on their site showing what each camera is producing for video for that camera but if I had to estimate I would say each camera is using 3840x3840. That's a 14.4mp image for video which is pretty impressive if it is, but still not 8K for each camera. But it's within spec of what it should be capable of rendering.

Post process stitching, I take it each camera produces its own file. You likely enter each file one for each of the 6 cameras into Premiere Pro and stitch to produce the output file of 7680x7680 a stacked 360 left/right image, unless it already does this in camera likely not. Once they're combined for 7680x7680 the 6 images are then reduced more when stitched in post. I don't know that for sure but if each camera renders 3840x3840 output, some image is lost when the image is rendered in Premiere Pro at 7680x7680 because 6 images of 3840x3840 are larger than that. Again, don't know what the cameras are producing for video, need more info. It's that or each cameras render is less than 3840x3840 because that times 6 doesn't equal 7680x7680.

I downloaded some sample unstitched videos from the Pro 2, one was 960x720, I believe this must be a low rez proxy file. I downloaded a couple others they are 3840x2880. It's spherical 200 deg. fov, with black cornering so some of that resolution is lost after stitching. Not sure though if that was for 2D or 3D or both but it's one camera image, it might be the same whether you shoot in 2D or 3D. That's an 11mp image but after the black corners are removed and stitched to 7680x7680 with all 6 views, it's likely less than 4K resolution per camera.

The fact is, they're determining resolution by overall combined resolution with 180 and 360 cameras. 180 it really doesn't make sense to do that since it's close to stereoscopic format. 360, maybe because it's really a new type of viewing but you still need to know the claimed resolution is all cameras combined. At any point of view in 360 viewing you're only seeing what 1 or 2 cameras can resolve. But yes, say there's 20 or 30 cameras, with stitching it gets complicated with overlapping views. If one point of view is then using say 6 cameras, then it's really a combined effort of multiple cameras/lenses. For now, most 360 isn't that many lenses so when we view objects we'd typically only be using 2 lenses at most which is why the individual lens/camera resolution is more important than the whole 360 image combined.

Advisory- It is not possible to pick random images off the internet and assume that is the spec for the camera. That's because you can export those cameras at different sizes depending on what your intended destination will be. For example:
Output intended for HMD would be over/under 3840x3840. This results in a 3D pair of rectangles 3840x1920, over/under. With the Vuze+ using 8 cameras, 4 are stitched side by side 960H x 1920V, the bottom or right eye is the same shot with the remaining 4 cameras. Each image is shot with camera sensors that shoot 2K image or 1920 x 1080 standard HD camera sensor. Do you see how the math is balanced now and how the camera images are stacked?

Now compare the same but we will render the stitched collection for You Tube 3D. Now this is rendered a little differently. According to YT requirements the video is built with an over under that is not 3840 x 3840 total, but 3840 x 1920. This results in a half height 3D similar to UHD resolution. The 4 images on each eye are still the same as for the rendering intended for the HMD. This is a slight different rendering for YT in 2D 4K Now we render the final output to 3840 x 2160.

All HMD's use similar rendering and only the Pixels per inch varies. If I upload a higher rendering of my Vuze+ than what YT wants ( like for the HMD ). YT automatically resamples it to what they want to see. In addition, they also compress the bit rate. While I render to 120Mbs for my HMD's YT reduces that to 60Mbs.

While, the higher end cameras such as the insta pro2 and the new Titan produce higher resolution files, these images cannot be realized until we get higher pixel density HMD's.

In the lower consumer end of the hobby, current state of the art is the Insta 360 OneX for 2D and the Vuze+ for 360 3D. The new Insta EVO for VR180 3D and the Vuze XR. There are many HMD's but the one that has the best compatibility and quality as well as convenience is from Oculus ( my opinion ) HTC Vive is a little more expensive and has less compatibility. But all these have pretty much the same image quality with subtle differences.

tom I could explain this stuff forever but until you actually experience what VR does and how you can create it, the various options, you just won't ever fully appreciate or understand how it all works. It's like taking a Chemistry course and never stepping into the lab. Also, keep in mind, I am just a student in this. So I am still learning too. Things I thought were limits in traditional video are no longer in VR. I know a guy who teaches this stuff professionally and he is still learning. He just uploaded a 3D 8K video to YT and made an error in the meta data and now his upload is all screwed up in the HMD because YT can't figure out what to do with the Over/under file. I've seen guys inject the wrong meta data to a VR file and a VR180 will get stretched to VR360 making everything fat.

They weren't random images, gathered at 360rumers via google drive. They have samples of final stitched and the raw individual camera images, but of course no I can't view with gear I don't have. I was merely wanting to see what the output resolution specs were for each camera which are 3840x2880 120mbps, again I don't know if that's the same for 2D recording as 3D, it might be the same for both.

Mic does some nice reviews and I refer to his reports frequently. But be careful, drawing conclusions he never intended in his reports. He does visual evaluations and understands that what he presents visual was never intended to show what is under the covers of the circuitry or camera sensors other than maybe what part is being used. The unstitched samples he presented were not files from the individual cameras but rather the files off the uSD cards RENDERED to an an MP4 with the codec file conversion. The files on the card are just the data and are not visible as such. So what he shows is how those files look when rendered. For a user, cameraman, that is what is important. But you are trying to learn what each component will do to support a theory you came up with which is not important to a shooter. I don't really care what the lens will resolve, I care what the complete camera will do in the field and how difficult it will be to get the shot. I have to understand the stitching methods in order to combine the multiple cameras for one image and what that combined image is in resolution for the intended viewing distribution.

Therefore I know that a 360 video file shot with a 2 camera sensor using 6Kx3K sensors won't be as detailed as a 360 system using 6 sensors of the same specs each. The file in a flat screen may look great but when zoomed in for a window view it will appear fuzzy, however the 2 camera system will appear more fuzzy. That's because for a given scene the 6 camera ( insta pro 2 ) has more pixels per inch than the two camera ( insta 360 One X ) Not only do we need to know the camera, but also the method of viewing, whether an Oculus Rift or Oculus Quest, whether a smart phone with a 4K LCD screen or an iPhone with a 2K screen.

But if all you are interested in is the resolution specs of the components, then you can get that from the OEM and I'm sure that a camera using the latest sensors from Sony or Amarella will offer better detail than the sensor we had in our first 360 Giroptic camera, even though the Giroptic has 5-0% more sensors than the Insta 360 One X.


tom we're often disagreeing on stuff I consider unimportant in the endgame. The last one was the need for a monitor on a 360VR camera, or even a VR180 camera. I don't know if you've changed your prejudice on this yet but because of the way you shoot VR360 it doesn't matter. That's because the camera shoots everything and then you can either present everything to your audience OR crop it down in editing. Anyway, I'm glad the discussion has raised your understanding of this evolution of 3D and a new 21st century shooting method. It's not a Holodeck but it is a step in that direction.

Last night I watched a 360 3D WWE production. All I can say is WOW! I thought I was in the ring with the tag teams. The production was very high quality and although I am not a fan of WWE, I really enjoyed these on the Oculus GO. For $199, you should start with getting a pair of these Goggles and you may realize how much you never understood about this genre. It's not the same as the Google Cardboard.

That’s not the issue - the issue is the processing power required to play these files without stuttering or degradation. The majority of HMDs out there are not hooked up to a PC, but are standalone or self contained units (using in essence mobile phone level CPU). Even PCs with high end settings would struggle. Remember the early days where PCs (even high end) struggled with h264?

Insta360 released a program than compresses the 8k output further and ‘reconstructs’ it upon playback in HMD. You can see a massive improvement over other playback methods, at the expense of a slow with occasional stutter to ‘realize’ the resolution as you look around.

Everyone thinks if you jammed HMD with 4K or 6k or 8k per eye panels would fix the problem. Nope. There’s not enough CPU power to drive all those individual pixels.

On the monitor need, I have 2 GoPro 3D systems now, of course no LCD. An LCD would be nice to ensure framing is correct, otherwise you're shooting blind. But I don't plan on using them for waking around much, given the audio quality is not enough, I'll need extra equipment too, I've been testing anyway, but larger FOV you have more area coverage anyway so more room for error. I will likely just use them from a mounted position, set them up and let them record.

I've given up on using VR180 3D for use with my 3D camera gear. The FOV is just too wide to be usable on anything other than VR gear. GoPro's lenses are wide too but in medium they crop out a lot of that wide angle which I think looks pretty good as-is. However, I've considered swapping out the lenses for regular wide angle non fisheye type, but I'm not sure I need to since I'll likely only be using 2.7K 24p anyway. It would really only be a benefit in one of the wide modes with the lenses swapped out.

For resolution, when we talk about shooting in 4K, 5.7k or 8K, you look at what the camera is producing. 180 3D cameras are not true 5.7K imaging. It's still just using UHD resolution. So saying you're shooting in 5.7K isn't really true. 360 3D is a lot different and could cover an infinite number of cameras depending on size and I could see here if it's stitching a multiple number of cameras to fill one FOV like 4 or more cameras that would increase the resolution for the FOV, I'll go with that. It's not unlike a space telescope with multiple cameras and sensors that combine to form one larger image. But most of these 360 cameras aren't using that many yet to cover one FOV area of human vision.

Something like the Facebook Surround 360 with 24 cameras:https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/19/1...onference-2017


This is pretty cool, closer to what real VR should be.

"In the updated version, however, I could move my shoulders, lean in close to objects, and even walk around in a small sphere-shaped zone. The effect this has on the viewer is a substantial jump in the level of immersion, making one feel as if they’re viewing a real-life moment play out live instead of simply existing inside of a looped recording. It’s effectively the freedom of VR with the fidelity of real life."

Actually, it is the issue. As the PPI is improved in the HMD so are all the support components. When the support components don't meet the demand you switch to a wired to powerful PC for support. I need that power here for editing which is why I have the Rift connected to my i9 7980 + GTX1080Ti system. It handles everything I throw at it just fine. The Oculus Go is primarily for viewing media off the web so it has not stuttered once either. The right tool for the job. Processing power in the new Quest is better but still won't compete with the Riftr Rift S. Metaphorically speaking- your complaint is valid when you try to use a tack hammer to pound a 16p nail. Use a framing hammer.

The HMD's with 6 degrees of freedom do allow you to move around in a defined space. I can do it with my Rift that has two front sensors and one behind me. The Go cannot do that. To move forward in a game you have to use the hand controller. The new Quest and Rift S also have 6 degrees of freedom and they now work with the sensors for location on the HMD.

Again the limits here is pixels per inch resolution. The cameras are way ahead on this front than the HMD's. Viewing VR on today's HMD's with today's cameras is close to 720P60, not even 1080P yet.

If you insist on 4K minimum viewing in VR before it interests you then you will be waiting for a while.