Yea, Ive got a 77 c2 and a cx and these are incredible tvs. Having a giant screen on the vision pro is of course awesome, but also feel like I've already got my money worth in these TV already and can share them with family.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How's the movie experience?
- Thread starter f1vespeed
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you can get over the glare, the FOV, and pressure on your face (the things that never let you forget you're wearing VR goggles) it's probably the best way to watch a movie. Resolution and HDR are not up to the standard of a similarly priced OLED but watching a movie on the top of the mountain environment and seeing the fog below the screen reflect the movie content is golden. Movies + environments is so cool. Also just having a floating window of any size and any position without an environment is great.
Once they solve the glare issues and increase FOV I could give a wholehearted recommendation for it as your primary media consumption device without the caveat of "well if you can get past all the annoyances of wearing a VR headset"
Once they solve the glare issues and increase FOV I could give a wholehearted recommendation for it as your primary media consumption device without the caveat of "well if you can get past all the annoyances of wearing a VR headset"
Yeah I almost forgot thanks for reminding me. The AUDIO on AVP with the speakers is the most underrated feature of the device. It's just as impressive as the display and software. AirPods don't match the spatial quality of the AVP's speakers.
AirPod Pro's new ones with spacial audio sound just as good or better.
I agree in a sense, yes. For an isolated experience the AirPods do better but for the spatial audio experience (when windows and gestures emit sound) I prefer the speakers on AVP because they don't have to rely on Transparency mode. AVP speakers simulate the experience of objects in the real world emitting sound, AirPods never did that for me personally.
The Moon is your friend if you're watching movies, I've found. Provides a distraction-free upper half background area, and a sufficiently illuminated "floor" area that counteracts glare TREMENDOUSLY.
Dim environments simply produce too much glare, and bright environments distract too much from the foreground. The Virtual Theater is awful. It needs an illuminated floor.
Dim environments simply produce too much glare, and bright environments distract too much from the foreground. The Virtual Theater is awful. It needs an illuminated floor.
Last edited:
The speakers are quite pleasant sounding and airy, great for headphone-free listening of most content, but for movies and music there is a notable absence of bass.
I really like the dark theater mode. The outside world disappears and you are alone in your own exclusive venue. The resolution is fine (always considering the source - no magic device will turn a 1950's movie into a 4k experience). So far my only complaint is the weight. The solo strap is worthless to me and the dual loop has to be carefully adjusted or I get pseudo eye strain after my facial muscles get tired of pushing up.
Interesting way you interpreted those links. I am actually surprise there was pushback on what I wrote as it's been sort of well known in the AV community for years just based on anecdotal experiences.
Let me rephrase this for you.
1.) Do you agree with the inverse square law?
2. Do you agree that the blue light wave length from an LED light source being somewhere around 450 mn is a short wavelength that is the highest in energy in the visible light spectrum?
3. Given both of properties of the inverse square law and blue light wavelengths being high energy and short wavelength, do you think it could be conceivable that there is a difference in putting a LED light source inches from your eyeballs VS a LED light source that is being projected across a room say 12 feet and then being diffusely reflect back 8 feet to your eyeballs? Lets assume we dim the LED light source from your eyes as much as possible well under 100 nits.
I don't think the inverse square law says what you think it does.Interesting way you interpreted those links. I am actually surprise there was pushback on what I wrote as it's been sort of well known in the AV community for years just based on anecdotal experiences.
Let me rephrase this for you.
1.) Do you agree with the inverse square law?
![children-inversesquarelaw-devicescreens-intensity.jpg.webp]()
2. Do you agree that the blue light wave length from an LED light source being somewhere around 450 mn is a short wavelength that is the highest in energy in the visible light spectrum?
![blue-light-spike-LED-emissions-graph.jpg.webp]()
![blue-light-chart-330x330.png]()
3. Given both of properties of the inverse square law and blue light wavelengths being high energy and short wavelength, do you think it could be conceivable that there is a difference in putting a LED light source inches from your eyeballs VS a LED light source that is being projected across a room say 12 feet and then being diffusely reflect back 8 feet to your eyeballs? Lets assume we dim the LED light source from your eyes as much as possible well under 100 nits.
Yes, your eyes receive more energy from displays closer to your eyes... if the displays are the same size. But the screens in the Vision Pro are 1/1730 the size of the screen in a 65" TV.
100 nit brightness is perceived as 100 nit brightness no matter how far you are from the screen.
I don't understand your point about blue light. What does that have to do with the distance the screen is from your eyes?
Personally, it was completely killed by the lens glare. I bought it almost exclusively for watching movies, but can’t get past the glare. I’m unable to watch a movie without being completely distracted. With that said, it’s so very impressive and immersive. It’s like being in a theater, but better. As others said, once the glare is fixed with different lenses it will be my preferred way to watch movies. Until then, it’s this.
Attachments
What's most frustrating about the glare is when you get a dark scene in a movie in a dark environment (the lake at night for example) everything looks pristine. The moment any light comes in the glare comes back.
It's honestly like putting us in the drivers seat of a Ferrari with tractor tires. You know what the engine (the M2) and transmission (the microOLED display) is capable of but you are held back by the tires (glare)
In other words:
It has nothing to do with direct versus reflected light, it's a matter of magnitude.
If the argument here is that projectors are incapable of generating as much light as an LED display and thus you can't make the mistake of keeping it uncomfortably bright, that's only turning a limitation into a feature.
No. Violet is. We see out to about 380nm.
I don't want to freak you out here, but... the sky is blue. Most of the light our eyes encounter outside is biased blue because of the Rayleigh scattering from the atmosphere. You're going to have to work pretty hard to make blue light seem scary.
You seem to be taking the same property and treating it as three. "Blue being blue and blue". The energy and wavelength are related by a constant-- they are the same measurement. The color is simply a less precise way of expressing the wavelength-- they are the same measurement. Blue isn't a particularly short wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum, in sunlight, or even in the useful visual frequencies in nature. It does happen to be in the upper third of the wavelengths most humans can perceive because we have two of four or five photosensors tuned in that range.
All of which is to say, why are we talking about blue light? If it's somehow bad, why would we be so sensitive to it? Not only do we have blue-tuned cones, but our rods are particularly sensitive to blue as well-- if it was bad, you'd think we'd have evolved a defense against it.
If you're confused by things like Night Shift, that's not to protect our eyes from blue, it's because blue light breaks down melatonin and discourages sleep.
LED spectrum is arbitrary:
If you're getting too much blue light from your display, then your display is out of calibration. If you want the colors to look natural, they should be the same as you'd see in the real world-- if you're watching a scene on TV that looks like it was taken outdoors, then the color from your TV will look like daylight.
Nobody has explained what that difference is yet other than being dimmer.
The light being reflected from the blue sky is about 7000 nits, direct sunlight is much stronger.
You're going to have to present something more than FUD here to make your point. Inverse square laws and wavelengths sound scientific, but the main thing science would look for is causality. None of your sources or your commentary give a causal relationship.
Last edited: