And this isn't just down to videos being shown on a screen - just looking at digital photos with a critical eye also shows the difference between an out-of-focus shot (which approximates myopia) and a shot that's simply taken with a low-res sensor. One of the standout points is the way that lights look - low-res but in-focus shots don't have the "bokeh" effect.
However in my living room during daylight, if I’m using the Vision Pro normally - i.e. interacting with apps, and not just staring at real world scenes to critique passthrough, then it easily creates the illusion that the content is in the room, and it doesn’t feel like I’m looking through a device. It has a long way to go, but it’s definitely capable of creating the illusion.
I never said I couldn't tell the difference between my corrected vision and the vision pro. But it's probably close to as clear as my uncorrected vision, which is how I experience life the majority of time. In a very real way, it is lifelike. My reaction to the cover coming off is "oh, I don't have my glasses on" not "oh, I'm looking at a screen". In no world would I have the same reaction to the passthrough on any other VR headset I own.
The latency, lack of screen door, minimization of warping artifacts, and yes, even the resolution, are at a place where someone who doesn't have the privilege of 24/7 perfect vision could easily mistake it at first glance. There's lots of places to improve (mostly the blur when moving your head), but we're at the point where "not literally indistinguishable" is the point of contention.
Also, keep in mind "lifelike" has never even meant "literally undisguisable" in the first place. People have been using it to describe graphics since the PS1, so I think it's fair to use to describe something that looks more like life than the majority of even present-day "realistic" 3D games.
Is this common? I have myopia and I wear my contacts 100% of my waking hours. I can’t tolerate being without them, and can’t really tolerate glasses either.
