How is the resolution? I never tried a Vision Pro yet, but that was my main gripe with my Rift. Indeed, IME, the ‶real world″ size of the windows is nothing, it's their angular resolution that is a make or break.
It ranges from okay to not that bad. It’s not as good as the “retina” screens in Apple’s other products.
I can definitely see pixels on the device if I’m wearing contacts unlike what most of the early reviewers claimed.
But it’s not so bad as to be unusable and you don’t really notice them in most contexts - the main place I notice pixels is using it as a screen for macOS. VisionOS apps are rendered very large by default so the resolution deficiencies aren’t as apparent.
Overall it is very impressive but there’s also much room for improvement in resolution.
I don't know, if I need to use my macOS laptop, it sounds a lot easier to just use my laptop, instead of using a helmet and then doing the connection dance to get a single ok-ish screen anyway
A single screen that is much larger than a MacBook screen, that is the advantage. And the connection dance is really just...tapping the connect button?
But with the same "resolution" such that you can't fit any more content on it and with much worse density.
Why would I actually want that? You've been able to do this for decades by hooking a TV up to your laptop and while that certainly has space challenges that limit the number of people that'll try it, it's not like tech bloggers were flocking to hook up 65" TVs to their macs and lovingly wax poetic about the productivity gains, either.
The virtual resolution is adjustable and you can fit a lot more contents on the screen than you can with a real monitor. It basically allows one more setting past the maximum “more space” mode you normally get from macOS. It does render a little bit blurry, though, if you crank up the virtual resolution to the max.
For non-text content, I think it's pretty good, actually. Watching content in Disney+ or Max's theater modes is really satisfying despite those virtual screens being sub-4k.
I don't think it is possible to see the pixels, they are the size of a red blood cell. But maybe you can see antialiasing or noise from the cameras.
Personally I can't see any pixelation. It's even better than reality. That being said passthrough cameras' resolution do suck but it's not what it's important and probably the easiest problem to solve.
sure, they're small, but some of them are closer to your eye lense than your retina. The pixels per degree are lower than any Apple product in the past 10 years
I have been using contacts and just got the zeiss lenses today. So far it's roughly equivalent. I think there is a touch more distortion (chromatic aberration along the edges) with the inserts. But my contacts are progressives and kinda sucked for this, single vision would probably be great.
It's better than anything else I've tried by a long shot, which admittedly is only the Quest 2, but still not good enough to work in all day. It wasn't the weight/comfort for me, just it was too blurry. I fully expect to be using one eventually as an external monitor replacement but it's got a little ways to go. Probably needs another generation or 2 of screen/camera improvements. It's _good_ but not worth keeping unless you already use mostly iPad apps for work.
I love high dpi displays as I like text (and other details) to be crisp and clear.
Vision Pro is approaching a quality that I feel is acceptable, somewhere between "flawless reality" and a decent screen. The virtual environments are crisper than the camera passthrough mixed environments.
There is definitely room for improvement on screen quality, but in general I am impressed.
The original Oculus Rift had 1080x1200, VisionPro has 3660x3200, field of view is similar. In virtual monitor terms that means a Rift can display a 640x480 monitor and the VisionPro a 1920x1080 one. Still quite far away from Retina, but should be pretty usable, especially since it allows making the virtual screens bigger than a real monitor can be.
