I don't understand how foveated tracking won't cause a sense that peripheral vision is fuzzy. Or how it will track saccades, and so avoid fringe effects.
But, the "I don't understand" is strong in this. it doesn't mean "it can't work" but I don't understand how it avoids the problems.
Maybe the size of the computed foveal coverage area is made big enough, to cover the movement? But if you move your eyes suddenly, there's got to be some lag while it computes the missing pixels. So you'd see the same as when Netflix ups the coding rate: crude render becomes clearer. Banded would become smooth transitions.
Philpax•1h ago
Sufficient additional coverage + predicting the trajectory of your eyeballs. As far as I know, all of the journalists invited to try it were unable to see the low-res periphery, despite actively trying to break it with fast eye movements.
fooker•9m ago
> it doesn't mean "it can't work"
I don’t have an answer for you, but take some applause from me for spelling this out :)
It’s very difficult for most people to intuitively understand that what they could not figure out after five minutes of thinking might not necessarily be impossible.
ggm•1h ago
But, the "I don't understand" is strong in this. it doesn't mean "it can't work" but I don't understand how it avoids the problems.
Maybe the size of the computed foveal coverage area is made big enough, to cover the movement? But if you move your eyes suddenly, there's got to be some lag while it computes the missing pixels. So you'd see the same as when Netflix ups the coding rate: crude render becomes clearer. Banded would become smooth transitions.
Philpax•1h ago
fooker•9m ago
I don’t have an answer for you, but take some applause from me for spelling this out :)
It’s very difficult for most people to intuitively understand that what they could not figure out after five minutes of thinking might not necessarily be impossible.