damonbpoole

netrox said:

I am not understanding. Where does Canon get the impression that 100MP at 60fps is required for AVP? AVP uses 4K each and there's nothing that suggests that the video has to be that resolution/refresh rate. 

What am I missing? 

There are for sure already many cameras that will produce video that can be played on AVP. The article was not super clear on what they meant, but there is one snippet that sort of explains what they mean: "Some of the immersive environments Apple has supplied already for the Apple Vision Pro have moving elements in them, but are believed to consist of a mix of computer-generated high-resolution static images and what was likely an 8K video system from camera maker RED."

If you just put the AVP on and look around, the environments, for instance the one with the mountains and a lake, look super realistic, almost like you are actually there. To produce that same feeling with a camera means having a 360 degree view at that same resolution and refresh speed. The lowest refresh rate is 90hz. Now consider that in order to produce the sphere that is required to have not only 360 degrees around but also looking up and down, how many 4k screens would that be? My estimate, based on how much space spatial videos currently take up in your view, is something like 10 give or take 2. And since you need one for each eye that's about 20 screens or 80K. 80K at 90FPS is an incredible amount of storage/bitrate.

For comparison, the best out there right now are the 8K 360 videos, but IMHO they look low-resolution when spread across the full immersive sphere required for looking everywhere. 16k feels like it would be at the acceptable level. So, I think it will be years if not decades before we get a video format and cameras that can support what the AVP is capable of supporting, but having 16K would , I think, be pretty amazing.

Cheers,
Damon

7omr said:

The Canon dual fisheye on an EOS R5C produces two image on an 8k frame. The two images render to a single image which is half of 8k. This suggests two synced 8k cameras could work and that it doesn’t all have to occur on a single sensor as is suggested in that statement. 

Regarding 60fps, my understanding is that there is meaningful evidence and experience to show that 60fps is a better experience in VR. 

That would be a bit of a surprise. On the Oculus Quest for instance, the minimum requirement for apps is 72FPS and 90 produces a more natural feel and reduces motion sickness. If there is evidence to the contrary I would be very interested to see it.

Cheers!
Damon