yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
Interesting side note on why focus is do poor in 360 videos.

Just for grins I tried loading a non 360 video into my 360 folder and watching it. While I was able to pan slightly as in a 360, the image was quite out of focus because it was very zoomed in. The same video had excellent focus in Oculus Cinema.

So I think that problem with 360 videos on the GVR has nothing to do with the GVR hardware or the quality of the video. It has to do with how 360 videos are presented to the viewer - heavily zoomed in, which of course would reduce focus. Try loading a normal video in your 360 folder and you'll see what I mean.

Don't know if this can be alleviated through software but would be nice. For me anyway 360 videos are basically unwatchably fuzzy.
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
I also tried going no padding at all and as expected, for me the screen door effect was worse. It all has to do with how your eyes process pixels. It was also a little scratchy. :)

All of this is why I'm quite intrigued by the technology which uses no screen at all but beams the image directly into your eye. I understand that images in that case are extremely smooth and pixel free; however in early models FOV is slightly less.
[Samsung Gear VR] twistedumbrella:
I'm not a psychiatrist, optometrist, or Oculus employee. Obviously I am not the person to address this issue. Deleted.
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
Here's the thing bro. You are a Recognized Developer and as such, people tend to believe you. You made a demonstrably false statement regarding density and to this point in time have failed to retract. Barring your retraction, nothing has been "dismissed" other than by your ego.

P.S., Anyone who holds an opinion differing from yours is not "ramming it down people's throats". The method for reducing the appearance of pixel size I have described here works for me and I stand by it.

Have a nice day.
[Samsung Gear VR] Toss3:
The screen door gets marginally worse, but the immersion gets better which does alleviate the issue a little (you don't concentrate on the pixels as much). Love the increased fov you get without the padding (only use some padding on the nose). :good:
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
Yes, if you aren't OCD about pixels, the increased FOV with the no padding option is nice. Everything's a tradeoff I suppose. :)
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
Thank you for deleting the posts. Simply stating that you were incorrect would have been easier. I don't blame your original assumption regarding density making an improvement. I assumed the same thing until I considered what changing density actually does.

I think the thing which throws people off is that we are "adjusting DPI" when in actuality pixel size isn't changing at all (it can't), we are merely squeezing more image into the same pixels by reducing the pixel density per image (i.e., an icon which was previously comprised of 640 pixels is now comprised of only 320). This is why to increase DPI density you actually reduce the number. While the screen may appear more "dense" individual images are actually less so.

P.S., Just to be completely accurate, while 320 will work, it is not natively supported by Android, whereas 360 is. 320 may result in some distortion.
[Samsung Gear VR] BleedingPurist:
But...... you ARE focusing on pixels. Everyone else is also quite capable of seeing the pixels, but they are also capable of filtering out and focusing on the correct focus point. This is what you lack. This is why I used the old CRT TV example. If you would do this exact same ranting while watching a TV, you would get strange looks from people as you are announcing you do not know how to properly watch a TV and they would ultimately get irritated with you as you drone on about it while they are trying to enjoy the show. This is further supported by your inability to mentally process the 360 videos properly by obsessing over unimportant aspects like blurring. You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. You are missing out on awesome experiences because you miss the point while arguing that you aren't. The videos could definitely improve in resolution, but they are far from unwatchable. The unwatchable videos in Milk VR are severely warped and involve a whole lot of jerky camera movements that shouldn't be experienced in VR.
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
As much as I appreciate your efforts at speaking for everyone, I cannot agree. So I'm the only one bothered by pixels and screen door effect on this device? Don't think so brother. I don't have to focus on "properly watching a TV" since I don't sit 1/2 inch from the screen. I do not see pixels on the screen as they are too small to see from 8 feet away. Your point is completely moot. Apples and oranges.

The 360 videos is where you stray into complete comedy. Obsessing over blurring? I cannot make out people's facial features who are standing a mere 5 feet from the camera. A this point, 360 videos don't even get close to 720p resolution. Perhaps you can overlook that but I promise you, the great majority will be unhappy with that result.

Here's the thing. I should not have to play mental tricks and retrain my eyes to focus to enjoy a product (and neither should anyone else). I should just put it on my head and say, "Wow!". The average consumer is not willing to put as much effort into enjoying something as you are. Perfect example - my sister. She is a complete non-techie person. I let her try the GVR and her FIRST comment on watching the 360 videos was, "Why are they so blurry?" You'll forgive me if I didn't explain to her that she needed to retrain her eyes to enjoy this product. If 360 photos can be crisp and clear, 360 videos can be as well - apparently the software just isn't there yet. VR is supposed to be immersive (i.e., like real life). Current 360 videos are not immersive, unless of course you have 20-200 vision and left your glasses at home.

If you choose to set the bar low on what is enjoyable that is your prerogative, but some parts of this technology have a way to go before the average consumer will be satisfied. Probably a reason why Oculus, despite a $2 billion cash infusion, has yet to release their commercial version.

Just a tip by the way. Don't claim to speak for everyone while complaining that I'm speaking for everyone. Bad form.
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
Just for grins, if you wanted to actually squeeze more image per pixel onto the screen and thus increase your FOV (ie.g., you can see more of the screen in the Oculus Cinema), you can change the overscan settings which in effect makes the whole screen more compact. While changing density had no effect on the GVR image, this overscan idea does make the screen more compact and thus increase your ability to see more.

You can use this nifty little tool found here to test this:

http://xdaforums.com/android/apps-games/root-window-manipulator-t2846784 Window Manipulator

I tried 100,100,100,100 and found I could see more of the screen (since the screen is in effect smaller) but it seemed a bit harder for me to focus - YMMV. This will slightly increase pixel size if that bothers you.
[Samsung Gear VR] BleedingPurist:
Ah! So it runs in the family! That explains a lot.

With the dozen plus people of varying backgrounds I've thus far put in to the Gear VR, not one of them began obsessing over the unimportant details. They were too blown away at being able to see Paul McCartney or Coldplay up front. One was amazed at the Iceland video, since he had visited there previously.

I don't have to speak for everyone, it's pretty evident.

You also have issues getting the point. Two inches in front of your face or 10 feet across the room... the pixels are perceptibly the same.

You have focus and/or OCD issues. Begin making the appropriate appointments.
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
What? Lol, seriously dude you need to take this act on the road. Pixels are perceptibly the same from 2 inches or 10 feet? On what planet?

I have a FHD projector in my home theater. It projects a 120 inch picture. Sitting across the room in the theater seating, the image is crystal clear and sharp. If I stand 2 inches from the screen, I can make out every pixel - anyone could. Your claim is preposterous.

Regarding your friends all loving the 360 videos as much as you, please don't fall into the classic logical fallacy of, "Everyone I know agrees with me." You tend to make friends with people who share your values. Obama got elected twice and I don't know a single person who voted for him. Like that. :)
[Samsung Gear VR] twistedumbrella:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3488/why-do-things-that-are-far-away-seem-smaller

Ironically, they have to disregard focus to explain it. It sounds like a case of farsightedness where focus cannot compensate for decreased distance, making the image appear less focused as it moves closer.
[Samsung Gear VR] BleedingPurist:
Don't play dense. At least, I hope you are playing dense.

Nobody is talking about your 100" FHD. The comparison is an older CRT standard definition television.

---------- Post added at 01:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------

By now, they've used their flashlights as clubs
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
Hey you two, get a room already. :)

Still not sure why you are using ancient CRT analogies when we are talking about a qHD screen? Seems my comparison to a FHD screen actually pertains. Close up pixels, far away no pixels.

The weird part about the 360 video is it looks great when chromecast to an external monitor. Only fuzzy inside the GVR.
[Samsung Gear VR] ciscostud:
Its not weird at all?

The Note 4 resolution is cut in half when you're in VR. John Carmack has even stated that watching a movie in the theatre is only "960 x something"

http://youtu.be/gn8m5d74fk8?t=32m31s
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
You miss my point. The problem is with 360 videos and 360 videos only. Normal videos are not out of focus at all in the Oculus Cinema. A bit pixelated yes, but focus is fine. Something is causing 360 videos to be very fuzzy in the GVR, even when the video is shot in 4K.
[Samsung Gear VR] ciscostud:
I didn't miss your point. I just pointed out why your 360 video's looked better on TV.

If you watch the youtube link above John Carmack talks about why the 360 videos have a lower quality than the 360 photos and the design decisions he made.
[Samsung Gear VR] zorglub667:
regarding the very first suggestion (moving the gear VR further away from the eye by putting in both pads), i tried that.

did nothing for me, i must say. sure the displays individual pixels become a tiny bit smaller, but its really just a tiny tiny bit and i was aware of the pixels just as much. all this while the FOV became noticeably smaller for my taste.

personally, i would consider that a bad trade. but i dont mind the pixels all that much anyway. this is the current state of the art, its an early adopter product, lets hope we will eventually get 4k or even 8k displays of this size, that seems to be the only "true cure". until that one arrives, everyone will have to find his personal workaround for the current shortcomings - my personal workaround is a simple "zone the pixels out" attitude, which most of the time works just fine.

we all know that mr. carmack is 1. aware of every single problem, and from listening to his surprisingly open talk a couple of months ago, he seems to not only have a solution in his pocket for everyone of them, but also has a very good idea of how to approach the samsung hardware people to convince them (i.e. that idea about the fake 120hz via interlacing cheat and other manifestations of his uber nerdy way of thinking) (and i mean that *only* in every good way possible, that man is a genius!)

(edit)

oh and one more thing: i do believe that one reason why the pixels dont bother me too much is that i indeed was one of those children who liked to sit rather close in front of their oldschool CRT. its really almost funny how similar it looks, and how with all these crazy super small ultra high resolution displays, with VR we are back at this. only on a completely new level in every other aspect :)
[Samsung Gear VR] twistedumbrella:
Carmack: Innovator == prerelease.

Samsung: Innovator == kickstarter.
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
How much pixels bother someone and the benefit of moving further back is largely dependent upon the vision of the user. In my case, that additional distance may be just enough to cause the pixels to lose focus and be less distracting. On the other hand, any tiny loss of FOV was completely unimportant to me compared to the improved clarity. YMMV.

If by increasing FOV your goal is to be able to see as much of the visible screen as possible, you can also enhance that by increasing the overscan and making the visible screen on the Note 4 smaller. I've discussed how to achieve this in an earlier post.

** I believe the future of VR lies not with screens at all but with images projected directly into or eyes as with the upcoming Avegant Glyph. I understand that video viewed through this manner is super HD with no perceptible pixels. The FOV is slightly less than with a screen but I believe they will solve that eventually.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...t-beams-the-display-directly-onto-your-retina

"Unlike Oculus, however, Glyph doesn’t feature any display device at all — with Glyph, the only place the image ever really exists is in your mind. The technology is called Virtual Retinal Display (VRD), and it uses a projector which sends its image directly onto the retina, in much the same way that a CRT television projects a picture onto the glass of the screen. Here, though, there is no slab of glass to absorb and re-emit light into the real world; the only place Glyph’s VRD images ever exist is inside the eye of the user."

Of course the ultimate solution would be contact lenses capable of augmented/virtual reality.
[Samsung Gear VR] zorglub667:
that would squeeze more content into the remaining FOV, i agree, but it would not change the, er, "physical" FOV (which is what im talking about and which is where every little loss bothers me a lot more than the pixels do).

if i may put out a theory: if for you the perception of the pixels changes so drastically by moving the gear VR just a tiny bit (or, to say it in units, by "1 x where x = one facepad" ;) ), that may indeed as you say be due to this hitting a sweet spot with your personal eyesight. i could imagine that this would work for me too because im extremely shortsighted (is that the english word), but since i wear contacts and am close to 100% with them, moving the gear VR away a little like this actually does next to nothing for me, as far as the perception of the pixels goes. while the FOV (the physical one, not the "content one") really goes down with every single millimeter in a way that i dont like.

anyway, to each his own :)
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
For me the FOV reducing slightly is unimportant because face it, you're going to have a binocular effect either way. Yes, the overscan hack doesn't actually increase FOV (i.e., peripheral vision) but it does allow the user to see 100 of content. Something easily reversible and worth trying if you like it.

Although the extra pad is moving your eyes back only 1/4 inch, that is roughly doubling the distance to the lenses.
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
Yep, I think I have definitely nailed why 360 videos are so fuzzy on the GVR. You can do this test yourself.

Surprisingly, normal videos will play as a 180 video if placed in the 360 Videos folder. How is that? Well the GVR zooms in significantly (I'd say close to 300 or 400%) in order to allow the illusion of panning when looking left, right, up an down when you move your head, but guess what? The image is very fuzzy. Why? It's very zoomed in.

Now put the same video in the Movies/My Video folder and you'll see it's clear as a bell. Why? No zoom.

So the fuzziness of 360 videos has nothing to do with the quality they are shot in (assuming it is at least 1080p), it has to do with the fact that the GVR zooms in dramatically in order to achieve the 360 effect. Although a flat video will likely zoom more in the 360 Videos folder, the visual effect of fuzziness and color bleed is identical to 360 videos.
[Samsung Gear VR] twistedumbrella:
If anyone feels there truly is an issue , give Samsung a call or send them an email.

http://www.samsung.com/us/support/faq/FAQ00074362/110944/SM-R320NPWSXAR
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
There is not a "pixel issue" with this device. It is the nature of the beast. Screen resolution simply is not high enough yet to eliminate visible pixels at this magnification. The question is, what to do about it. You can:

1) Pretend it isn't there (which is your preferred solution),

2) Make adjustments to the device to improve the situation for your particular vision (which is my preferred solution and the raison d'etre for this thread).
[Samsung Gear VR] zorglub667:
well, as i said: for me personally, the added distance does next to nothing as far as the perception of the pixels goes, while the decrease of physical FOV really makes a huge negative difference. for me, its actually crossing the very threshold of having a binocular effect that i cant "zone out", and the reduction in physical FOV for me is anything but "slightly". i just think its a bad deal where you gain only very little, while losing way too much. but to each his own. as we know, this also depends on many factors like shape of the head, eyesight etc and theres no one size fits all solution to be had.

and as said before, i dont really mind the pixels much anyway. its a little CRT-ish, but ignoring CRT pixels is something that people of my age and above have been conditioned to zone out for their entire youth, so its really not a big deal.

one thing i would find interesting, because i never quite remember how this scales: with a hypothetical 4k display in future phone generations, this effect would not be cut in half but in 1/4, right? ...or was it the other way around? aaargh :)
[Samsung Gear VR] BleedingPurist:
Exactly! I began ripping standard def DVDs for use in the Oculus Cinema for exactly this reason. I still have a Sony Trinitron in the bedroom that I've long since realized does more justice for shows that were filmed for showing on those screens as opposed to having every flaw exposed watching it on a 1080 HD screen.
[Samsung Gear VR] Toss3:
Try it without the foam (small increase in FOV, large increase in how uncomfortable it is). :good: Wish they sold thinner foam (could make it myself, but don't have the time).

It actually kind of reminds me of those portable DVD players people used to have in their cars for longer journeys (the pixels were visible).
[Samsung Gear VR] hashcheck:
I love my gearvr but all we need is higher resolution screens think 8k and larger lenses

-= Note 4 & Gear VR =-
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
Have you always been this given to wild exaggeration? Roughly 3/1000ths of those who have viewed this thread have responded at all. And somehow to you, a response rate of 3/1000ths is a "sea of people"? You claim that my issue with the screen door effect is an "exaggeration" and yet this thread has almost 1500 hits in just a few days? Apparently people care.

P.S., The majority of those few who have responded in the negative said the reason they did not appreciate my solution is that, "the CRT effect does not bother them as they sat close to old fashioned TV's as kids..." This confirms exactly what I have been saying, there is a CRT effect. You can either ignore it as these people have because it simply does not bother them, or you can try other things such as increasing distance or adjusting overscan to improve your experience. One of the gentlemen who doesn't mind the CRT effect did indicate that increasing distance improved pixel size but the loss of FOV wasn't worth the cost to him. Perfectly acceptable - especially since CRT doesn't bother him.

VR is supposed to be immersive. Since my real world isn't pixelated, large visible pixels prevents me from experiencing immersion and makes the GVR more of a "movie viewer" than a sense of actually being there. At this point 360 videos are just broken and not consumer ready. I'm sure they'll sort that out. By increasing the distance to the lenses with additional padding, the movie experience does become more immersive for me although obviously not completely so - but acceptable given the current state of the technology.

** [MENTION=593514]twistedumbrella[/MENTION], at this point you have devolved into personal attacks and are adding nothing to the thread. I respectfully request you refrain and leave the rest of us to discuss solutions. Thank you.
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
My sentiments exactly, and visible pixels = no immersion. Until they develop better hardware, it is up to the user to 1) live with it, 2) find workarounds or 3) return the device. And that is the entire point of this thread.

Why some members take such offense at this is beyond me.
[Samsung Gear VR] Toss3:
I didn't take offence and the whole point of this forum is to be able to discuss matters such as this one (also good for consumers considering getting the Gear VR if they know they are sensitive to the screen door effect).

The solution you came up with though doesn't make a difference and really makes the experience worse - the distortion gets worse, the fov gets smaller, and the pixels don't really decrease. Even by moving the whole thing 30cm your face you still see the pixels, so nothing you do is going to make the problem dramatically better (despite what the thread title claims).

The only thing samsung could do to alleviate the problem is make a panel four times the size of the note 4 with the same pixel density and move it a bit further back(would make the pixels smaller, but then the thing would become very tiresome to wear).

4 and 5k panels just can't come soon enough. :cool:
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
Sigh. With regards to taking offense I wasn't referring to you. I apologize if it came across that way.

With regards to your claim my solution, "doesn't make a difference", on the contrary, it makes a huge difference for me. If it doesn't make a difference for you and actually worsens your experience, that is your experience - claiming it does not work because it does not work for you is myopic and illogical. What confuses me is that you claim moving one's eyes further from the screen makes no difference than later you suggest moving the screen further from one's eyes will reduce pixel size?

There is no doubt that increasing distance from pixels reduces their appearance of size. This is an undeniable law of physics. The question becomes, is the tradeoff worth it to you and how your eyes work?

For me the the FOV with the GVR is poor anyway - so making it slightly worse in exchange for pixels my eyes see as less obtrusive is a fair trade. For you it is not. Rather than state my solution, "does not work," it would be better to state that it "does not work for you." For me it crosses the threshold from non-immersive to immersive (although clearly not perfect).

I agree with you this is a problem which will ultimately be solved (i.e., no visible pixels) with better (or different as in the Glyph) hardware. 8k OLED screens in a curved helmet for full peripheral immersion would likely be the ultimate "holodeck" experience we all have been craving since we first saw it on Star Trek. Gladly this level of technology isn't far away.
[Samsung Gear VR] mitchellvii:
I will gladly leave you to it, having proven you are incapable of open discussion. Just remember, if you truly want me not to respond you have to take it upon yourself to stop replying to my posts. Hopefully you are capable of such a task.[/QUOTE]

There are 3 options: 1) Try to mod your device in some way to improve the appearance of pixels, 2) live with the pixels as they are or, 3) return the device.

Since you have not mentioned you have returned your device and you claim that modding the device is ineffective, that leaves us with only #2. Am I missing a 4th option you'd like to share as you claim none of these applies to you?