> Even Apple, with all their resources and a $3500 price tag, could only make a mediocre passthrough on a very heavy headset. The hardware isn’t ready for AR yet.
Hugo disagrees:
> thanks to a high-fidelity passthrough (“mixed reality”) experience with very low latency, excellent distortion correction (much better than Quest 3), and sufficiently high resolution that allows you to even see your phone/computer screen through the passthrough cameras (i.e. without taking your headset off).
Even though there are major gaps left to be filled in future versions of the Vision Pro hardware (which I’ll get into later), this level of connection with the real world — or “presence” as VR folks like to call it — is something that no other VR headset has ever come even close to delivering and so far was only remotely possible with AR headsets (ex: HoloLens and Magic Leap) which feature physically transparent displays but have their own significant limitations in many other areas.
I admit I don’t own one of these things but reviewers seem to be unanimous that the passthrough on the Vision Pro is both the best of any headset on the market, yet also very mediocre compared to seeing things through your own eyes, especially in low light.
Given that it’s designed to be used indoors, poor low light performance is a big problem.
There’s a latency/acuity tradeoff whereby the more post-processing Apple applies to improve acuity, the worse the latency and more nausea they create. It’s going to require a lot more research into hardware post-processing.
Seems like the best passthrough was a fairly easy goal to achieve since nobody else was even really trying. Heck, the Quest applies quality degrading filters to passthrough video (add noise, remove chroma) to discourage using it.
They probably mean the quest 3 which has RGB cams unlike the prior quests 1 and 2. I also disagree it would have been artificially muddled to discourage usage. If that were the case they'd not have presented it so proudly. It's just the kind of cam setup that $500 buys (in fact it probably is a bit subsidised)
Hugo disagrees:
> thanks to a high-fidelity passthrough (“mixed reality”) experience with very low latency, excellent distortion correction (much better than Quest 3), and sufficiently high resolution that allows you to even see your phone/computer screen through the passthrough cameras (i.e. without taking your headset off).
Even though there are major gaps left to be filled in future versions of the Vision Pro hardware (which I’ll get into later), this level of connection with the real world — or “presence” as VR folks like to call it — is something that no other VR headset has ever come even close to delivering and so far was only remotely possible with AR headsets (ex: HoloLens and Magic Leap) which feature physically transparent displays but have their own significant limitations in many other areas.