Categories
Tech

Comparison of different HMDs

Since I’m a gadget geek, I collect a lot of odd unusual gadgets and one of those happens to be HMDs (head mounted displays), and its important to separate the distinction of HMDs from VR headsets like the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive because those are meant primarily for gaming and have a much wider field of view to accomodate for that. HMDs are mostly designed as mobile home theater experiences, they may or may not include headphones and generally are designed to be used in a small apartment or for people who don’t have room to put a large projector or TV.

So I’ve tried a bunch of HMDs over the years, here are my experiences with each:

Myvu Crystal

Myvu Crystal 701

This was my first HMD. Way back in 2008.
Pros: It was probably the best HMD for video quality at the time (now it sucks). Built in earphones. Portable size.
Cons: It’s outdated and it’s not very immersive, low resolution by today’s standards.

Sony HMZ-T1

Sony HMZ-T1 Personal 3D Viewer review - CNET

Pros: Best image quality for the time by far. Stereoscopic SBS 3D support. OLED display so good contrast ratio. Still holds up somewhat today. Sound from built in headphones is decent.
Cons: Not very comfortable. Due to needing separate processor, not portable at all. Light shield needs to be attached separately. Only 720p.

Sony HMZ-T3

Performance & Conclusion : Sony HMZ-T3 Personal 3D Viewer ...

Pros: Still great the best image quality of its time and still passable even today. OLED display so good contrast ratio. Stereoscopic SBS 3D support. Somewhat more portable than the first 2 generations due to being “wireless” and slightly less bulky.
Cons: Still not that portable and even though its “wireless” still needs to be in range of the signal processor. Light shield needs to be attached separately. Only 720p. No built in headphones anymore.

Vuzix iWear

Consumer Electronics Daily News | Vuzix iWear Takes Leap ...

Vuzix is one of the oldest HMD makers and have been around for decades.
Pros: Its cheap (only $99 at this time), and quite immersive with the light shield. Stereoscopic SBS 3D support. Sound from built in headphones is decent.
Cons: LCD display. Picture quality looks very washed out, resolution not very impressive, contrast isn’t very good. Big and bulky. Light shield needs to be attached separately.

Avegant Glyph

Compare Avegant Glyph VS Andoer Portable 3D VR Glasses

Pros: Very compact and portable. Stereoscopic SBS 3D and frame packed 3D support. Sound quality from built in headphones is decent. Visual quality is very sharp due to retina projection technology.
Cons: Not very immersive, suitable more for drone racing or outside usage rather than an actual home theater experience. Lots of light leakage. Virtual display is not very large.

DJI Goggles

12 reasons to choose the DJI Goggles - DroneRush

Pros: Great for drones. Picture quality is surprising decent considering the main purpose was not for home entertainment use. Virtual display is quite large although the edges might be a little obscured for some people.
Cons: Big and bulky. No built in headphones. No support for any 3D formats (due to its main purpose being for FPV drone usage). Not being able to see the edges clearly due to big display (its both a pro and a con depending on your preference).

Royole Moon

Royole Moon Foldable 3D Virtual Mobile Theater review ...

Pros: Very comfortable. Picture quality is on par with the old Sony HMZs which is quite good and virtual display is also on par with the old Sony HMZs. OLED display so good contrast ratio. More portable than the old Sony HMZs. Built in noise cancelling headphones have surprisingly good sound quality. Stereoscopic SBS 3D and frame packed 3D support. Built in OS so you can play youtube or load videos onto it.
Cons: Not as portable as the Glyph still. The virtual display isn’t as large as the DJI Goggles or Cinera are.

Goovis G2

GOOVIS Cinego G2 Specifications • SizeScreens.com

Pros: More portable than the Royole/Cinera/Sony, picture quality is in between the Royole Moon and the Sony HMZ headsets, its acceptable. OLED display so good contrast ratio. Stereoscopic SBS 3D support.
Cons: No built in headphones. Not as immersive as the Royole or the Sony HMZ or Cinera. Some light leakage.

Cinera

Pros: Highest res per eye (2560×1440) out of all the HMDs I have tested. Stereoscopic SBS 3D support. Comes with arm mounting bracket, so its more comfortable by way of not having to support the headset with your head. USB and SD card support. Virtual display is quite large although the edges might be a little obscured for some people.
Cons: Using it without the arm mounting bracket is uncomfortable. Not being able to see the edges clearly due to big display (its both a pro and a con depending on your preference). No built in headphones. Not portable – no battery unless you buy the FPV Mount.

Best video quality: Cinera HMD
Best audio quality: Royole Moon
Best comfort: Cinera HMD because its not strapped to your head… Royole Moon in second place
Best portability: Avegant Glyph
Best immersiveness: Cinera HMD has the largest ‘virtual’ display size, Royole Moon / Sony HMZT3 with light shield have less light leakage

Categories
General

Back in SF, Hollywoods problem with Asians and issues with modern feminists

Ok so first off, I’m back in SF, so I finally got a chance to review some really cool gadgets (videos below). I finally got to sell alot of my excess gadgets (though not all of them). Including my beloved Honda PCX which I had to sell because I wasn’t staying in SF long term, and it was taking up money parking it and keeping it in storage. Just before I sold it though, I took a few nice videos with it.

My beloved Honda PCX
At Twin Peaks with my scooter

Now, onto some controversial topics I want to talk about. Ghost In the Shell, one of the most renowned Japanese Animes, has been adapted into a movie, and surprise surprise, Hollywood decides to cast a white actor. This is not the first time Hollywood has done this of course, they’ve done it with countless movies from Dragonball Evo to Avatar the Last Airbender to 21 to Aloha (with Emma stone playing an Asian), and now with Scarlett Johansson playing the character in a Japanese adapted film. Now, I realize people make excuses such as oh the character wasn’t written as an Asian person etc but why couldn’t they have cast an Asian still?

Hollywood seems to be getting more and more criticism for not casting women, blacks, etc why is Asian any different? It seems not casting Asians, or whitewashing Asian roles doesn’t seem to be criticized as much. Why? If Asian actors never get experience playing a lead, how can Asians ever get a lead role? It seems Hollywood just has something against Asians and lead roles, period. Its a vicious cycle.
Now, no one seems to care that Nick Fury is played by a black person in the movies, even though the original character was white in the comics. Imagine if an Asian person played Nick Fury in the movies. Shouldn’t make a difference since they both diverge from the comics, but I’m willing to bet people will have more issue with an Asian actor than a black actor playing the role.

For proof of this I’ve found this popular comment on Facebook that was a comment on John Cho’s article showing why Asians can definitely be romantic leads. This one got over 50 upvotes when I saw it:

Complaining about the lack of Asian lead characters in North American films is like going to India, China or Korea and complaining that they should be starring white people in their films.

This is the reason why Americans still can’t accept Asians in movies. They think we are perpetual foreigners. They think we can’t play romantic leads. They always make excuses to justify the discrimination whenever it happens like this comment. The reason why there’s no white characters in Korean dramas or Bollywood films is simple: how many white people are living in Korea or India compared to how many Asians are living in the US (hint its over 15 million).

Somewhat related to discrimination, another topic that I want to talk about (again) is feminism, in particular in the USA.
I’ve already talked about this alot, but I want to re-address this because it comes up more and more frequently these days.

I’d be following my news feed and my favorite channels IGN, Wired, Verge, TIME, Economist, etc and these feminist articles would be polluting my feed, like what the heck, what does TechCrunch or PC Gamer have to do with feminism? Well it all started 2 years ago in 2014 because of this controversy called Gamergate and along with the whole Reddit Ellen Pao fiasco that happened, “feminist” issues have suddenly started permeating everything from gaming articles to politics. So its everywhere now.

Why do I want to talk about this? Because I’m bothered and frustrated by it. Now, I am in full support of women’s rights, and I am not a misogynist, I don’t hate women or anything. Its just that I think the “modern day” feminists take issues with so many small trivial nonsensical things that have never really been an issue before and then complain about it to get recognition. What am I talking about here?
this article that TIME published and I commented on perfectly sums it up. The word feminist is becoming corrupted these days because it is used by women who aren’t really feminists, but rather just women who like to whine and complain about under-representation and other things and delight in hating on men and calling all guys sexists and misogynists (this is a good example). Emma Watson has become the poster child for going a bit too far, that under-representation of women and womens rights are two separate issues.
Don’t believe me? One such women called me out on Facebook with this message:

Quite equal? Really? How many members of the US government are female as opposed to male? How many times has there been actual legislature proposed by women to regulate what men do with their bodies? How many women CEOS are out there floating around in the world today as opposed to men and are you really trying to suggest that the ” glass ceiling” in that corporate world doesn’t exist? Equal…just like equal pay for equal work right?

Is that why young girls all over the world are murdered simply for going to school and are subject to arranged marriages? Spoken like a true chauvanist…things are ” quite equal,” simply because in I get to vote and can drive a car just like men folk do

This is exactly what I was talking about. And let me explain my reasoning here more in depth:

So called “feminists” these days like to complain that they are under-represented or over-sexualized or treated in a different manner in everything from movies to video games. These feminists like to think of themselves as exactly equal to men in every way, including wanting to serve in the military forces, even though being exactly the same as men would ruin the fabric of what makes men and women different.
Historically men and women have played different roles in society, and now that gap is closing, but to think that men and women must be exactly the same is nonsense. What makes men and women attracted to each other is the fact that they are biologically and behaviorally different. If they were the same, there would be less and less attraction between each gender.

So, I live in South Korea, where women are actually treated much differently than men are. They are told to put on makeup all the time, because its “manners”. They have the highest gender wage gap inequality in the OECD. They often have to be housewives, to cook and clean, and look pretty for the men on all occasions. They have to get plastic surgery to get a better chance of finding a job. This is a country where feminism is actually needed. There are not many feminists in Korea, due to it being a patriarchal society, but it is definitely more needed here than in the USA. Women in the USA are already equal to men, rights wise, in pretty much every way. In fact, I implore you to name a profession or position where women are not allowed to do.
This is a good example of something that would never happen in South Korea. Women don’t complain about wearing high heels all day, and even if they do the company would probably fire them. Thats a huge difference.

Women in the USA are empowered enough to do anything they want, from serving in the military (not possible in a lot of other countries like Korea), to playing football/hockey (again in other countries, not possible), to becoming the front runner to be President of the United States (Hillary Clinton obviously). The USA is an equal opportunity country and anyone can be anything they want.
The supposed “lack of representation” in certain industries which is what modern day feminists complain about, is because men are traditionally trained to do those fields, like being an engineer for example, or being a soldier, or movie director, etc. Traditionally men were trained in those fields. If more women were trained in those fields, if they have enough experience, of course they could do those things.
And this is also the reason why women are potentially underpaid in those fields is because of lack of experience. Since men are traditionally dominant in those fields, it makes sense that they are more experienced, and are thus paid more. Once more women go into those fields, get more experience, then they will be compensated as much. This is true even in Silicon Valley with female CEOs of Oracle, AMD, Yahoo just to name a few. They are paid more than other employees, as you would expect.

Women are overly sexualized? Well how about guys needing to look buff and muscular? Its the exact same thing. Cherry picking positions where men were traditionally dominant? How about I pick a position like nurse or customer service where traditionally women were preferred over men. Is that being sexist to men? The “wage gap” between men and women in America is because of the same reason – guys generally have more experience in those fields, and thus are paid accordingly. Again, if women (like Marissa Meyer for example) have experience in those fields then they are paid accordingly as well.

So my point is, modern day feminists who complain about these issues aren’t really “feminists”. Because under-representation in a field has nothing to do with women’s rights. If women weren’t allowed to work in those fields, then thats a women’s right issue. However, thats not the case. Its just a matter of breaking tradition and getting more women trained in those fields, thats it.

And I also like how that girl called me out as a “chauvinist” like a true modern day feminist who just assumes that every guy who doesn’t agree with their views must hate women. Indeed.

What’s really ironic about these men-hating feminists is that, men were originally the reason why women got rights in the first place. Indeed, I know about the suffragists and the women pioneers, and not to take anything away from them, but it was true that men were in charge of everything back in the day. For most of history, men have been in charge, so in order for a woman to petition for and receive rights, that woman must have, at some point, convinced some men in a position of power to give them those rights. Which means that, at some point, men must have sympathized with those women pioneers and helped them get those rights, the rights to vote, the right to have abortion, etc all those rights were achieved with the help of men. I mean, how could they have not? Women didn’t have any power back then like people said. So its ironic that us men are now being hated on and called misogynists so readily these days.

I would also like to add this additional comment by a feminist here

The reason why women are stuck with uncomfortable, inconvenient and dysfunctional wardrobe/makeup/hair elements is because in our patriarchal society women’s value is a lot closer tied to her looks rather than her intelligence. Girls and women spend millions of hours more in their lifetime on maintaining their appearance instead of developing their careers, inventing things or earning money. Trust me, if it was found acceptable by society every woman would love to wake up with short hair, skip makeup and heels, put comfortable flat shoes on and non-tight pants with functional pockets and still be considered attractive and/or professional.

This is really revealing of the personality of American feminists – they think they can speak for every girl in the world and they think their opinion is always the best and right one. First of all, Western countries are no longer “patriarchal” and I would love to see evidence that it still is. Secondly, perhaps girls and women like to care about their appearance and wear skirts and heels because it makes them feel more like a woman? And since when are they forced to wear those outfits anyways? This isn’t the 1950s anymore. In the US these days, women can wear whatever they want and they won’t be ostracized for it. Again, I feel like there’s a cultural difference here because in Korea, almost every girl is wearing skirts/heels/makeup, whether they really like to or not. But they’re not complaining.

I feel like this idea that every girl wants to dress like a guy, or be “comfortable” like men, and do things men can do like serve in the army etc is being shoved down our throats when really, its only a small (and vocal) part of the female population that actually wants that. Most women that I know, wants to feel like a woman, dress like a woman, and behave like a woman because you know… they’re a woman. They’re not being forced to, they’re not being oppressed, thats just the opinion of a small group of women who like to complain about pretty much everything.

Anyways I hope I’ve made my point. American feminists complaining about these issues really need to take a step back and do some research on whether their complaining is justified, at least in comparison to other countries in the world.

And now… for some videos