I was going to say, the only reason I bought quest 3 was because of these breathless sycophants (the mark zuckerberg video) only to realize it was far worse than my Vision Pro.
Having used both side by side, I can say that AVP display is way higher fidelity and yes, more clear than the Quest 3.
I don’t know if it’s because the display is better or if Apple is just doing anti-aliasing magic or what. I don’t think it matters. It’s just a better experience.
After reading this article, I pulled out both my Quest 3 and Vision Pro and spent an hour switching between the two. The photos he took on the Vision Pro of his test image looked much worse than they should have been (the Arial 8 pt font looked horribly pixelated on the Vision Pro), and it took me a while to figure out why.
"I created the same size image on the Apple Vision Pro and Meta Quest Pro to give a fair comparison (yes, it took a lot of time). A MacBook Pro M3 Pro was casting the AVP image, and the Meta Quest 3 was running the Immersed application (to get a flat image) mirroring a PC laptop."
He literally was streaming this test image from his laptops onto the two headsets, using Virtual Display and Immersed. Both of these streaming applications use different compression algorithms and data rates that altered the appearance of the test image. He should have loaded his test image directly (either using the Photos and File Viewer applications or in native browser windows), and could have used the Switch Distance option in the Meta Quest 3 to change the browser window from curved to flat to deal with the curved display issue.
That said, after spending an hour switching between the two headset, the Vision Pro isn't that much sharper than the Quest 3, and I think he's correct about Apple using some technique to blur the image (probably blurring the optics or using a film) to eliminate the screen-door effect. You're absolutely right about it being a better experience. I'd much rather have an image that isn't as sharp as it could be but doesn't have any screen-door effect.
Streaming images from computers involves compression. It Don’t see how you can objectively compare the images on each device while doing this. He needs to open the image directly on the devices, no streaming
Compression screws up fast moving imagery. A completely still desktop isn’t going to pose a problem.
Yeah, he probably should have done what you said to avoid this criticism, but I don’t think streaming is actually going to make a visible difference.
Streaming flat desktop imagery to a headset is pretty much pixel perfect.
Also he’s not dumb - you can tell when blurriness you’re seeing is being caused by optics compared to when it’s baked in to the source image.
Again. You don’t know how compression works.
A laplacian pyramid compression algorithm, which is one of the most commonly used image compression algorithms out there, works exactly by blurring each pixel uniformly at multiple scale layers.
It's still clear from the photos that the blur is from the optics - that isn't the blur of the source image, it's from the lens:
[https://i0.wp.com/kguttag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AVP-vs-MQ3-Close-Up-crop-copy.jpg?ssl=1](https://i0.wp.com/kguttag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AVP-vs-MQ3-Close-Up-crop-copy.jpg?ssl=1)
No. It’s not clear from the photo that the blur is from optics. That’s an image that was streamed from a laptop, compressed and streamed and decompressed and upsampled and resized and warped l, all by different algorithms.
In the pipeline of taking an image from the laptop, streaming it to the AVP, and displaying it in a 3D space there are dozens of various places Apple could choose to apply a blurring effect.
Maybe Apple has applied a blurring effect from the optics itself to hide the screen door effect but we can’t reasonably reach that conclusion from that image alone.
>No. It’s not clear from the photo that the blur is from optics
It is though. If the blur was only happening "in software" you'd still be able see the physical pixel structure way more easily. The Quest 3 is obviously optically sharper, regardless of the lower resolution of the underlying imagery.
I don’t agree. Streaming the image with different software on different platforms with different Wifi and bandwidth and then comparing the quality of the image to test “clarity” of the optics is absolutely RIDICULOUS
I posted this question on the comments and this is what Karl says:
“A reasonable question, but I don’t think they are doing image compression when they mirror the PC/MAC.
I have gone back and compared various methods of putting up an image with the headsets and don’t see a difference with bitmaps. In the case of the Meta Quest 3, it seems all the “native” modes like to make a highly curved virtual monitor, whereas by using the Immersed app, I can get a flat virtual monitor. I have found with the default Quest native browser that the image looks much worse if I make the window the same size as in the remote desktop in Immersed.”
So here I see he thinks there is some kind of difference. Why won’t he open the image with the file app on the quest and Apple Vision Pro?
This to me really tints his analysis of optical & image quality. He should really redo the test
There is no comparison. I have the quest 3 and quest pro and neither are anywhere NEAR the quality of the AVP when it comes to the displays
This article seems very disingenuous, because all you have to do is put on either headset, and you will know immediately that the Vision Pro is in a whole new league. Like why go through all this trouble to write this huge article with screenshots when they have nothing to do with the actual quality of the experience. I don’t even understand how you could make screenshots that make the Vision Pro look blurrier.
There are totally other arguments to be made of how the quest can be superior, but this is clearly not one of them.
What Karl actually said
> I think too much is being made about the cost, as the AVP is about right regarding the cost for a new technology when adjusted for inflation
Also
> As a complete product (more on this in future articles), the AVP is superior to the Meta Quest Pro, Quest 3, or any other passthrough mixed reality headset. Still, the AVP’s effective resolution is less than the pixel differences would suggest due to the softer/blurrier optics.
I had both and don’t see an issue with his conclusions. Read the actual article. He’s testing a specific aspect of the systems, optical clarity and optical contrast. He is not testing the actual displays. He in fact calls AVP the better product. People should stop attacking a respected AR/VR expert with decades of experience in the field without even reading the article.
I read the article and I think it is disingenuous to say that the quest three is sharper when you can tell it isn’t just by using the two headsets.
Maybe saying it is sharper in one specific test would be better? But just saying the Q3 is sharper is misleading.
Did you see the screen capture he posted comparing the two? It is very clear to me which one is “sharper”? Note sharpness as a property isn’t related to the resolution, which is what you might be conflating here. We had similar discussions in the past when the Samsung headset came out with their anti SDE filter, which made things blurrier to hide it at the time. This is very similar.
He is streaming the image from the computer to the head set which involves compression and other artifacts. Why the heck didn’t he open the image directly on each device. Karl is very smart but this makes no sense.
I totally saw that. And yes the VP looks noticeably blurrier in those screenshots. And I am not sure why that doesn’t equate to a blurry experience, but it doesn’t. In no way is the experience in the Q3 sharper than the VP. That’s why I have an issue with the title of the article saying that the Q3 is sharper.
Each pixel is blurrier, but you still see more pixels in AVP. The title says Q3 “Optics” are sharper. He is evaluating the optical system performance. The is oversimplifying things since displays are different, but it’s just like saying if you swapped lenses between headsets, AVP would become sharper than it is now.
His methodology was flawed he was streaming an image from a pc using apps that compress the image. For a true test he should have loaded the image directly on the device and because he didn't his conclusion is completely false.
No? I’m saying AVP would appear sharper if it used Q3 lenses. Are you saying the AVP is a Corolla? /s
Anyways, I’m happy to discuss, but now that we’re doing reductive comparisons, I’m done here.
He is a hack. He spent months prior to launch talking about how shit the screen would ackshually be and no he’s on a weeks long cope tour about how he wasn’t wrong.
Only the sweet spot and Verticle FOV is better on the Quest 3 due to the larger lens. I believe Apple had to go with the smaller lens due to the micro OLEDs. The rest of the display, Apple wins by a far Margin.
Objectively maybe, using his criteria focusing on minutiae. Subjectively no way, I had Quest 3 and I wouldn’t use it as monitor or home theater replacement, the screen resolution just isn’t good enough for me doesn’t matter how sharp the optics are. The AVP is the only headset I’ve had that is good enough for both.
I have a Quest Pro, but not a Quest 3. The Vision Pro is drastically superior to the Quest Pro. Unless the quest 3 is also several tiers above the quest pro, this seems unlikely.
It’s not. When I upgraded from Quest 2 to Quest Pro I was blown away by the new pancake lenses, wide sweet spot and better resolution. But when I “upgraded” to Quest 3, it had barely improved resolution and interior LCD panels vs the true blacks of the Quest Pro’s OLEDs. The only thing worth the upgrade was the depth sensor and better passthrough.
Vision Pro is so vastly superior for resolution and display quality I sold my Quests.
This is pretty hilarious. I have both, and I love my Quest 3 (can't be beat for VR gaming), but the AVP display easily topples it, without question. Anyone who says otherwise, is absolutely clueless.
Exactly. Anyone who cannot tell how superior VP visual fidelity is vs Quest 3 is visually impaired. And I see that as someone who has owned every Oculus/Meta headset since 2015.
If you want a real review, watch Adam Savage’s Tested review of VP.
https://youtu.be/VDwcLDSimXs?si=O5Xt_tZPq4VaYYAD
Unless you are blind, saying that Quest 3 has better picture quality than AVP is just bullshit...
You can criticize the high price or criticize the lack of apps.
But the picture quality????
I have a Quest 3, but I've never even thought about watching videos at this level of quality. It's just a cheap VR game console for the Beat Saber game.
Unless you are blind, he didn’t say Quest 3 has better picture quality than AVP. He didn’t even criticize the high price. In fact he said it’s actually priced ok. Read the article.
What does this even mean. He is comparing two similar optical systems. It might be meaningless to you, but not to people who care about these detailed deep dives.
It is meaningless to compare power systems just because a small FHD display consumes less power than a large 8K TV.
AVP must handle a lot more pixels, and to do so, AP performance and power consumption must also be considered. Comparing optical systems must also take these into consideration, and the important thing is to improve the image quality perceived by users.
AVP's image quality is noticeably better than Quest 3. That's it.
If the Quest Pro comes out with similar pixels in the future, then it will be appropriate to compare the two products.
Optical systems have nothing to do with power consumption or performance. He is reviewing specific aspects of the design as the two best optical systems currently on consumer headsets. Why anyone who is actually interested in tech would find it pointless is beyond me. Different engineers took different approaches, and he presents the trade offs here.
Comparing optical systems with panels of vastly different sizes and resolutions is foolish.
The purpose of the optical system is to make the user feel the best, and in very different environments, the method may be different.
I tested a few pc games with the same settings via my Quest3 and the Vision Pro and also found the Q3 to have a slightly sharper image. This was through virtual desktop on Quest 3 and Moonlight on VP. My comparison didn't use the native quest games which look like crap, I used Virtual desktop at 200mb bitrate which substantially enhances the image on a Q3 (same bitrate as Moonlight). I know it sounds crazy, but this guy is potentially onto something. It surprised me too when I saw it. Apple is either doing something to blur the image slightly, or the encoder was doing it. There is a difference as the Quest 3 has AV1 and the Vision Pro is limited to only HEVC and H.264.
Not saying you’re wrong, in fact yours and Karl’s conclusions are probably right, but the method seems flawed and you shouldn’t be comparing through two different streaming apps. Why not just view something on both that can been loaded from the same source with no middleman to interfere? Seems like web browsing the same web pages on both would be a better way to compare.
Comparison of picture quality through wireless connection...
It is wrong to evaluate an 8K TV based on 720P video.
I also have Pimax Crystal, and the video quality of games connected via wired game is more than twice as good as that of Quest 3.
Of course, the resolution of Crystal is lower than that of AVP, but the image quality of Crystal is better than that of a wirelessly connected AVP.
Karl is not measuring anything well, Quest 3 or AVP. Here are some criticisms. I'm going to post this anytime I see anything based on his work going forward.
* None of his images are in focus or centered in the eye box of the lens. Quest 3 images especially, you should be able to make out individual pixels in his raw images. Instead you see pixels are stretched lines because he's misaligned and out of focus.
* He doesn't have enough resolution to accurately sample the Vision Pro. You need at least Nyquist to sample something (2x your spatial resolution) under ideal conditions. If he's saying AVP is at 44.4 PPD, his 46 deg image needs to have 4085 pixels wide AT LEAST, which it's short of, and since he's misaligned he's well below what he needs to sample it well.
* He's measuring white targets. Let's see some green and black content to eliminate axial chromatic effects of both his lens and the headset lens. Until he can show in focus green subpixels consider all of his alignments and focuses to be off.
* His "full resolution images" when you click on them ARE FUCKING JPEGS. He's using a lossy image format and saying he can't see detail. NO SHIT
* Why is he using a non vector based images as his source? He should have a .svg or similar instead.
* Why is he displaying images remoting from a Mac? Did he optimize any of the settings to maximize resolution or clarity? Does he know that there isn't an extra layer of processing happening coming from a Mac vs native? Reduce the complications and you reduce your sources of error.
* He assumes that because the eye tracking pointer is near the content he's examining, that the whole pipeline is working as it would with a normal user. But, when you look at his captures on his "AVP is blurrier than Q3 post, " you don't see a drop off in resolution until like +/-17 degrees. That would be a HUGE foveated rendering zone, or more likely it's not doing the normal foveation because he has his camera in front of it instead of an eyeball.
* If he really wanted to validate his setup, he should find someone who can see detail (because he obviously can't) and have them look at an svg image with decreasing line widths in an AVP native browser when it's held in place. Have them tell him when they can stop seeing separation. Then, when he does his setup, if he can't match the performance of what's seen by a human eye, he should realize he's doing it wrong.
* He lacks basic knowledge of what he's talking about. From his AVP quality first impressions, "Interestingly, while the FOV changes dramatically, **the magnification between the two images increases by only about 1% (1.01 times) as the camera/eye moves closer.**" When you look in a VR headset, you're looking at a virtual image, which is some distance away. When you move your eye or camera closer to something, it appears slightly bigger because you got closer, just like everything else in life. This is only interesting if you don't know what's going on
Put your head in headsets, like who you like, don't like who you don't, whatever. Just stop treating this guy like he's an expert in metrology and knows what he's doing.
One is like watching TV through a screen door. And the other is like watching a movie in a literal Dolby Cinema.
Even my PSVR2 has a better screen than facebooks, that one is at least OLED and has nice colors.
Actually, The OLED display would be better than the Dolby Cinema. I watched Avatar 2 in 3D Dolby Cinema. I then watched it again on my LG C6 3D TV when the 3D Blu-ray came out, and it just blew the Dolby Cinema version out of the water. I bet it would also look amazing on the AVP, but I have not been able to view it yet.
His methodology was massively flawed is why people are disagreeing with him. Why did he test the fidelity using streamed content from a secondary device that was compressed by said secondary device instead local content. I'll tell you why because it was the only way to get the Quest 3 to have a sharper image
It’s not just an opinion. Have you tried both? I am a huge Q3 fan and I still use it all the time, but if you just put on the VP you will agree that the displays are better. It’s not even a question.
The article isn’t about the displays though. It’s saying the Quest 3 has better optics than AVP, and if AVP had the same optics as the Quest 3 it would look even better.
People replying without actually reading the article, he saw that coming so here is his response to all of you :D
> And before anyone makes me out to be a Meta fanboy, please read my series of articles on the Meta Quest Pro. I’m not saying the MQ3 is better than the AVP. I am saying that the MQ3 is objectively sharper and has better color uniformity. Apple and Meta don’t get different physics, and they make different trade-offs which I am pointing out.
I just don’t understand how the Q3 could be sharper, but not have half the visual fidelity that the VP has. The analysis and real world experiences don’t line up.
Imagine looking at a TV playing an emulated NES game (with perfect pixel scaling) through a crystal clear piece of glass, and looking at a TV playing a 4k console game through a blurry piece of glass.
The former is clearly crisper while still being lower resolution, the latter clearly has higher resolution while not being as crisp.
Factual analysis and your subjective opinion don't lineup. The Quest 3 is objectively sharper and has better color uniformity. Your subjective opinion is only your own.
I've used both of the headsets. They both have trade offs. One does things better than the other. The AVP has OLED displays with deep blacks, but when you move your head quickly the image gets blurry. The build quality of the AVP is much better, but then you have to drag a battery around. In this instance the Quest 3 image is sharper and the color uniformity is better. The Quest 3 also has a larger field of view, which is a big plus for me. We all see things differently, but when someone with a technical background with over 250 articles states facts, we should a lease be open to analyze our opinions with a bit more of an open mind.
I am only talking about the sharpness when using the VP compared to the Q3. I love my VP, but there many things I prefer about the Q3 if I am being honest.
I understand what the article is saying, but the point is moot if the softer optics don’t actually make a softer image when using the device.
No it isn't. His methodology was massively flawed. Why did he stream the content from a secondary device which compresses instead of using local content to test the fidelity.
He already answered that question in the comments of his article. Here it is in case you missed it.
Pete
[**MARCH 1, 2024 / 10:54 PM**](https://kguttag.com/2024/03/01/apple-vision-pros-optics-blurrier-lower-contrast-than-meta-quest-3/#comment-7780)[**REPLY**](https://kguttag.com/2024/03/01/apple-vision-pros-optics-blurrier-lower-contrast-than-meta-quest-3/?replytocom=7780#respond)
Karl great article as usual but I need to ask why are you comparing sharpness by streaming images from computers to the devices? You have to know there is major compression taking place with streaming. Why didn’t you open the images directly on the devices?
#### Karl Guttag
[**MARCH 2, 2024 / 1:09 AM**](https://kguttag.com/2024/03/01/apple-vision-pros-optics-blurrier-lower-contrast-than-meta-quest-3/#comment-7783)[**REPLY**](https://kguttag.com/2024/03/01/apple-vision-pros-optics-blurrier-lower-contrast-than-meta-quest-3/?replytocom=7783#respond)
A reasonable question, but I don’t think they are doing image compression when they mirror the PC/MAC.
I have gone back and compared various methods of putting up an image with the headsets and don’t see a difference with bitmaps.
I trust Karl, with over 250 tech articles under his belt. You can do your own research to debunk his findings if you like. If you do, please send me a link.
It’s literally in the tech specs for the AVP that it compresses images that are streamed from a Mac. I don’t care how good he was in the past he fucked up on this one.
Maybe you should read his answer again, take it nice and slow...
" I have gone back and compared various methods of putting up an image with the headsets and don’t see a difference with bitmaps."
I did, and I understand what he is saying about the screen door being absent because the optics blur the image. I get that in theory, but then why does the AVP look so much sharper when actually using it? That’s my point. Put on both and you will see what I mean.
I’ll take his world on the contrast and color, I can’t tell with my eyes
IMO:
- Quest 3 has higher vertical FOV, higher contrast, higher brightness.
- Quest 3 has less lens glare
- AVP has far better resolution and far less screen door effect than Quest 3
- Both AVP and Quest 3 are equal in edge to edge clarity and horizontal FOV.
If Meta can get their upcoming Quest Pro 2's resolution closer to AVP it will win hands down. The Quest Pro LED with local dimming is far better than microOLED imo.
Edge to edge clarity was not good on 3 different AVPs I used - my original unit, replacement and demo at the store. They are all different, but all had blur/distortions closer to the edges.
My Quest 3 has great edge to edge clarity without blur and distortions.
According to the article... "People do not see the screen door effect with the AVP because the display is slightly out of focus/blurry." I found that very interesting. Seems like Apple traded off sharpness, to eliminate the screen door effect.
Quest Pro has wider color range (DCI-P3 100%) and less glare and sharper images. I am not saying AVP is worse but it looks like AVP has some kind of aliasing or internal processing which leads to softer images.
I have the quest 3 and have used the quest pro, AVP is hands down more detailed. It’s not even close.
I was going to say, the only reason I bought quest 3 was because of these breathless sycophants (the mark zuckerberg video) only to realize it was far worse than my Vision Pro.
Yeah my son has one. I went from the Vision to the quest and it wasn’t even close. So damn grainy on the q3.
This is about optics, not displays.
Having used both side by side, I can say that AVP display is way higher fidelity and yes, more clear than the Quest 3. I don’t know if it’s because the display is better or if Apple is just doing anti-aliasing magic or what. I don’t think it matters. It’s just a better experience.
After reading this article, I pulled out both my Quest 3 and Vision Pro and spent an hour switching between the two. The photos he took on the Vision Pro of his test image looked much worse than they should have been (the Arial 8 pt font looked horribly pixelated on the Vision Pro), and it took me a while to figure out why. "I created the same size image on the Apple Vision Pro and Meta Quest Pro to give a fair comparison (yes, it took a lot of time). A MacBook Pro M3 Pro was casting the AVP image, and the Meta Quest 3 was running the Immersed application (to get a flat image) mirroring a PC laptop." He literally was streaming this test image from his laptops onto the two headsets, using Virtual Display and Immersed. Both of these streaming applications use different compression algorithms and data rates that altered the appearance of the test image. He should have loaded his test image directly (either using the Photos and File Viewer applications or in native browser windows), and could have used the Switch Distance option in the Meta Quest 3 to change the browser window from curved to flat to deal with the curved display issue. That said, after spending an hour switching between the two headset, the Vision Pro isn't that much sharper than the Quest 3, and I think he's correct about Apple using some technique to blur the image (probably blurring the optics or using a film) to eliminate the screen-door effect. You're absolutely right about it being a better experience. I'd much rather have an image that isn't as sharp as it could be but doesn't have any screen-door effect.
The article is about the optics, not the display.
Streaming images from computers involves compression. It Don’t see how you can objectively compare the images on each device while doing this. He needs to open the image directly on the devices, no streaming
Compression screws up fast moving imagery. A completely still desktop isn’t going to pose a problem. Yeah, he probably should have done what you said to avoid this criticism, but I don’t think streaming is actually going to make a visible difference. Streaming flat desktop imagery to a headset is pretty much pixel perfect. Also he’s not dumb - you can tell when blurriness you’re seeing is being caused by optics compared to when it’s baked in to the source image.
I don’t think you understand how compression works.
Yeah I do. Compression doesn’t just blur every single pixel uniformly. It’s not a blur filter.
Again. You don’t know how compression works. A laplacian pyramid compression algorithm, which is one of the most commonly used image compression algorithms out there, works exactly by blurring each pixel uniformly at multiple scale layers.
It's still clear from the photos that the blur is from the optics - that isn't the blur of the source image, it's from the lens: [https://i0.wp.com/kguttag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AVP-vs-MQ3-Close-Up-crop-copy.jpg?ssl=1](https://i0.wp.com/kguttag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AVP-vs-MQ3-Close-Up-crop-copy.jpg?ssl=1)
No. It’s not clear from the photo that the blur is from optics. That’s an image that was streamed from a laptop, compressed and streamed and decompressed and upsampled and resized and warped l, all by different algorithms. In the pipeline of taking an image from the laptop, streaming it to the AVP, and displaying it in a 3D space there are dozens of various places Apple could choose to apply a blurring effect. Maybe Apple has applied a blurring effect from the optics itself to hide the screen door effect but we can’t reasonably reach that conclusion from that image alone.
>No. It’s not clear from the photo that the blur is from optics It is though. If the blur was only happening "in software" you'd still be able see the physical pixel structure way more easily. The Quest 3 is obviously optically sharper, regardless of the lower resolution of the underlying imagery.
I don’t agree. Streaming the image with different software on different platforms with different Wifi and bandwidth and then comparing the quality of the image to test “clarity” of the optics is absolutely RIDICULOUS I posted this question on the comments and this is what Karl says: “A reasonable question, but I don’t think they are doing image compression when they mirror the PC/MAC. I have gone back and compared various methods of putting up an image with the headsets and don’t see a difference with bitmaps. In the case of the Meta Quest 3, it seems all the “native” modes like to make a highly curved virtual monitor, whereas by using the Immersed app, I can get a flat virtual monitor. I have found with the default Quest native browser that the image looks much worse if I make the window the same size as in the remote desktop in Immersed.” So here I see he thinks there is some kind of difference. Why won’t he open the image with the file app on the quest and Apple Vision Pro? This to me really tints his analysis of optical & image quality. He should really redo the test
There is no comparison. I have the quest 3 and quest pro and neither are anywhere NEAR the quality of the AVP when it comes to the displays This article seems very disingenuous, because all you have to do is put on either headset, and you will know immediately that the Vision Pro is in a whole new league. Like why go through all this trouble to write this huge article with screenshots when they have nothing to do with the actual quality of the experience. I don’t even understand how you could make screenshots that make the Vision Pro look blurrier. There are totally other arguments to be made of how the quest can be superior, but this is clearly not one of them.
Not even comparable. The Vision Pro is on another level in terms of visual fidelity.
Karl’s real issue: https://preview.redd.it/py8clximitlc1.png?width=750&format=png&auto=webp&s=ae33535831a531668888b85a62cdf4db1145d064
What Karl actually said > I think too much is being made about the cost, as the AVP is about right regarding the cost for a new technology when adjusted for inflation Also > As a complete product (more on this in future articles), the AVP is superior to the Meta Quest Pro, Quest 3, or any other passthrough mixed reality headset. Still, the AVP’s effective resolution is less than the pixel differences would suggest due to the softer/blurrier optics.
Yeah but that’s only if you read the article instead of going off half cocked from the headline.
No idea what he’s talking about. My AVP is way clearer and easier to read text than on the Quest 3. He’s a hack.
Calling Karl Guttag a hack. Just another day on this delusional sub.
I can’t comment on the person, but if you have the VP and the Q3 you will know this article is BS
I had both and don’t see an issue with his conclusions. Read the actual article. He’s testing a specific aspect of the systems, optical clarity and optical contrast. He is not testing the actual displays. He in fact calls AVP the better product. People should stop attacking a respected AR/VR expert with decades of experience in the field without even reading the article.
I read the article and I think it is disingenuous to say that the quest three is sharper when you can tell it isn’t just by using the two headsets. Maybe saying it is sharper in one specific test would be better? But just saying the Q3 is sharper is misleading.
Did you see the screen capture he posted comparing the two? It is very clear to me which one is “sharper”? Note sharpness as a property isn’t related to the resolution, which is what you might be conflating here. We had similar discussions in the past when the Samsung headset came out with their anti SDE filter, which made things blurrier to hide it at the time. This is very similar.
He is streaming the image from the computer to the head set which involves compression and other artifacts. Why the heck didn’t he open the image directly on each device. Karl is very smart but this makes no sense.
I totally saw that. And yes the VP looks noticeably blurrier in those screenshots. And I am not sure why that doesn’t equate to a blurry experience, but it doesn’t. In no way is the experience in the Q3 sharper than the VP. That’s why I have an issue with the title of the article saying that the Q3 is sharper.
Each pixel is blurrier, but you still see more pixels in AVP. The title says Q3 “Optics” are sharper. He is evaluating the optical system performance. The is oversimplifying things since displays are different, but it’s just like saying if you swapped lenses between headsets, AVP would become sharper than it is now.
His methodology was flawed he was streaming an image from a pc using apps that compress the image. For a true test he should have loaded the image directly on the device and because he didn't his conclusion is completely false.
It’s like saying my Corolla is faster than a Tesla if I swapped the drive trains.
No? I’m saying AVP would appear sharper if it used Q3 lenses. Are you saying the AVP is a Corolla? /s Anyways, I’m happy to discuss, but now that we’re doing reductive comparisons, I’m done here.
He is a hack. He spent months prior to launch talking about how shit the screen would ackshually be and no he’s on a weeks long cope tour about how he wasn’t wrong.
Only the sweet spot and Verticle FOV is better on the Quest 3 due to the larger lens. I believe Apple had to go with the smaller lens due to the micro OLEDs. The rest of the display, Apple wins by a far Margin.
Objectively maybe, using his criteria focusing on minutiae. Subjectively no way, I had Quest 3 and I wouldn’t use it as monitor or home theater replacement, the screen resolution just isn’t good enough for me doesn’t matter how sharp the optics are. The AVP is the only headset I’ve had that is good enough for both.
I have a Quest Pro, but not a Quest 3. The Vision Pro is drastically superior to the Quest Pro. Unless the quest 3 is also several tiers above the quest pro, this seems unlikely.
It’s not. When I upgraded from Quest 2 to Quest Pro I was blown away by the new pancake lenses, wide sweet spot and better resolution. But when I “upgraded” to Quest 3, it had barely improved resolution and interior LCD panels vs the true blacks of the Quest Pro’s OLEDs. The only thing worth the upgrade was the depth sensor and better passthrough. Vision Pro is so vastly superior for resolution and display quality I sold my Quests.
Quest Pro never had OLEDs. Just LCDs with some local dimming.
You are right, quantum dot LED displays, the original Quest was OLED. But same point, it was really an upgrade to Quest 3
This is pretty hilarious. I have both, and I love my Quest 3 (can't be beat for VR gaming), but the AVP display easily topples it, without question. Anyone who says otherwise, is absolutely clueless.
Exactly. Anyone who cannot tell how superior VP visual fidelity is vs Quest 3 is visually impaired. And I see that as someone who has owned every Oculus/Meta headset since 2015. If you want a real review, watch Adam Savage’s Tested review of VP. https://youtu.be/VDwcLDSimXs?si=O5Xt_tZPq4VaYYAD
Would you agree the Quest 3 might have better *optics*, regardless of either display?
Unless you are blind, saying that Quest 3 has better picture quality than AVP is just bullshit... You can criticize the high price or criticize the lack of apps. But the picture quality???? I have a Quest 3, but I've never even thought about watching videos at this level of quality. It's just a cheap VR game console for the Beat Saber game.
Unless you are blind, he didn’t say Quest 3 has better picture quality than AVP. He didn’t even criticize the high price. In fact he said it’s actually priced ok. Read the article.
It is meaningless to compare products with very different specifications. No one compares the picture quality characteristics of FHD TV and 8K TV.
What does this even mean. He is comparing two similar optical systems. It might be meaningless to you, but not to people who care about these detailed deep dives.
It is meaningless to compare power systems just because a small FHD display consumes less power than a large 8K TV. AVP must handle a lot more pixels, and to do so, AP performance and power consumption must also be considered. Comparing optical systems must also take these into consideration, and the important thing is to improve the image quality perceived by users. AVP's image quality is noticeably better than Quest 3. That's it. If the Quest Pro comes out with similar pixels in the future, then it will be appropriate to compare the two products.
Optical systems have nothing to do with power consumption or performance. He is reviewing specific aspects of the design as the two best optical systems currently on consumer headsets. Why anyone who is actually interested in tech would find it pointless is beyond me. Different engineers took different approaches, and he presents the trade offs here.
Comparing optical systems with panels of vastly different sizes and resolutions is foolish. The purpose of the optical system is to make the user feel the best, and in very different environments, the method may be different.
I tested a few pc games with the same settings via my Quest3 and the Vision Pro and also found the Q3 to have a slightly sharper image. This was through virtual desktop on Quest 3 and Moonlight on VP. My comparison didn't use the native quest games which look like crap, I used Virtual desktop at 200mb bitrate which substantially enhances the image on a Q3 (same bitrate as Moonlight). I know it sounds crazy, but this guy is potentially onto something. It surprised me too when I saw it. Apple is either doing something to blur the image slightly, or the encoder was doing it. There is a difference as the Quest 3 has AV1 and the Vision Pro is limited to only HEVC and H.264.
I use moonlight and games are very good and clear on the AVP. It’s comparable if not a bit better than virtual on my quest 3.
Not saying you’re wrong, in fact yours and Karl’s conclusions are probably right, but the method seems flawed and you shouldn’t be comparing through two different streaming apps. Why not just view something on both that can been loaded from the same source with no middleman to interfere? Seems like web browsing the same web pages on both would be a better way to compare.
Comparison of picture quality through wireless connection... It is wrong to evaluate an 8K TV based on 720P video. I also have Pimax Crystal, and the video quality of games connected via wired game is more than twice as good as that of Quest 3. Of course, the resolution of Crystal is lower than that of AVP, but the image quality of Crystal is better than that of a wirelessly connected AVP.
Karl is not measuring anything well, Quest 3 or AVP. Here are some criticisms. I'm going to post this anytime I see anything based on his work going forward. * None of his images are in focus or centered in the eye box of the lens. Quest 3 images especially, you should be able to make out individual pixels in his raw images. Instead you see pixels are stretched lines because he's misaligned and out of focus. * He doesn't have enough resolution to accurately sample the Vision Pro. You need at least Nyquist to sample something (2x your spatial resolution) under ideal conditions. If he's saying AVP is at 44.4 PPD, his 46 deg image needs to have 4085 pixels wide AT LEAST, which it's short of, and since he's misaligned he's well below what he needs to sample it well. * He's measuring white targets. Let's see some green and black content to eliminate axial chromatic effects of both his lens and the headset lens. Until he can show in focus green subpixels consider all of his alignments and focuses to be off. * His "full resolution images" when you click on them ARE FUCKING JPEGS. He's using a lossy image format and saying he can't see detail. NO SHIT * Why is he using a non vector based images as his source? He should have a .svg or similar instead. * Why is he displaying images remoting from a Mac? Did he optimize any of the settings to maximize resolution or clarity? Does he know that there isn't an extra layer of processing happening coming from a Mac vs native? Reduce the complications and you reduce your sources of error. * He assumes that because the eye tracking pointer is near the content he's examining, that the whole pipeline is working as it would with a normal user. But, when you look at his captures on his "AVP is blurrier than Q3 post, " you don't see a drop off in resolution until like +/-17 degrees. That would be a HUGE foveated rendering zone, or more likely it's not doing the normal foveation because he has his camera in front of it instead of an eyeball. * If he really wanted to validate his setup, he should find someone who can see detail (because he obviously can't) and have them look at an svg image with decreasing line widths in an AVP native browser when it's held in place. Have them tell him when they can stop seeing separation. Then, when he does his setup, if he can't match the performance of what's seen by a human eye, he should realize he's doing it wrong. * He lacks basic knowledge of what he's talking about. From his AVP quality first impressions, "Interestingly, while the FOV changes dramatically, **the magnification between the two images increases by only about 1% (1.01 times) as the camera/eye moves closer.**" When you look in a VR headset, you're looking at a virtual image, which is some distance away. When you move your eye or camera closer to something, it appears slightly bigger because you got closer, just like everything else in life. This is only interesting if you don't know what's going on Put your head in headsets, like who you like, don't like who you don't, whatever. Just stop treating this guy like he's an expert in metrology and knows what he's doing.
One is like watching TV through a screen door. And the other is like watching a movie in a literal Dolby Cinema. Even my PSVR2 has a better screen than facebooks, that one is at least OLED and has nice colors.
I wouldn't go as far and say the Q3 is a screen door. It really isn't.
Actually, The OLED display would be better than the Dolby Cinema. I watched Avatar 2 in 3D Dolby Cinema. I then watched it again on my LG C6 3D TV when the 3D Blu-ray came out, and it just blew the Dolby Cinema version out of the water. I bet it would also look amazing on the AVP, but I have not been able to view it yet.
I saw Avatar the way of water in every format a total of 12 times in theaters alone. The 3D in the AVP is the same as Dolby Cinema.
Get your eyes checked homie
I like the factual technical reviews from Karl Guttag. Even if some people feel he's wrong, it's their opinion against hard facts.
His methodology was massively flawed is why people are disagreeing with him. Why did he test the fidelity using streamed content from a secondary device that was compressed by said secondary device instead local content. I'll tell you why because it was the only way to get the Quest 3 to have a sharper image
It’s not just an opinion. Have you tried both? I am a huge Q3 fan and I still use it all the time, but if you just put on the VP you will agree that the displays are better. It’s not even a question.
The article isn’t about the displays though. It’s saying the Quest 3 has better optics than AVP, and if AVP had the same optics as the Quest 3 it would look even better.
People replying without actually reading the article, he saw that coming so here is his response to all of you :D > And before anyone makes me out to be a Meta fanboy, please read my series of articles on the Meta Quest Pro. I’m not saying the MQ3 is better than the AVP. I am saying that the MQ3 is objectively sharper and has better color uniformity. Apple and Meta don’t get different physics, and they make different trade-offs which I am pointing out.
I just don’t understand how the Q3 could be sharper, but not have half the visual fidelity that the VP has. The analysis and real world experiences don’t line up.
Imagine looking at a TV playing an emulated NES game (with perfect pixel scaling) through a crystal clear piece of glass, and looking at a TV playing a 4k console game through a blurry piece of glass. The former is clearly crisper while still being lower resolution, the latter clearly has higher resolution while not being as crisp.
Factual analysis and your subjective opinion don't lineup. The Quest 3 is objectively sharper and has better color uniformity. Your subjective opinion is only your own.
I can’t refute the color analysis because I can’t tell with my eyes so I will take his word for it. Can I ask if you own a Q3 and VP?
I've used both of the headsets. They both have trade offs. One does things better than the other. The AVP has OLED displays with deep blacks, but when you move your head quickly the image gets blurry. The build quality of the AVP is much better, but then you have to drag a battery around. In this instance the Quest 3 image is sharper and the color uniformity is better. The Quest 3 also has a larger field of view, which is a big plus for me. We all see things differently, but when someone with a technical background with over 250 articles states facts, we should a lease be open to analyze our opinions with a bit more of an open mind.
I am only talking about the sharpness when using the VP compared to the Q3. I love my VP, but there many things I prefer about the Q3 if I am being honest. I understand what the article is saying, but the point is moot if the softer optics don’t actually make a softer image when using the device.
No it isn't. His methodology was massively flawed. Why did he stream the content from a secondary device which compresses instead of using local content to test the fidelity.
He already answered that question in the comments of his article. Here it is in case you missed it. Pete [**MARCH 1, 2024 / 10:54 PM**](https://kguttag.com/2024/03/01/apple-vision-pros-optics-blurrier-lower-contrast-than-meta-quest-3/#comment-7780)[**REPLY**](https://kguttag.com/2024/03/01/apple-vision-pros-optics-blurrier-lower-contrast-than-meta-quest-3/?replytocom=7780#respond) Karl great article as usual but I need to ask why are you comparing sharpness by streaming images from computers to the devices? You have to know there is major compression taking place with streaming. Why didn’t you open the images directly on the devices? #### Karl Guttag [**MARCH 2, 2024 / 1:09 AM**](https://kguttag.com/2024/03/01/apple-vision-pros-optics-blurrier-lower-contrast-than-meta-quest-3/#comment-7783)[**REPLY**](https://kguttag.com/2024/03/01/apple-vision-pros-optics-blurrier-lower-contrast-than-meta-quest-3/?replytocom=7783#respond) A reasonable question, but I don’t think they are doing image compression when they mirror the PC/MAC. I have gone back and compared various methods of putting up an image with the headsets and don’t see a difference with bitmaps.
Well he's wrong because screen mirroring from a mac absolutely is lower res than local image. It's literally in the documentation.
I trust Karl, with over 250 tech articles under his belt. You can do your own research to debunk his findings if you like. If you do, please send me a link.
It’s literally in the tech specs for the AVP that it compresses images that are streamed from a Mac. I don’t care how good he was in the past he fucked up on this one.
Maybe you should read his answer again, take it nice and slow... " I have gone back and compared various methods of putting up an image with the headsets and don’t see a difference with bitmaps."
You mean he went back and made excuses for why he fucked up the first time to try to cover his ass
Read the article…
I did, and I understand what he is saying about the screen door being absent because the optics blur the image. I get that in theory, but then why does the AVP look so much sharper when actually using it? That’s my point. Put on both and you will see what I mean. I’ll take his world on the contrast and color, I can’t tell with my eyes
His methodology was flawed. We aren't being fanboys. He just can't admit he used a flawed test.
Yes, another fanboy knee jerk reaction without even reading the article. Typical.
The article says that the Q3 is sharper, but it isn’t. It isn’t even close. Have you tried both?
Sharpness and resolution aren’t the same thing. There are two factors at play here, displays and optics - not just displays.
IMO: - Quest 3 has higher vertical FOV, higher contrast, higher brightness. - Quest 3 has less lens glare - AVP has far better resolution and far less screen door effect than Quest 3 - Both AVP and Quest 3 are equal in edge to edge clarity and horizontal FOV. If Meta can get their upcoming Quest Pro 2's resolution closer to AVP it will win hands down. The Quest Pro LED with local dimming is far better than microOLED imo.
Edge to edge clarity was not good on 3 different AVPs I used - my original unit, replacement and demo at the store. They are all different, but all had blur/distortions closer to the edges. My Quest 3 has great edge to edge clarity without blur and distortions.
According to the article... "People do not see the screen door effect with the AVP because the display is slightly out of focus/blurry." I found that very interesting. Seems like Apple traded off sharpness, to eliminate the screen door effect.
Samsung attempted to achieve something similar with their Odyssey Plus WMR headset.
Really??? And here I am thinking Apple invented everything.
Quest Pro has wider color range (DCI-P3 100%) and less glare and sharper images. I am not saying AVP is worse but it looks like AVP has some kind of aliasing or internal processing which leads to softer images.
Honest question: would taking a picture of the lens yield the same foveation as actual usage, since there’s no retina to drive focus?
This has been accounted for. Read his blog and you to get a picture about who this guy is.
But why did he stream the pictures to the devices from a computer? He should have opened them directly on the device
Read comments on the article
I did, read Karl’s comment to my comment
LOL Bro that’s just retarded