text:
all 114 comments

[–]Kbeam007 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Can this be stickied?

[–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I don't have any glue :P

I would love it to be stickied, but so far no one has been contributing, so it's just being a leaf on the wind of reddit

[–]Kbeam007 0 points1 point  (1 child)

maybe because the process as described is somehow involved

[–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

fixed :)

[–]easy_pie 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Well, this was more difficult than I thought it would be. My gaze always seemed to move slightly. But in the end for the SVR I got about 79 degrees. Edit: with some more practice I remeasured and got 83

[–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

sweet, I remeasured and got L=121, R=100 -> 79 degrees. So We are getting very close values. Method 2 is wayyy better to use. I'm just going to remove method 1 from the post. Btw, i'm going to be placing user names along with the measures, if you want me to post yours anonymously, let me know...same for the Vrizzmo Volt below

[–]screwyluie 1 point2 points  (16 children)

I've no idea if I'm doing this right but I tried my best to follow the instructions, I got 58.5 for these lenses

the method doesn't seem right to me though. you can't see the marks through the lenses, which is what we should measure isn't it? I mean we want to know what the lenses see and thus we should measure what they see, I would think. Also the above method just measures the FOV of the aperture which is pointless. You'd get the same results if you removed the lenses. We, well I, want to know what the lenses see, the simulated FOV.

edit, it also seems like the distance of the lens from you eye would change this value. seems like there would be at least several variables which is why the vive/rift don't really claim an FOV, it's changes from person to person

edit,edit; so we're creating a triangle of vision and measuring the angle, if I understand this right. So I did the same thing with a ruler held where the phone would go. same idea, look with one eye and then the other, find the length of the far edge of the triangle, then measure from that plane to the lens plane. This creates a triangle. R= half the length of the side, and L= distance between planes. Using the same formula I come up with 108 degrees which makes much more sense to me and what I'm seeing.

[–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (15 children)

you can't see the marks through the lenses, which is what we should measure isn't it

no. see IMAGE. My method is trying to measure the angle at the eye (it actually comes out to angle from the center of the eye, not the pupil). The value you get by making any measurement of what you see through the lenses, is dependent only on the focal distance of the lens, and the FOV number near your eye (assuming you eye is lined up)

[–]screwyluie 0 points1 point  (14 children)

but that image is exactly what I'm interested in. your method just measures the aperture. if you removed the lenses, with your method, would get the same result.

[–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (13 children)

Oh, i must have misunderstood you. If you were to remove the lenses and look at the edge of the lens holes to the marks on the wall, then yes, you will get the correct answer. That is..unless the wall of your viewer block the direct path.

For example, by the time i wrote this post, my V2ss have been taken apart of study/lens play. In order to measure to FOV, I tried just looking through the hole to the wall, but the back wall of the V2s blocks the direct path to the wall. So what i did was tear the front wall free of the rest of the viewer, and just use the front viewer placed against my face as it would be during normal cardboard usage, and look through the holes.

Though, rereading your post

I mean we want to know what the lenses see and thus we should measure what they see, I would think. Also the above method just measures the FOV of the aperture which is pointless. You'd get the same results if you removed the lenses. We, well I, want to know what the lenses see, the simulated FOV.

it still seems like you are trying to measure some characteristic of the far cone (see the IMAGE) vs a characteristicof the near cone (closer to the eye). The near cone tells you how much of your vision is occupied the display. The far cone angle and length (focal length) vs your phone screen size tells you what fraction of the total view (FOV) is occupied by your phone screen.

[–]screwyluie 0 points1 point  (12 children)

it still seems like you are trying to measure some characteristic of the far cone (see the IMAGE[RES ignored duplicate link]) vs a characteristicof the near cone (closer to the eye). The near cone tells you how much of your vision is occupied the display. The var cone tells you what fraction of the total view (FOV) is occupied by your phone screen.

ok as I thought, we're measuring different things. the near cone has nothing to do with what you see in the viewer, it's just how close your eyes are vs the diameter of the lens.

I suppose this would be good to know when comparing one HMD to another, but in my case I modded my cardboard to increase the far cone and see more of the screen as well as widening the near cone to occupy more of my actual vision.

[–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

Sounds like your mod is just increasing the size of the lens :). Mod photos?

Yea, when picking an HMD, you should look at both the FOV and focal plane size compared to whatever phone you'd be using.

[–]screwyluie 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Sounds like your mod is just increasing the size of the lens :). Mod photos?

it's accomplishes both, yeah.

[–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

oh you are that poster :).

I was thinking of getting a Achromatic Aspherical Lenses from Edmund..and then i saw that they'd cost 100 a piece. I just ordered 20 different lenses from HERE. They should be arriving today, so I'll post how good/bad quality they are for VR.

For VR, having a bigger phone is always easier to work with. With a bigger phone, you can have a bigger lens, without making it have a lower focal length, so you can have a really big FOV. If you try to do the same with a small phone, you'd need a low focal length, and you'd get a lot of aberration away from the center.

[–]screwyluie 0 points1 point  (6 children)

I was looking at the site before I found the ones on edmunds. I really wanted a ~40x40fl lens which they don't have, and I also don't think they're aspherical lenses which helps with the blur/chroma at the edges.

will be interesting to see what you think of them though

[–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I bought almost every size they have, because I want to try to see what happens if I use two in series - also trying to design a parfocal lens for cardboard. This is lens that contains 3 lenses, whose coordinated movement can change zoom while maintaining..or change focal distance while maintaining zoom..etc

[–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

also, fun fact: hyperbolic lenses are virtually perfect lenses (mathematically). Parabolic are are an approximation, while spherical are even worse approximations. All have perfect numbers right near the center.

For VR, a perfect lens is actually not the best choice. So, while edmund optics gives aspherical lenses, it depends on the parameters of the lens if it is optimized for VR or not.

[–]tboy2000BoboVR Z4 0 points1 point  (1 child)

So is a 6" phone better than a 5.7" phone? But with a 6" phone wont you be missing content on the very top and bottom of the phone which will be out of the FOV of the lenses?

[–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For every viewer, there is a specific phone screen that is optimal. What I was referring to was that the bigger your phone is, the weaker the lens can be, which results in less distortion and a crisper image. the only issue eventually becomes that the weight of the unit gets pushed far back - but this can be remedied with proper strap positioning or counterweights. My comment wasn't about any particular viewer, but about viewer design.

As far as particular viewers go, 5.5-6 seems to be the best range for the most good viewers. 5 works, but you usually end up seeing at least a bit of the edge. >6 works, but you end up losing pixels and therefore reducing overall image resolution (for most viewers). If you have a 6 inch phone, or 7 inches...and you can fit it into a Z3, you would probably have a pretty good experience...but who has 7 inch phones now-a-days?

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [–]RemindMeBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I will be messaging you on 2016-04-13 15:30:00 UTC to remind you of this link.

    CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

    Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.

    [FAQs] [Custom] [Your Reminders] [Feedback] [Code]

    [–]MariaKorolov 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    I've been eye-balling it, based on reference to known standards -- i.e., Gear VR at 96 degrees. I would LOVE to have an official formula. Calibrate it by using the largest phone that fits into the Gear VR.

    [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    i'm confused - do you have the GearVr that you can use to calculate a value? If you have viewers for which you can run the above steps to calculate the #s for, it'd be super helpful to the community

    [–]MariaKorolov 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    I have a Gear VR, but just a 5.1-inch Galaxy S6 smartphone. So my FOV won't be as wide as theoretically possible, I think.

    [–]MariaKorolov 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    And I have about two dozen other viewers, though I'm trying to give them away to my readers as fast as I can -- they keep piling up.

    [–]carrotstien[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    As I mentioned in the post, because I have the same problem, just find the edge of the viewer's view. So in your case, it might be past the edge of the screen (i'm not sure how an s6 looks in a gear VR).

    If you have a dozen other viewers, you'd be invaluable to the community by running this test :) That'd be sooo much information.

    [–]emertonom 0 points1 point  (8 children)

    I feel like the center of the lens and the center of the wall will be difficult to determine, and this will add uncertainty to the measurements.

    The obvious way to get around this is to make two marks on the wall some distance apart, position the viewer parallel to the wall and as close to the wall as it can be and still see both dots, and measure the distance to the wall and also the distance between the dots. You could then approximate the horizontal FOV using the distance to the wall as L, and half the distance between the dots on the wall as R, as in your original formula.

    This doesn't take into account asymmetric FOV, but then neither does your proposed technique.

    If we did want to account for asymmetric FOV, it'd be possible to do so, but it would require a few more measurements, and might be complex enough that people would lose interest. Specifically, you'd have to measure how far you have to move the viewer parallel to the wall in order for the other eye to see both dots, and also measure the inter-lens distance of the viewer. If the distance between the dots on the wall is A, the distance from the viewer to the wall is B, the distance you have to move parallel to the wall for the other eye to see both dots is C, and the inter-lens distance is D, the FOV would be atan((A + C - D) / 2B) + atan((A - C + D)/2B), or else atan((A+C+D) / 2B) + atan((A - C - D)/2B), depending on the relationship between which eye you measured first and in which direction the FOV was larger. I don't think there are many cases where the FOV is larger towards the other eye, though, because you'd run into the center of the phone, so probably the first of those formulas most of the time.

    The other problem with this, though, is that some v2 viewers, like my Minkanak cardboard, don't have a divider between the eyes. This means that the FOV towards the center isn't actually a plus, because you can see into the other eye's view, which is a bit distracting. It'd be better not to count this in the viewer's FOV, since there's no way to make use of it with the phone's screen, but I don't have a good suggestion of how to exclude this from a measurement that doesn't actually put something inside the viewer.

    [–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

    I may have misunderstood what you meant if you implied this, but I added the new method above as per easy_pie's comment.

    [–]emertonom 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Yeah, this is more or less what I was saying. The "asymmetrical FOV" stuff mainly applies if you want the per-eye FOV, because the triangles typically aren't actually isoceles--the outer angle is typically more acute than the inner one. But that doesn't matter if you aren't worried about the stereo overlap region. Sorry I didn't explain things well.

    It might be worth pointing out that this technique doesn't actually require a phone, though. In most cases you'll actually need to omit the phone--if you've got a big enough phone that it fills your viewer's FOV, it'll prevent you seeing the wall. Or if you've got a viewer like Unofficial Cardboard, the tray that hold the phone is opaque, so even with a tiny phone, you won't be able to see the wall if the tray is closed. Since what you're measuring is just a property of the viewer itself, the phone is largely irrelevant anyway--or rather, whether a particular phone takes full advantage of the FOV of a particular viewer is a separate question.

    [–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    You are correct it doesn't need the phone. However, in some viewers, that have no see-through, without a light source of any kind inside the viewer, the user might not be able to make out where the edge of their view is (as they'd be looking into pitch blackness).

    I wouldn't suggest actually looking through your viewer to try to see the wall, since the lenses would distort where on the wall you are looking. That's why in the video explanation, you see that the user repeats moving the viewer up to and away from their face to see where the gaze falls on thew wall.

    [–]emertonom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Ah, gotcha. That makes sense.

    [–]emertonom 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Actually, a further and much deeper problem occurs to me now.

    As biconvex lenses, the measurement we're getting is very likely warped, and much lower than the actual FOV of the viewers--and not even necessarily comparable between models. In particular, if two viewers use lenses of different focal lengths, I believe that will make these results misleading.

    [–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Yea, I am going to add this to the post, but you should not try to line up the marks on the wall with what you see when you look through the lenses - since the lenses will, as your picture shows, converge the rays.

    In a way, you can imagine removing the lenses completely, and then looking through them to find the points on the wall. This will give you the correct answer. However, it's important to note that for some viewers, your FOV is actually limited by the inside walls of the viewer (these are poorly designed viewers)

    [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    thanks for you input and thought.

    Regarding centering: Perhaps I need to clarify, but the person should stand over the dot so that their head is centered. The viewers are typically about 15cm across. I guess I should add that you should stand at least a certain distance from the wall. In my case, i stood 100-150 cm away from the wall. Let's say at 100cm, the error in final FOV compared to lateral distance from the red dot (where you stand over) is 1.15 degrees per centimeter. If you stand 200cm from the wall, it reduces to .6 degrees, and so on. So to reduce error, you should stand as far from the wall as convenient in your location. I guess it would help to measure in both direction, and average the R's to offset a lot of the error.

    You are suggesting moving the viewer closer to the wall - the problem with that is that since I want the user to put the viewer on, examine the view, then take the viewer off, and find where their gaze falls on the wall, moving too close to the wall makes this difficult. And, as per above, increases error.

    What do you mean asymmetric FOV? Do you mean when placing your phone in your viewer, the phone screen can't be centered, and causes asymmetry in the view bounds? That's why i specifically asked to the user to figure out where the edge of the viewer is, and not necessarily the edge of their screen. For example, my screen ends before the viewer window ends for my S4 with my SVR Glass. However, I can see the edge of the viewer and estimated accordingly.

    Unless you mean another type of asymmetric FOV, it'd be too hard to list the exact left->middle and middle->right view angle per viewer per phone...it'd be too much data to collect.

    I'm not sure what the divider has to do with this measurement. For the left eye, for example, you'd be closing your right eye and looking at the left-most bound of the view. Opposite for the the right eye. At no point are you looking a the divider or lack thereof. Though, a viewer that is so poorly designed that your right or left eye sees the video stream intended for the other eye should be just thrown out.

    There is importance in how well the views cross, as it is in this region you actually get stereoscopic vision. Everything beyond is mostly just peripheral.

    I'll append the original post with the graphic, and the idea that you should stand further if you can, and measure both R's and average them to reduce error.

    edit...actually, at some point, standing further from the wall reduces your ability to point where on the wall your gaze falls :) So i'd guess 100-150 cm is pretty good..and average the R's would be the best way to reduce error.

    edit#2 Also, i'd like to stress that the final FOV you get isn't some universal FOV measure, because there is no such thing. But the FOV you get from this method, can easily be compared with other FOVs you get from this method..etc. So, even if this method gives you a 10% reduction from some absolute value, everyone's result will be equally 10% reduced...like taxation :P

    [–]easy_pie 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    I think this might be what emertonom was saying but I'm not sure. I was just going to suggest instead of having to keep moving the point on the wall it might be easier to fix the point a reasonable distance (could even just use the corner of the room or something) then move forward or backward until the point is right at the edge of the view as you have said. You can then take the measurement of how far you are from the wall. One thing that needs to be clarified is whether you look directly at the edge by moving your eye or use peripheral vision as this changes how far across you can see.

    [–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    It's hard to say whether to move the point or not since it really depends on what you are using to mark. Maybe some people have a chalk board in their home :)

    I'm not following what you mean about using the corner of the room.

    ooo, wait, do you mean, place a center point. Place 1 point to either side at some distance. Step back, facing the center point until both points are visible. Measure L. This is good! Emerton, if that's what you mean..good idea! Easy_pie...if you meant this as well..good idea to you ! Will amend.

    Regarding peripheral or moving your eye. I know about this, and tried the two methods. The R value i got was only about 2 cm off. I guess if i'm unclear this would give everyone's FOV value as +/- 2 degrees. hmm, I will clarify to move your eye direction and not depend on peripheral.

    [–]easy_pie 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    That's it yeah. I'm getting ans SVR in a day or two so it will be interesting to see how close the FOV value I get will be to yours. Hopefully there isn't too much human judgement involved in eyeing it up

    [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    That's my hope as well. What I think I'll do is if people provide different values, I'll post each, and post an average, standard deviation etc.

    [–]easy_pie 0 points1 point  (7 children)

    Ok i think I'm getting the hang of it now. For my Vrizzmo Volt I measured 90 degrees

    [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    Thanks for contributing! I have never heard of this viewer. Does it go by different names? Ever see it on amazon? Is it this ONE

    How does it compare to SVR, except for the +7-11 degrees of FOV :). Lens clarity, comfort, does it fit a 5 inch screen better...? Also, on that site, they say that they are using 2 lenses. How are the chromatic aberration and sweet spot compared to SVR?

    [–]easy_pie 1 point2 points  (5 children)

    That's the one yeah. Though it looks like the mk 2 version has a few changes to mine, different phone holder and lenses appear to be held differently but essentially the same. It's Polish I believe and I think their website might be the only place you can get them. It's quite an interesting one, there's no moulded plastic, and its all held together with screws so it would be quite a good base for modding I think. Lens clarity is fine, though the fact it has double lenses means cleaning the inner faces is rather tricky. They claim having two lenses reduces aberration but I'm not sure about that as the bigger lens is purely a simple magnifier. I would say the aberration is similar to the svr, maybe a little worse, but the different FOV and magnification makes it difficult to compare directly. Talking of magnification, its a fair bit more than the SVR, from measuring what I see on my 5.7", it looks like 5" is the ideal size for it. That's mainly why I bought the SVR. I did try taking out the magnifying lenses but then I could see too much. It's just occurred to me that I could have just tried buying some lower magnification lenses, oh well. Comfort is good, maybe slightly better for me than the svr as my nose is getting pressed on by the wide lens holders. Having said that, the mk 2 version looks like has less room than the mk 1 (why would they do that!?) There's no lens adjustment on the volt however. I blue tacked some glasses lenses on top of mine so I've ended up with triple lens madness

    [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Triple lenses all the way through :P. Having multiple lenses could reduce aberration if one is convex and the other is concave, and they are made of different materials. Also, it might be possible that focusing using 2 lenses with 2 light bends is better for aberration than focusing with 1 lens with 1 big light bend.

    I emailed them. I wish it was on amazon so I could try it. You aren't in New York City by any chance are you?

    [–]easy_pie 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    Both concave, and I'm on the other side of the Atlantic I'm afraid. I've just been sending some more time comparing them and I have to say the svr lenses do win on clarity and low distortion, I just wish they were a little smaller or had smaller holders so I could get my eyes closer to bask in their glory. I have just noticed though an annoying imperfection in the left lens, almost like a ring running round it a centimetre from the edge

    [–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    *convex :)

    What do you mean about the lenses being too large? Do you mean your face hits the black holder ring before your eyelashes hit the lens surface? Mine get super close. Not sure how much 2 mm more would do.

    [–]easy_pie 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    That's the one, I vaguely remember learning which way round in primary school. It's mainly my nose getting in the way of the orange bits, but I think my brow presses against the black rim as well. Looking closely at the lens there is a couple mm round the edge that's flat, if only they'd trimmed that down think it would just have fit me. Oh well, the quest continues

    [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    any shape any size easy to build...i'm going to email them

    [–]ThatBrandon 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Can anyone with a VR Box check its FOV?

    [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I show people the path, but they still need to take it themselves :\

    I wish I thought of doing this before getting and returning all of the viewers I had owned. 2 are coming from china (z4 included), so I'll be able to add to the small list.

    [–]3015 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    Just tried this with my Google Cardboard v2 from Knoxlabs. Here are my steps/calculations:

    I placed tape in 3 spots each 36in apart. I then found the point where the edge of my view in the headset was at the same angle as the tape out of the headset. This distance was 44.5in. atan(36/44.5)*2=78°.

    Like you said, this measurement depends on IPD when using a headset with fixed lenses. I have an IPD of 62mm, which is slightly below average, so I also calculated my per eye FOV, which should be much less dependent on IPD. Mine was 69°, 39° outward and 30° inward.

    The technical specs released by Google for the Cardboard v2 say that the FOV of the lenses used in Cardboard v2 is 80°, so my values seem to be in the range I would reasonably expect. However, I am very skeptical of the precision of this method. I feel like my vision may have been unconsciously drawn to the marks on the wall even when it wasn't quite exactly where I was looking before I took the headset off. I tried to account for this by testing several times at many different distances, but I could still be off by several degrees. I think that the best estimate of how good a viewer's FOV is will have to come from both measurements like this and subjective comparisons between headsets.

    I have to say I am a bit worried about how my result compares to your measurement of 58° for the BOBOVR Z4, since I have one on the way. Have you tried a cardboard Cardboard before, and if so, how would you say it compares to the Z4?

    When my Z4 arrives I will do a more rigorous test of the FOV of my Cardboard and the Z4.

    [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

    I took a V2 that I have lying around. I took the lenses out a while ago, so what I did is tear just the front plate off and use that to make the measurement - since the front plate cut out circles match where the lenses would be.

    The points on the walls were 100cm apart, and i had to stand 183cm away. This comes out to a 57 degree FOV.

    Let's see if this makes sense IPD wise. My ipd (measured with official IPD measuring tools) is 65.5mm. The IPD of the V2 is 61mm. Based on how my head sits on it, my best measurement is that the tip of my eye ball is about 2cm away from the V2 front plate. Eye balls are around 24mm in diameters, and since we are pivoting our eye to look from edge to edge, let's calculate the FOV from the center of the eyeball. The center would be about 44mm away from the plate hole, which is 3.7cm wide. Considering my IPD of 65.5, assuming that my face is about symmetrical, the center of my eye is 32.75 mm away from the center of the front plate. The center of the lens hole is 30.5mm from the center of the front plate. So the center of my eye is 2.25 mm to the right of the center of the ring. The radius of the hole is 18.5mm.

    Drawing the triangle whose one corner is at the center of my eye, and whose right angle is in the middle of the ring, the length of the triangle is 44mm, and the width of the triangle is 18.5-2.25 = 16.25mm. Finding the angle from center that my eye has to rotate to view the edge of my vision becomes atan(16.25/44) = 20.27 degrees. Which results in a total FOV for me of 40.52 degrees. ....this is if we are calculating from the center of the eye. This wouldn't match the same result since the light wouldn't go from the edge of your view to the center, since there is a bunch of refraction points. The purpose of this calculation to gauge approximately how much FOV gets effected by IPD. If my IPD was yours (62mm), the center of my eye would only be .5mm away from the center of the hole. This would make the calculation atan(18/44) = 22.25 degrees, which results in a total IPD of 44.5 degrees.

    So, in conclusion, an IPD difference of 3.5 mm would probably relate to something like 5 degrees of FOV difference. Your measurement was 78 degrees...which is off by 34 degrees. My measurement was 13 degrees off...

    Let's try something else. What if we calculate it from the tip of the eye ball?

    For my IPD, that comes out to atan(16.25/20) * 2 =78 degrees. For your IPD, that comes out to atan(18/20) * 2 =84 degrees.

    If you consider that when pivoting your eye, the tip of your eyes moves back about 3mm, that makes FOV for me 73 .73 and 78.5 for you.

    Yes, I know what you mean. Very often I look at the edge of my vision and notice that my head moves a bit. Ideally someone should put your head into a vice during the test _. This is why I hoped that everyone would contribute so that whatever natural error there is in the method, would average out to a consistency that people can compare headsets with.

    I just put on and off repeatedly the V2 and the Z4, and both seem to have about the same FOV. So maybe when I do it, I am more strict or maybe offset something due to some psychological bias. Whatever the reason is, i'm adding my measure of the V2 to the post, so that when people see my measurement of both headsets, they'll see that whatever that number is for them it'd end up being about the same.

    WOW edit thanks to /u/3015 i mathed too hard and used the diameter instead of the radius of the eyeball. Using the radius instead:

    atan(16.25/(44-12)) *2 in degrees = 53.8440592 degrees which is super close to my FOV measurement of 57 degrees.

    [–]3015 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Wow, 57 vs 78mm is really a huge difference. I measured the inter-lens distance of my Cardboard and found that it is actually 63mm. I'm not sure whether it's due to an intentional change or inaccurate manufacturing, but it probably accounts for a bit of our different estimates (just like our different IPDs). A lot of the rest is likely due to measurement error, probably mostly on my side since my estimates don't seem physically posible.

    I really like your idea of trying to estimate what FOVs you can plausibly get for a given lens diameter and eye to lens distance. Using the center of the eye is definitely the correct way to measure it as long as we are measuring by angling the eye towards the edge of the FOV since in that case the angle from the lens edge to the pupil is the same as from the lens edge to the center of the eye. I think that you have made an error in your calculations however by using the diameter of the eye in your calculations instead of the radius. I made some simpler calculations by assuming IPD=inter-lens distance. I measured the distance form what I guessed was the center of the lens to the front of my eye using a camera and a ruler, and got estimates between 16 and 18mm, so I used a value of 17mm. I considered the "center" of the eye to be the point that does not move when the eye rotates. Because the eye has that part that sticks out in front, that point is probably 14mm from the front rather than 12, so I used that value. These gave me the formula:

    atan(18/(17+14))*2 = 60.28 degrees

    This is assuming the view for both eyes will overlap exactly since IPD=inter-lens distance so this would be the FOV for one eye and for both together. This is probably about what I should have gotten for my per eye FOV.

    For the front-of eye-measurements, I think the lens center to pupil distance may be more relevant than the absolute front of the eye since the pupil is where the light converges if I understand correctly. If I assume the same values as I did in my previous calculation, and assume 3mm from the front of the eye to the pupil and 3mm pupil movement from center to edge, I get these results:

    atan((18-3)/(17+3))*2 = 73.74 degrees

    This result is not really relevant to your calculation method though since it doesn't involve the eye looking all the way to the edge of the screen. It may be a better estimate of real world experienced FOV though.

    Given the implausibility of my previous results, maybe it is best if you remove my test result from your post, I'll leave that up to you. Either way, I'll do more testing including multiple averaged trials to try to improve precision once my BOBOVR Z4 arrives.

    [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    HAHHA LOOL. All that work, and I got really worried when my FOV measure method didn't measure the center eyeball geometric estimate..and it was only because i used the diameter of the eye like you said!!! Using the radius instead:

    atan(16.25/(44-12)) *2 in degrees = 53.8440592 degrees which is super close to my FOV measurement of 57 degrees.

    In fact, that is a great verification of my method! :D

    thanks for finding the flaw in my math!!!

    [–]3015 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Looks like your method works well... as long as I'm not the one doing the measurements.

    There's one other thing I realized but forgot to put in my post. Because of the distance between the lenses, the distance you are looking to the side is not quite actually the distance between the dots, but the distance between the dots - 0.5*inter-lens distance. So, the correct formula should be:

    FOV = atan(R-0.5I/L)*2, where I is the inter-lens distance. This should only have a small impact on the final value though.

    And one other other thing I forgot. I've noticed you've contributed one whole hell of a lot to this subreddit recently. I like cardboard and this sub a lot, so I really appreciate it.

    [–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Yea the formula i used was 2 times the angle formed by the triangle formed by the center of your eye, the point on the lens directly in front of your eye, and the far edge of the lens.

    Aw thanks! Yea I always loved VR and am so glad that tech is finally catching up to developer ideas. Nothing kicks off VR love quite like reading "Ready Player 1" and then watching "Sword Art Online" :)

    I feel really strongly that the more information people have access to, the higher standard they'd hold VR tech to. I've seen 'journalistic' articles about viewers and it is so obvious that the writer knows so little about the topic. People read that, end up making poor decisions based on that information. With better information, there would be more demand for higher quality..not to mention that based on how many of these viewers are designed, it seems like the engineers who designed them don't even know themselves how things should be....i'm actually planning to apply to google soon with some prototype/demo stuff and work for their VR department. Them or HTC...or...i don't knowwww there are so many great options :)

    [–]3015 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Yea the formula i used was 2 times the angle formed by the triangle formed by the center of your eye, the point on the lens directly in front of your eye, and the far edge of the lens.

    Ohhhhh. That was part of my incorrect estimation. I was measuring the distance from the viewer to the wall like a fool. If I'd done it right my estimates would have been less incorrect.

    [–][deleted]  (6 children)

      [–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

      The measurement you are talking about is also important, but that isn't the FOV. Field of view is a subjective measure of how much to the right and left and up and down you can pivot your eyes (or see peripherally) you can see in degrees.

      The measure you are referring to is a function of FOV, and the focal length of the lens. Geometrically, it is the cross sectional area of the cones formed by your FOV cone refracted through the lens at the distance your are placing your phone. You need to calculate some snell's law stuff, but it isn't your basic highschool physics. (i mean..it is, but the normal angles require some work to calculate).

      Alternatively, what you can calculate, and i'm sort of hinting at that through the post, is for the person to mention what phone they are using (screen size) and to estimate how much of the screen is in the view / how much past the screen you see.

      With viewers that can move lenses/phone holder, and change IPD, it's difficult to get some universal number of what phone size works.

      That being said, there is a general rule of thumb you can use. 35mm focal length is about a 5 inch screen. 40mm FL is about a 5.5 inch screen. 45mm is about a 6inch screen.

      It isn't perfectly like that, and with different IPDs it makes it harder to know what value to place.

      Let's call this other value focusing area. FA. A phone with a high FOV, but small FA, will give you good immersion, and work well with a smaller phone. A phone with a low FOV, but high FA would require a larger phone in order not to see past the screen, but the immersion will be very bad due to the FOV.

      The higher the FOV the better the viewer. This is typically a universal truth. Some people might not want a larger FOV because a larger FOV eventually means that the pixels will appear larger. So a viewer with 180 degrees FOV right now would make the pixels very very visible.

      However, the FA is not a value that tells you how good or bad the viewer is, but rather a value that tells you what phone size is optimum for the viewer. So important for sure..but not the same thing.

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

        [–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

        This is a battle of terminology, and one of the reasons why the industry has no standard.

        Posting this here and at the bottom for reference:

        Here is an image to help you understand / help you explain how i'm wrong.

        The FOV in cardboard is a measurement of how much of the 180 or 360 degrees are included on the screen.

        I think the FOV in cardboard is a measure of what angle the view takes up to your eye. This has nothing to do with the phone or what's on the other side of the lenses, or even the type of lenses, as long one of those doesn't limit your FOV. What i mean is..if you have a very small phone, then the viewers FOV might be one number, but the phone will appear to only take up 50% of your whole view. So while the viewer FOV is one number, the effective FOV with that phone is about 50% of the viewers FOV. In that case, I would say that that phone utilizes 50% of the viewers FOV.

        The FOV value on the profile generator is what the people in google thing FOV means...which may line up with what you mean, but is actually the other value.

        The by far biggest problem I have with the FOV expressed in degrees the way we're doing it in this thread, aside from the hard to replicate measuring methods, is that when you need another abstract point of reference to make sense of your abstract point of reference, which isn't relevant to the given standard... it is just not a particularly good point of reference nor a very relevant standard.

        FOV is expressed in degrees...that's just how it is in physics/optics. Placing a linear measurement on this is confusing. Near your face your FOV linearly would take up a smaller number than away from your face..cause that's how triangles work :)

        The measure I'm referring to is the horizontal field dimension. It is the function of the combination of the focal length and the lens diameter, only expressed in a static value rather than a dynamic value designed to allow for perspective and distance.

        we can call it that. However you are wrong in what it is a function of. The FOV (as I say it) is a function of how close the center of your eye is to the lens, and how larger the lens it. The Horizontal Field Dimension, as you say it, is a function of the FOV number and the focal length, and nothing else.

        In our mostly static medium though we don't need a dynamic value because it only adds confusion. We can however accurately measure the "static FOV" (or horizontal field dimension) with a precision of one or two millimeters. By adjusting the lenses to their nearest distance, with minimum distance between the eyes (IPD), we get the minimum value. Farthest screen distance with maximum IPD gives us the maximum value.

        This is very bad advice. You are half right, and half very wrong. The image you perceive when you view through google cardboard should appear at a point that requires little or no focal strain. For perfect vision, this means that the image should be effectively at infinity. For other people, the image may need to be at 60mm from their face. In both cases, how the phone appears to you, and the FOV can change depending on how the focal distance was changed. As I mentioned in this post or another, for viewers that move the lenses but not the phone, you lose FOV but keep the phone screen about the same angular size. For viewers where you move the phone, you change the screen's angular size but not the FOV. (assuming no limiting case). Furthermore, people have different IPDs. If you can match the lens position with your IPD, then the FOV will be constant for everyone, but if you can't, than not only will the FOV be different, but the horizontal field dimension as you say it, will also be different. At best, you can say "I have an IPD of x, and normal vision, and with this viewer, the range of horizontal field dimension is A to B".

        You can't use that as a rule of thumb for several reasons and you've got the focal length backwards, 35 mm focal length shows more of the field than 45 mm at a given distance.

        No. A small focal length means more convergence of rays. If the lens diameter is held constant, and your eye position is held constant, decreasing the focal length, increases the convergence of the outermost rays from your eyeball to the lens edge. This means that the cone on the far side is narrower. Not only this, but the phone needs to be closer to you to be in the same focus level. Where the phone will be, the cross sectional area/size of that cone will be smaller as the focal length decreases. Smaller cross section means that you need a smaller phone to be optimal.

        Lens diameter works the opposite, 45 mm will show more field than 35 mm.

        correct that it will show more, incorrect that it is opposite as per above. Your image is completely unrelated.

        This means that you could measure the static horizontal dimension and just write down the lens diameter. Why? Because if two viewers both show a visible horizontal view of 120 mm, they will both have the same FOV, but because of the relationship between focal length and lens diameter, the bigger lenses will inherently have a shorter focal length and less of a telescope effect.

        You are almost correct... but requires a lot of assumptions. Assuming perfect vision, and assuming the position of your eye from the lens is the same...if you tell me the "horizontal field dimension", or geometrically speaking, the cross section of the far cone intersected by the focal plane, then i can draw lines from there to the edge of the lens (by knowing focal length and lens radius). Furthermore, knowing the focal length, you could converge those rays back towards the center of the eye and find the FOV.

        relationship between focal length and lens diameter

        um...where have you ever read this? Not counting limiting factors, you can make a larger or a small lens have the same exact focal length. I think you are operating under a lot of incorrect assumptions.

        Here is an image to help you understand / help you explain how i'm wrong.

        Lens1 and Lens3 have the same diameter. Lens1 and Lens2 have the same focal distance. The eye is the same distance from each lens in all cases. The phone is placed right in front of the focal point in all cases.

        angles a,b,c labeled @a @b @c are the FOV angles for that eye. The eye itself has a bigger field of view, but as you correctly mentioned, the lens cuts this off, so the field of view is limited by the diameter of the lens and the proximity to the eye. Lengths L1,L2,L3 are what you are referring to horizontal "horizontal field dimension". It is true that this value is important to check if your phone is compatible with the viewer. But, this value has little to do with choosing a viewer for maximum FOV. As you see from the image, clearly going against what you mentioned throughout your post, a lens with a larger diameter, doesn't necessarily mean a different focal distance. Also, a lens with a larger diameter does mean that you could use a larger phone. Also, a lens with a larger focal distance means that you need to use a larger phone to fill the screen. As you can see from the image, Lens 1 and 2 have the same FOV, but because the focal distance is different, the "horizontal field dimension" is different.

        If this image is unclear, or anything, please let me know.

        Now, try doing the same with one of the random FOV numbers. It is just not possible. They are numbers without meaning. You can't enter them into the cardboard profile generator and you can't use them to make an educated consumer choice. In essence..

        You shouldn't try to enter values into the profile generator from calculations. The biggest strength is that you edit values live to find what suites your eyes/face/viewer/phone all at once. You could make an educated consumer choice: The Z3 has a HUGE horizontal field dimension, and ok FOV. The Z4 has about the same FOV, maybe larger, but has a much smaller horizontal field dimension. The SVR has a much bigger FOV, and a slightly larger field dimension than Z4. If you are looking to maximize FOV then you measure it the way I have laid out. If you are looking to see if your phone screen will take up all of your view, you'll need to do a measure similar to what you outlined. If you want to find the viewer that has the best FOV and best fits your phone, you need both numbers. This post isn't about getting the all the information to make the best decision buying a viewer. This post is about standardizing the fov measurement.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          How can that possibly make sense to you? VR lenses have a focal length of 3.5-5cm, and yet you place your eye ball almost touching the lens. Placing the phone at the focal distance from the lens, makes the rays from the surface of the phone end up moving through the lens and becoming parallel rays. Your eye looking at these rays 'sees' an image at infinity. Doesn't matter where you are, the image will be the same image. At no point should your eyes be placed at the focal distance away from the lens. You can see this effect very easily - take any lens, place it FL away from an object..and then move your head closer or further away from the lens. To you, it will appear like the lens is a window to an image that is infinity far away. The size of the window will change depending on your position, but the angular size of the image won't (cause it's at infinity)

          The image you shared have to do with focusing distance rays onto a sensor - that is the opposite direction of what happens when you use cardboard.

          [–]3015 0 points1 point  (27 children)

          I was frustrated by my terrible lack of precision measuring my FOV yesterday, so today I tried to create a more objective method. I measured FOV with a camera using a method that seems valid to me, but I want to make sure I'm not doing something dumb. Here were my steps:

          1. Opened up an online ruler on one phone and put it in the Cardboard
          2. Mounted viewer on my head and looked left until the center of my view was at the edge of the lens and noted what value on the ruler was at the very edge. Repeated on the right.
          3. Subtracted one value from the other to obtain FOVwidth
          4. Mounted other phone on tripod so that the lens of the camera was in approximately the same position as my eye had been.
          5. Took photos sideways and then at the angle such that a diagonal line from corner to corner would be horizontal to obtain cameraFOVwidth and cameraFOVdiagonal.

          Because the amount I could see in mm was between the horizontal and diagonal amounts on my camera, I concluded that my per eye FOV must also be between the horizontal and diagonal FOVs of my camera.

          This method does not measure exactly the same thing as your method does since it does not properly account for pupil movement.

          I can go a lot more in depth, I just gave a brief overview here to make sure my method makes sense.

          [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (26 children)

          you are the second person to mention this kind of measure. It's important, but not really FOV. This is more a measure of the size of the plane of focus. So from the center of your eye to the lens perimeter is a cone whose angle is the FOV. This cone gets converged as it passed through the lens. The phone should be near the focal distance of the lens +/- focal adjustment for human vision abnormalities. The converged cone's cross section at the focal distance is the area that your phone screen should match. If your phone screen is wider, then some of the stuff will be missing from your view - if smaller, then you will see past the edge of your screen.

          This number can be derived by using a normalized ruler on your screen as you did, but can also be calculated by using the values for device IPD, your IPD, lens radius, and FOV.

          I will try something like your method, just not with another camera tomorrow, to get some numbers. I will also post some numbers that relate IPD, FOV, and focal plane dimensions.

          I was having a debate with someone above this msg, but it appears their account got deleted. TLDR is that FOV tells you how wide the view will appear to your eyes, and focal plane dimensions, tells you how optimal your phone screen is with the viewer.

          [–]3015 0 points1 point  (6 children)

          I think you're misunderstanding what I'm doing. I saw the post you are referring to that was deleted and understand why they were incorrect.

          The distance on the ruler I observed with the headset on is just an ordinal measurement to compare against another such measurement from a device with a known FOV. If my eye and my camera take a picture from the same point in space with the exact same FOV , the images should look the same. If the FOV of one is greater, it will instead cover a greater area.

          [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

          Yep I missed the point of comparing the values to get a different unit. Try this method and see if you can come up with an angular FOV number and compare it to what you get for the viewers.

          If there was some way to determine the exact distance your eyeball is from the lens, that along with the lens diameter would give you the FOV...will reread your method tomorrow..I'm sleepy :)

          [–]3015 0 points1 point  (4 children)

          I've actually tried this method twice now, once with my Nexus 5 camera and once with my GoPro Hero 3+. Before making my measurements I verified that the FOVs of both cameras matched their stated specs using the trigonometric formula you used in your method. The results came very close, so I trust the stated FOV numbers:

          Stated FOV Measured FOV
          Nexus 5 61.3 (calculated from focal length) 60.0
          GoPro 94.2 (vertical FOV) 94.4

          When wearing my headset, my pupils are almost exactly centered relative to the lenses, which may have made things easier for me (I haven't checked to see how camera offset relative to the lens affects the measurement). I estimated the distance from the front of the lens to the front of the lens in the eye to be ~15mm, so I thought the optimal distance for my Nexus 5 should be about the same. I was not confident in the estimate at all, so I measured The length of ruler visible at multiple camera-lens distances:

          Distance Visible mm
          2.0 43
          1.5 42.7
          1.0 43
          0.5 42

          The online ruler I used got the scale wrong, but I ignored it since the measurement was ordinal. The measurements were all close enough that I am confident that the distance used should not have an effect on the precision of results as long as you try to get it as close to what your eye experiences as you can.

          Since I only had the horizontal and diagonal FOV of the Nexus 5 camera to compare it to, all I could say was what FOV range it is in since FOV does not scale linearly with the amount of ruler visible. Here are the average values I found:

          Visible mm FOV
          Horizontal 43 61.3
          My FOV 47
          Diagonal 52 70.9

          I was unsatisfied with the wide range, so I measured again with my GoPro. This time I set up my tripod with the GoPro facing down 39.5in from the ground. I placed a measuring tape across the vertical FOV of the camera. Here is the resulting image after being cropped. This allowed me to verify the vertical FOV of the camera, but more importantly, it showed me the relationship between pixels and degrees from the center of the image since I could calculate the angle from the center to any point on the ruler using atan(inches from center/39.5).

          This time I put my Nexus 5 in the viewer so I got a different but still incorrect scaling on the virtual ruler I used. I put the headset on and was able to see 50mm of the ruler. I then placed the GoPro sideways (so the vertical FOV of the camera could be compared to the horizontal FOV of the headset) at a distance of 15mm from the lens. The large FOV extended past the edge of what I had seen before, and I found the distance in pixels from one edge of what I was able to see when I looked into the headset to the other, which was 1978 pixels. Then I found the measuring tape measurements at 1978/2 pixels to the left and right of the center of the picture I took of the measuring tape, which were 54 inches apart. So the FOV was equivalent to an image 54in wide viewed at 39.5in away. This allowed me to calculate the FOV:

          FOV = atan(27/39.5)*2 = 68.7 degrees

          The next step is to decide what this number means. I can think of two ways of thinking about FOV:

          Direct FOV: The angle your eyes are at when you turn them so that the center is at the edge of the image. This is what your method is measuring

          Peripheral FOV: The furthest angle into your peripheral vision the image extends when your eyes are pointed straight forward.

          I mentioned in an earlier post earlier that I did not think this method measures Direct FOV, but I now believe it does as long as the screen to lens distance is the same as the focal length. That assumption is not quite satisfied in most viewers, but as long as the focal length is at least a couple feet I don't think it should change the angles enough to be a problem. Here is a picture I drew that traces rays for the Direct FOV (blue), the Peripheral FOV (red), and the value that I measured (green). Since my Direct FOV (blue) and the 68.7 degrees measured with the GoPro (green) both come from the same points on the ruler, they originate from the same point on the screen. Since the focal length is the same as the screen lens distance, they become parallel rays when they pass through the lens. This means that the angle between the blue lines is the same as between the green ones, and the FOV with my method is the Direct FOV.

          I was also interested in knowing the Peripheral FOV, so I estimated it as well. From the diagram I posted you can see that pupil to lens distance can be calculated using:

          tan(68.7/2 degrees)=15mm/PLD => PLD=21.95mm, PLD is pupil to lens distance

          Once we know this distance we can once again apply the arctangent formula for the Peripheral FOV:

          FOV = atan(18/21.95)*2 = 78.7 degrees

          This is very close to Google's claim that Cardboard v2 lenses have an 80 degree FOV. If my calculations are correct they might actually have been right if you use the most generous measurement of FOV.

          [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          Wow, cool experiment. Just before I forget,

          Since my Direct FOV (blue) and the 68.7 degrees measured with the GoPro (green) both come from the same points on the ruler, they originate from the same point on the screen. Since the focal length is the same as the screen lens distance, they become parallel rays when they pass through the lens. This means that the angle between the blue lines is the same as between the green ones, and the FOV with my method is the Direct FOV.

          maybe you drew your diagram incorrectly, but if the blue and green lines come from the same point on the screen, but the distance from the corner to the middle of the screen is different, then the angle of the corner can't be the same.

          Are the camera FOV numbers a measurement from the front surface of the lens, or from some point inside? For the eye, the medical measurement of FOV is probably from the front tip of the eyeball, but that doesn't end up being something that we can measure, the FOV of the method I proposed is the angle from the center of the eyeball's axis of rotation.

          Your distance vs visible mm chart shows the biggest issue with your method. When using google cardboard, the phone screen is placed on or very near the focal plane. At this point, rays from the phone, when going through the lens, end up continuing in parallel lines away from the lens towards your eye/camera/etc. This means that no matter how far your eye or camera is placed from the lens, the image on the phone will appear the same exact size. It'd be like looking through a circular window at the moon. You can go right up to the window, or stand on the other side of the room looking through it, but the moon will still take up the same angular size in your vision because it is so far away.

          Since how far the camera is from the viewer doesn't effect your FOV, but how far your eye from the viewer definitely affects your FOV (try standing across the room looking into your viewer ;P) the two methods will not be getting the same value.

          The FOV of a viewer has nothing to do with nature of the lens, but just depends on it's diameters. If the lenses were concave, you would look through them and see the walls of your viewer and wayyy past the edge of your phone (similar to how front door eye holes work), but that whole view will still take up the same angle in your vision.

          Regarding peripheral FOV - that ends up being bigger by probably 5-10 degrees, but it is very hard to measure since there is no way you could objectively look straight ahead, and also line up the point on your periphery while wearing the viewer with the same point on your periphery on the wall.

          Also, from your method, it looks like if you used a Z3 (with weaker lenses), you'd see much more of the ruler on the phone screen, but the FOV would definitely be less.

          I may still be missing something, but just the fact that you are looking at something on the other side of the lenses already means that what you aren't measuring FOV (at least directly).

          That being said..and perhaps this is what you are doing, but I'm just not understanding - if you know how far the eye is from the lens, and you know the diameters of the lens, and you know the focal distance of the lens, and you know the size of the focal plane (that'd be the ruler measurement on the screen), you could calculate the FOV using snell's law and some thin lens assumptions (since near the edge of the lens, the lens is thin anyway). Is this what your are aiming at? I don't see any mention of this in your post..so maybe you are trying to compare values between different measurements, along with known FOVs to extrapolate unknown FOVs.

          If you have a moment, I'd love to chat with you (any number of free online-only chat apps can be used) to try to understand exactly your thought process [as it is very possible that i'm just not understanding a method that is totally correct] When are you free today? I'm in the EST timezone. You can PM me a link to a chat or something.

          [–]3015 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          I was using my cardboard today and noticed that when I look to the outside edge, I can see a tiny bit past the edge of my screen in the lens. The calculations I have done so far assume that the phone screen is large enough to fill the whole lens. So the value I have so far is useful, but I also need to know the FOV I am actually experiencing on my phone.

          I put this image on fullscreen on my phone and when I adjusted it to be in the center, I could see from 0-4.35 on the left and 5.65-10 on the right. I took another GoPro pic and calculated the corrected FOV to be 65.6 degrees.

          [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          What number did we get in chat yesterday?

          [–]3015 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I forgot to save the chat log but we were just recalculating using the same data I used to get the FOV measurement of 68.7 degrees earlier in this comment chain, so it should be within a degree of that.

          [–][deleted]  (18 children)

            [–]easy_pie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Grade A arsehole right there

            [–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (16 children)

            Not sure what exactly you are implying...but if you are correct in your thought process from before, tapping out means you are not helping improve the knowledge base of this community. If you weren't correct..tapping out means now other people can come to this post and think similarly wrong things and instead of seeing why they are wrong will continue down the same path.

            This is a forum...there is no point in removing messages unless in reading them and agreeing, someone can endanger their health. (someone posted on this forum how you can just cross your eyes to make the doubled images fit...and that is very bad for your health over a long time, so they deleted it and left a comment about the health risk)

            [–][deleted]  (15 children)

              [–]carrotstien[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              If only you spent more time actually discussing the topic, rather than assume I have a condition, maybe you'd be helpful.

              Camera's have FOVs that are measurable objectively, per lens position, because the lens and sensor don't move for any given configuration. For any human being, the position of their eyes will be in a range in front of the lenses of a viewer. If everyone could get their eyes perfectly lined up with the lenses, and be equal distances from lenses as each other's, then it would be sufficient to just talk about lens size. However, different viewers have different cushion/plastic/etc structure which places the lenses at different points with respect to the user's eyes.

              So, and maybe using simpler english will help you understand, the whole purpose of this thread is to outline a process to get a comparable number, or set of numbers (such as including your ipd) to answer the question of "how big are the lenses and how closely can i get my eyes to the lenses". FOV has nothing to do with what you are seeing, and only has to do with the angular range taken up by your view.

              Other questions, that you referenced, are good questions, but this post isn't the "How to Use Cardboard Guide", this post is purely about FOV.

              I have already worked with a few users, and we've come up with a way to even more objectively measure this FOV number using a pattern (such as a ruler) on the screen, and a camera with a high FOV to take the photo. So far, the more objective approach, and the wibblywobblyOMGIAmSoCrazyIMustBeStupid approach that I outlined match.

              You haven't brought a single useful piece of information to this discussion that is on topic. I'm glad that you tried to come up with other methods, but they didn't work. Good luck in the future.

              I'd wish you a good day, but I really don't care and am mostly posting this since I think people might be interested in how I respond to a troll.

              [–]3015 1 point2 points  (10 children)

              This is hands down the best drama I have ever seen on this sub. I've been watching from the sidelines ever since the now partially deleted comment thread that started all of this, but I just can't resist joining in any more.

              First off, you were wrong and /u/carrotstien was right in the original argument. No one can blame you for that, optics can be pretty complicated and there aren't really any good resources for learning about optics as they pertain to VR.

              Contrary to your belief, the information gathered in this post is actually useful. The FOV calculated in the method in this post is not a random number. There are multiple ways to calculate FOV, but they are very highly correlated. And the most important piece of information we get out of these measurements are how they compare to each other. New users don't care if headset x has a FOV of 80 degrees, but they do care if headset x has a larger FOV than headset y, and if we get a bunch of data from this, we can use that to give better recommendations.

              In addition to the usefulness, figuring out this stuff is fun for some of us. That doesn't mean we have autism, it means we like conducting experiments and doing science. IMO there are two main purposes of this sub: Helping new people get into VR and having fun with others who are already into it. This stickied post achieves both.

              You also mentioned we should make it easier to tell if a phone works for VR. There's an app for that.

              Although I'm not sure why it came up in an argument about FOV, I agree that we should have a buyer's guide or review database on this subreddit. I've thought about it but have been too lazy to take the initiative. Different people have different opinions of headsets, so maybe we could have a thread where top level comments are headsets and replies are reviews of them or something like that.

              [–][deleted]  (9 children)

                [–]3015 0 points1 point  (8 children)

                130mm is the length of a whole phone so that length is split between your two eyes. Each lens sees 65mm of screen. So the distance from the center of view to the edge is 32.5mm. The correct calculation is therefore:

                2*atan(32.5/58) = 58.52 degrees

                Wow, that seems really low. That's because in addition to your math error, you also forgot to account for the convergence of the lens. When light passes through the lens, it bends toward the center of the lens. Because of this, the horizontal distance you can see with a converging lens is less than you can than without one, making the FOV underestimated. If some of your view is not overlapping, that will increase your FOV some amount as well.

                [–][deleted]  (7 children)

                  [–]3015 0 points1 point  (6 children)

                  Lol have you ever looked through binoculars before? If you're looking at something far away your views overlap completely and you see a single circle. The FOV of one eye is the same as for both eyes together because you see the same thing in both eyes. You only get to add up the FOVs from your two eyes if they see a completely different image. In a VR headset a lot of your view overlaps and you can't double count the part that you're seeing with both eyes.

                  [–]easy_pie 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                  What you seem to have missed in your bitter and twisted tirade, is that the apparent field of view that we are trying to measure here is actually useful. If many people are reporting that one viewer has clearly lower FOV than another, due to its lens size and placement etc, then that has value. It doesn't matter that we don't get a solid indisputable number that applies universally to everyone. The other thing you seem to have missed is you are free to start your own thread listing exactly what you want. The only thing stopping you is your arrogant spiteful attitude.

                  [–]tboy2000BoboVR Z4 0 points1 point  (17 children)

                  Surely the "non technical" way to do this is look straight ahead and make a mental/visual note of the angle/direction where you can still see on extreme left and right. Eg: 10 and 2 o'clock. Lets assume it is 120 degrees. No one has an 180 degree FOV. Then put on the HMD and look again in the same directions regardless of what is blocking your view and if the outer edge of the lenses falls way within that range (eg 11 and 1 o'clock) then the lens has a smaller FOV than 120 and you can guestimate what it is. If the outer edge of the lenses are in line with where you could see without the HMD, then the lenses have a 120 FOV (or whatever you guestimate your genuine FOV is).

                  I "think" the only way to have a large FOV like 120 or more is to have LARGER lenses and have them further apart.

                  I feel very very cheated that the BOBOVR Z4 does not have a 120 FOV. It is the ONLY reason why I bought it and they should be reprimanded for false advertising.

                  [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (16 children)

                  I think a few people had this thought: if each eye has about 60 degrees FOV total, maybe they combined the two to say 120? There is no other way that the total FOV is anywhere near 120. I emailed them to ask them how they calculated the FOV, but they never got back to me. A lot of companies reference some FOV value that comes from somewhere but they never specify what it is. They do usually draw an image (with the head being in the center of a triangle)..and that image is usually a blatant lie. So far, the only headset that had an FOV that matched advertised values is the Vive. The vive, unlike these headsets, has huge lenses, probably 4.5 cm.

                  /u/3015 figured out a more technical way to do it (that I will add to this post soon), but it involves having a camera that has a large FOV (larger than the viewer), and to be able to place that camera closer to the lens than your eye would be. From my experience, the V2 and Z4 have about the same FOV, and our measurements of the V2 seem to agree with this notion. Once he gets the Z4 in the mail, he'll be able to give the most accurate measure possible.

                  [–]tboy2000BoboVR Z4 0 points1 point  (15 children)

                  I knew it. The bigger the lens, the bigger the possibility of a larger FOV.

                  What is a V2?

                  If only we could mod the Z4 to replace with bigger lenses. I love the Z4 style especially with the built in headphones.

                  [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (14 children)

                  Cardboard V2 (Version2). It's the one with the physical button and larger lenses , while version 1 is the one with the magnetic trigger.

                  You could probably mod the Z4 in a few ways. I haven't opened it up, but I think you could make the IPD adjustment range larger by cutting out some plastic. Another mod I'd make is to replace these lenses with lenses slightly strong. As is right now, to get the phone to the focal point, you need to move it all the way back.

                  You could also get about 10 degree or 15 more FOV if you press your face all the way into the cushion. So if you replace the cushion with a thinner pad, and you might have to then cut out some space near the nose hole, you'd be able to get closer to the lenses and get 10-15 degrees more. This would also result in seeing more screen surface, so you'd need a 5.5 or 6 inch phone.

                  If you can somehow get 4.5 or 5 cm lenses, that have a focal point of 33mm, and place them inside the ipd adjustment system, you'd get a much better headset in terms of view.

                  I have tried finding a cheap lens source, and so far the only cheap place I found gives spherical glass lenses, and not aspherical ones.

                  Someone posted a link to edmund optics that they purchased aspherical ones HERE. They are bigger, and will probably give you crystal clear view. However, I haven't done it because then we have same same phone screen size problem. I'd love to find affordable 45mm lenses with a 25-30mm fl.

                  [–]tboy2000BoboVR Z4 0 points1 point  (13 children)

                  Yes I also realised the closer your eyes are to the lenses, the increased range of FOV. So the ideal scenario to get the widest FOV is to be as close to the lenses as possible, have lenses as large as possible and have them a wide as part as possible.

                  Why do we all have to mod or attempt to mod to make the perfect headset. I wish a company with their R&D team would know all this and make the perfect one.

                  Btw forgive me for not understanding and being a bit stupid but what do you mean about not getting the lenses in the link because you would have the same phone screen size problems? What problems?

                  [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (12 children)

                  You are forgiven :P....you can ask me any question at any time, I will never be bothered

                  With my current phone s4, 5 inch screen, the current Z4 shows me a tiny bit past the edge of the screen. The lenses in the link are 5-6 mm larger than the ones used by the Z4. The focal point is about the same. This means that the FOV would increase, but so will the far cone. See IMAGE. Current Z4 for me is like the second case..and getting this lens would give me the first case. While the viewer's FOV would increase, for my phone screen, I wouldn't see any more of it - in fact, I'd see more of the rest of my phone, which would make the experience less immersive.

                  [–]tboy2000BoboVR Z4 0 points1 point  (11 children)

                  So what size phone display would you ideally want if you were to get the 45mm 35FL lenses? 5.7"? 6"?

                  [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (10 children)

                  The answer to that is a function of FL, and FOV. For the Z4, 5.5-6 would be perfect.

                  [–]easy_pie 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                  I got my Bobo Z4, and I was rather disappointed by the low FOV. I measured 69 degrees. That padding is so thick it keeps the lenses at quite a long distance. I took the padding off and crushed my nose and managed to get up to 82 degrees, and at this point I could see the edge of the viewing area, so I think I may do some heavy modding using this, especially as it was only 20 quid. BTW my IPD is ~62.5mm, so if yours is 65.5 then I guess that would be why I get consistently slightly higher FOV

                  [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  Yea, I calculated that 3mm IPD difference, for the same lens separation comes out to about 10 degree difference FOV. I tried to measure FOV of the Z4 from a few lens positions and ended up getting 54-68, so i'm glad the number you got is similar.

                  Yea I am thinking of reducing the padding - thinner and stiffer, and then placing some weak lenses on the other side so increase magnification. As is right now, I have to move the phone surface all of the way back, and see a tiny bit of edge. If I move closer, I'll see more of it, hence the increased magnification necessary. I wish there was a store that could give me cheap arbitrary magnification and aspherical size lenses :)

                  Yea, the nose room would have to be adjusted if you end up moving closer. /u/VRKommando took his apart and posted a video. I don't recall if there is something behind the nose area. If there isn't..dremel it dooown :)

                  [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                  btw, what phone did you use? did you see any edge before removing the padding? [I want to add your entry to the parent post :) ]

                  [–]easy_pie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  It's a nexus 6p, so 5.7". With that I don't see the edge with the padding in place, I see up to about 5mm from the edge when looking directly

                  [–]easy_pie 0 points1 point  (5 children)

                  Hey, I was just looking at your results for the Z4, maybe I'm wrong but they don't seem to make sense. You've got widest - narrowest, 65 - 68 degrees, but shouldn't the wider separation give you a higher FoV? And you've got 58 degrees for a separation of 65.5, shouldn't that have ended up somewhere inbetween the widest and narrowest?

                  [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                  yea, I wasn't sure if I should leave those there or not. Basically, when the IPD matches mine, each eye sees a circle, and the two circles overlap. Any any other separation, the two circles form a venn diagram shape, which has to be wider overall. In the further out case, the middle of the venn diagram is in 3d, and the sides aren't. This is sort of a natural position since your nose blocks your other eye from seeing too far to the side, so you end up seeing 2d sides. In the the other case, it's an unnatural extension: it's as if, looking left, your right eye can see through your nose, but your left eye's view is obstructed by blinders. You think I should just remove the non-ipd matching values, or add clarification?

                  [–]easy_pie 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                  So were you measuring only the area that's in 3D? Otherwise I don't understand the values that you got. I mean if the lenses are further from the centre then you should get a wider FoV, albeit some of it in 2d

                  [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                  Well, wider from matching IPD did give me a larger FOV compared to aligned. Narrower from IPD also gave me a larger FOV, but in a way that isn't natural (your right eye seeing more to the left at some angle than your left eye). The reason widest has a smaller FOV than narrowest, is because my IPD is closer to the widest value than the narrowest.

                  Long story short...following my directions to the dot, the narrower FOV should be much smaller....but the actual FOV just changes the bounds from one eye to the other.

                  [–]easy_pie 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                  Oh I see, so you were looking further to the left with your right eye than your left eye and vice versa, yeah that is weird

                  [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  yea..that's why i wrote that it's an unnatural view :)

                  [–]LjLiesBoboVR Z4 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                  What's your take on this simple assessment?

                  [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  I mean, if you draw a 90 degree angle from the center of your head, and could line up your vision along those lines, then it's a pretty good estimate. However, since the FOV isn't measured from the center of y our head, and since you can't visualize an angle like that perfectly, and since imagining two lines going from your head, looking at various points along those lines will probably give you a different view angle.

                  It's a good estimate, but I'd imagine it is a +/- 20 degrees of FOV accuracy.

                  [–]PauloFalcao 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                  Hi! I made a simple web page to calculate the FOV using this method. VR_FOV_Calculator

                  [–]carrotstien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  sweet! Adding to the main post

                  [–]PauloFalcao 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  VR Box (version 1) - ~56 degrees, using a 5.5" phone. The plano-convex lens are really good, with a very sharp quality, and a very regular distortion. I had 3 cardboards (1 v1 and 2 v2), and like them, after using VR Box, even with a larger FOV, I can't use any of the cardboard anymore, the cardboard lens distort the image in a very irregular way. A nice app to test that and configure settings is VR Calibration for Cardboard

                  [–]VegaLay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  More easy way.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Warriors guard Steph Curry, top right, comes to the aid of Clippers forward Blake Griffin after Griffin was hit by center JaVale McGee, left, during Saturday’s game at Staples Center. While that was a freak injury, Clippers coach Doc Rivers wonders if today’s players are missing more time with other injuries because they’re spending more time lifting weights and less time playing basketball. (AP Photo/Alex Gallardo)

The Clippers’ list of injured players is long and varied. Blake Griffin has a concussion. Austin Rivers has an ankle impingement. Patrick Beverley underwent season-ending knee surgery. Danilo Gallinari has a gluteus maximus injury. Milos Teodosic has a plantar fascia injury.

They’re not alone in missing key players because of injuries.

The Golden State Warriors, the Clippers’ opponent Wednesday in Oakland, have taken to listing most of their top players on their injured list. Steph Curry sat out 11 games because of a sprained ankle and Kevin Durant has missed the past three games because of a calf strain.

Chris Paul of the Houston Rockets has been sidelined for extended periods because of knee injuries and adductor injuries. James Harden, Paul’s teammate, is out because of a hamstring injury, missing last week’s showdown with the Warriors.

The San Antonio Spurs have been without Kawhi Leonard for most of the season because of a quadriceps injury and more recently because of a partially torn shoulder muscle. Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said earlier this season he’s never seen a quad injury like Leonard’s.

“Never, never,” Popovich said.

Except that the Spurs’ Tony Parker had a similar quad injury that sidelined him.

The list goes on and on around the NBA.

“There’s a million theories,” Clippers coach Doc Rivers said when asked earlier this week why there seem to be more injuries to key players around the league this season than ever before. “It’s a great question. I wish I had an answer. I don’t have an answer.”

Doc Rivers, who likes to joke that Doc is just his nickname and that he’s not an actual medical doctor, then offered one theory.

“I wish all of them played more basketball,” he said. “Clearly, that’s not the whole reason, but I just think guys played basketball years ago. Just a lot of basketball. It’s not lost on me that Jamal Crawford is always healthy because he plays basketball.”

NBA players are stronger, bigger and faster than when Rivers played in the league with the Atlanta Hawks, Clippers, New York Knicks and Spurs from 1983-96. He said he admires the dedication to their workout routines, but he wonders if they weren’t overdoing it.

“Guys now do all the other stuff, which I think is important, but the game they play is basketball,” he said. “When the season starts, they haven’t played. They’ve been doing all the other stuff. Then the season starts and we ask them to play 40 minutes of basketball and their bodies aren’t used to it. That’s my second grade theory.”

The Clippers’ injuries have nothing in common. It’s not as if they’ve suffered a string of sprained ankles. For example, Griffin’s concussion happened when the Warriors’ JaVale McGee accidentally struck him in the head during a drive to the basket.

It could have happened at any time in any similar situation.

Rivers acknowledged he’s just guessing about the reasons for all the injuries, but he does know one thing: There seem to be a lot more of them this season than in the past and it’s made a big impact around the league, and so far no team has been hurt more by them than the Clippers.

“Sometimes it’s just freak injuries,” he said. “This year, there’s a lot of them. I don’t know the answer. I don’t have any clues there. These guys have muscles I didn’t even know about, literally, so I couldn’t hurt any of them because I didn’t have any of them.

“I don’t know. There are a lot of injuries in our league right now.”

blog comments powered by Disqus

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-39
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2018
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-37-160-190.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


text:
One of the most exciting features Apple added with the iPhone 5s was the Touch ID fingerprint sensor, and despite a few teething issues, it seems to have gone down rather well with the iPhone-using faithful. Now a jailbreak tweak has emerged that brings a virtual fingerprint sensor to the lock screen, so if you don’t happen to own an iPhone 5s but would like a similarly cool feature, then Bio is definitely a Cydia export that you’ll want to check out.

Of course, if enjoying the robust security features of Touch ID were such a simple task, then Apple would have saved itself a great deal of time and effort by just writing it into the software as a feature. What I mean is, while Bio does look and appear to function as a fingerprint sensor, it’s not the real thing, but simply gives the illusion that the lock screen has an in-built Touch ID-incarnate.

Photo Mar 24, 10 18 17 PM

The scanner replaces the Slide to Unlock element of the lock screen with a small, square panel, which is where you place your finger. You can customize this feature to look and feel the way you would like it to, and after ‘scanning’ your finger, will grant you access to your device. If you don’t happen to use a Passcode in the first place then you’re probably not too concerned about privacy or security, but if you do happen to want to keep your device locked away from prying eyes, you’ll be pleased to know that Bio can still be added even if you’re using the Passcode facility.

Photo Mar 24, 10 18 12 PM

As you’ll see from the video below, it’s very cool indeed, and for a fee of just $1.99, is well worth picking up from the BigBoss repository. It’s compatible with iPhone 4 onwards, and is optimized for iOS 7.

Oh, and as well as the paid version, there’s also a stripped-down Bio Lite, which will let you try the tweak out before deciding whether you wish to part with any money.

For tutorials on how to jailbreak, check out:

Be sure to check out our iPhone Apps Gallery and iPad Apps Gallery to explore more apps for your iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.

You can follow us on Twitter, add us to your circle on Google+ or like our Facebook page to keep yourself updated on all the latest from Microsoft, Google, Apple and the Web.

Related Stories


text:
Car Remapping service with our partners Viezu, improve the performance of your car with advanced ECU chip tuning. The many benefits of this service include reducing fuel consumption, improve torque and performance.

Universal Back Box Supplied & Fitted !!!

Car Servicing with Red Power Motorsport means a quality first fix by highly trained mechanics and diagnostic experts, Our car service includes full car servicing, NCT prep, engine diagnostics, clutch repairs, Wheel issues.

Twin Exhaust Tips Supplied & Fitted On Ford Mondeo

Exhaust repair and modification specialists, whether its a repair or install of exhaust tips, twin exhausts we have what you need with creative car enthusiast mechanics ready to help you transform your car.

Passat CC 19AVA Memphis & Twin Exhaust Tips Supplied And Fitted !!!

Car Window tinting is becoming more popular by the day, not only does it add style and personality to your car, it also provides better security, privacy and reduces sun glare.

Suspension repairs, modifications, lowering springs and coilovers fitted for improved performance. As official cobra dealers we have access to springs to suit every car.

Hid Headlights & Led Fog Light bulbs Fitted

Alloy wheel superstore with wheels to suit all makes and models online and instore. From puncture repair to custom pcds we can find you the perfect choice for your car/van/jeep.

We also do exhaust repair or replacement. For custom work drop us a message through the facebook page or contact form. If you are looking for exhaust parts, tips, back box etc use the search bar to browse our products!

Redpower putting the power in Motor Sport

Number 1 For Car Servicing & Auto Styling

Let the experts at Redpower get your ride back to its for free quote.


text:
DAY 177...Mussel Point to Bruce Bay

Wednesday 20th April

The morning was dark with no moon.  Breakfast cooked, dressed and ready off we headed, always hopeful for the sky to lighten.  We staggered up to the beach to check out the waves and swell, it sounded calmer but we could see nothing!  Pitch black it was and there was no way I would be launching from Mussel Point before I could see the waves and negotiate past them.  We staggered back along the sand path and curled up to keep warm, Nat returned to her sleeping bag, I just curled up in the front seat as if I dared to get back in my sleeping bag I would not have ever got on the water!

By 6.30 am it was getting light enough to unpack T2 and get ready to launch.  By 7.30 I was off and out onto the water.  Yippee, the sunrise was amazing and the dolphins said good morning briefly.  I was thrilled to see the best rainbow this entire trip, Nat was extremely happy and had her camera out taking pictures along the beach.  As I looked over my shoulder she was still on the beach taking shots of the morning, slightly different pics to yesterday and the carnage of the bigger swells!

Before I left today Nat suggested I try and eat lots during the day to get myself through this long day.  I set off on this calm morning with a little breeze but nothing of concern, it took some time today to get going and at last the first 20km was ticked off, I was tracking ok time wise.  I then pushed to 35km and I have to say that was a huge mind game for me, it is really hard to explain but just sometimes when you commit to nailing a big day my mind starts to doubt the sanity of it all!  I begin to feel every paddle stroke and every km, it is mentally painful and it seems to take forever.  Today the only way to push forward was to give myself really small paddle sections to do then stop and have a couple of minutes break.  5km, a break, then repeat this all the way until I got to the 65km mark.  It was a day I could not just switch off and it was I day I looked longingly at many beaches and wished I could just stop, but also I knew if I stopped I would be internally annoyed at cutting this planned section short, so I paddled.  Luckily I had a tailwind at the end and it did help, I reminded myself I was lucky to have this wind and swell helping me along the way.

I did do a dumb thing today and instead of going outside of all the rocks and rough waters on the points, I cut through.  Now this tested me and my bracing as a massive wall of foaming white water appeared on my shoulder, what an idiot I screamed at myself as I braced with all my might into the wave until stable, paddling furiously out of any more chaos cursing me and my complacent brain.  That was the wake up I needed, wet and with my heart pounding from such a stupid mistake I reminded myself to get a move on and get my damn mind into gear.  The other thing that was bothering me was I had eaten a can of tuna on the way and it was not sitting well in my stomach, very soon I had to stop and vomit, then I felt better.  Mental note no tuna when paddling!

The remaining 10km gradually ticked over, I was pleased to see Bruce Bay, but for the life of me I could not see a pink crew shirt on this beach!  After 5 VHF calls and still no reply I started to doubt myself and my location so I sat and re read messages while I checked my maps, I was in the right location but no Nat.  I paddled along for a little while, I felt tired and a little sorry for myself, my lack of food, water and energy.  A tear or two flowed down my face see what happens when you deplete yourself too much at the end of a long day, Red make sure you eat and drink more fluids!  Then Nat's voice chimed over the VHF, she had been having petrol cap issues on Cuzzie and had only just arrived.

I was tired, I paddled in bracing on the waves and with legs that did not want to work I staggered and fell into the water.  What a way to end a long day, 70km done and so was I.   The good part was we are freedom camping tonight so no need to roof rack T2, she is on the ground ready to be launched in the morning.  A hot cup of coffee was what was needed then dinner and a great rest.  Tomorrow it is a repeat of today. "Eat sleep paddle repeat."

Rest days are coming as the weather turns bad for the weekend.  For those who ask, I have mentally tough days on the water and today was one of them.  Small paddle strokes kept me moving forward and I am happy with the final outcome.

While I write this blog Nat is doing her Physio exercises up and down the middle of the camper van, she is as obsessive with her knee rehab as I would be, hence why us two females seem to stay great mates.  Obsessive natures.

My smiles today:
Ha, the Dolphins.
The perfect rainbow.
Sun and no rain.
A blessed tailwind for most of my paddle.
The bracing skills I have learnt saved me today.
My mental game to squeeze out the 70km!

My thoughts:
When I get old I want friends to say "what crazy adventure is RED doing now?!"  No way am I being trapped into sitting still.  We are a longtime dead!

Good night Red, Nat, T2 and Cuzzie.

 I think it was worth the wait for the sunrise picture opportunity :)

I think it was worth the wait for the sunrise picture opportunity :)


text:
Faculty Profiles

faculty photo imageJoshua Howe

Associate Professor of History and Environmental Studies
History Department
Division of History and Social Sciences

Joshua Howe is Associate Professor of History and Environmental Studies. He teaches courses in American and world environmental history, the history of science, and American foreign policy, as well as in the interdisciplinary Environmental Studies junior seminar. In his research he investigates the intersections of science and environmental politics in both domestic and foreign political contexts. His recent book, Behind the Curve: Science and the Politics of Global Warming (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2014), explores the political history of climate change since the 1950s, and his work on climate change has also appeared in Environmental History and the interdisciplinary journal Climatic Change, among others. Josh holds a B.A. in history and creative writing from Middlebury College and a Ph.D. in history from Stanford University. From 2010-2012, he served as a postdoctoral fellow with the National Science Foundation’s John Tyndall Correspondence Project at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. He moved to Portland to take up his position at Reed in the fall of 2012. Josh will serve as the chair of the Environmental Studies Program for the 2015-16 academic year, and he continues to serve as the official college liaison for the Thomas J. Watson Fellowship. When he is not in the archives or grading papers in Portland’s coffee shops, you can find him fishing Oregon's rivers, riding its waves, exploring its deserts, and playing in its mountains.

More faculty profiles


text:
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today that the consumer price index (CPI) has dropped off by just .1% for the month of August. The index for all items less food and energy increased 0.1% in August, the same as the previous month. So what’s the reason for the dip? A sharp decline in the price of gasoline: before seasonal adjustment, gasoline prices declined 5.4% in August. Overall, however, over the last 12 months, the all items index rose 0.2% before seasonal adjustment.

The CPI measures the cost of goods and services. When the CPI doesn’t change much, it tends to signal that interest rates will stay put. This is important for taxpayers because the Tax Code provides for mandatory annual adjustments to certain tax items based on inflation. Of those tax items subject to mandatory annual adjustments, federal income tax brackets tend to get the most attention since have been subject to adjustment for nearly 30 years. However, inflation adjustments are now routinely included in new tax legislation which can be confusing for taxpayers. Luckily, there are tax professionals out there who can sort it all out for you.

2016 Tax Rates

2016 Tax Brackets

2016 Tax Exemptions