Any other quirks you're willing to share? Such as: how's the input latency (from key press to seeing it)? early signs of tear? do I need to invest in spare parts?
I couldn't find any spare parts and honestly, I think that's because the brand is trying to liquidate the RayNeo Air 2 models in favor of RayNeo Air 2s and newer. It's admittedly the lower in quality than other offerings, but passable, and not bad for just $200.
It's only possible for me to work with these when font size is increased and the scaling is turned up. Trading information density for back/neck relief is worth it in my opinion.
Under the hood they use Sony micro-led screens, which are very, very good
Each one is quite pricey, so trying them all for the best one isn't a solid option.
https://www.uploadvr.com/rayneo-x2-standalone-ar-glasses-rev...
They work fairly well on Mac with their Nebula software, where you can have an extended display and control the distance if the screen and it accounts for head movements. The same software is not so great on PC, unfortunately.
On Linux, Wayne Heaney created Breezy Desktop, which is almost as good as Nebula, except for some stuff around the edges during movement[0]. He’s also created a very nice driver for the Steam Deck.
With a little bit of work you can also do 3D games and movies with them. Not quite easy enough for an elementary school kid, but not much worse.
What I’ve found is that I don’t use them around the house, but do while traveling. Not sure if that justifies the price. I’ve also got both versions of the Beam. Overall, I’d say it’s a push. When I’m traveling, I’m glad I have them. When I’m not traveling, I wonder why I have them.
Do you get dizzy?
Other brands like VITURE have more adjustments available, but the price will be double what I paid for the RayNeo Air 2 ($200). It looks like these are being heavily discounted in favor of the RayNeo Air 2s and future models.
I don't get dizzy at all while using them. :)
By the time I'm ready to buy a new pair, I'll look closer at what competing offerings are available from XREAL and VITRUE.
Nowadays it's even easier with the wealth of ultra short throw projectors on the market, if you have the budget. Personally I got an open-box long-throw projector for half-off at $1500, plus a $500 mid-budget screen. Definitely worth the investment.
It's not true 4K in that it's natively 1080p, but has a mirror that rapidly shifts the laser, allowing it to show "4K" albeit at 60Hz instead of 240Hz. Not quite as clear as true 4K, and if you get really close to your screen you'll see pixel lines corresponding to 1080p, but it's not noticeable from even two feet away.
It's also a single laser, not triple laser, so it's not quite as vibrant or bright as a triple laser, but it's also way less expensive.
Personally, I leave it on 1080p/240Hz when gaming and it's very lush. Paired with the right screen, it can be vibrant and have great black levels. I've been using it for a year and a half almost daily with no problems. I recommend it if you can find it at a good price, but if I got a projector today I'd probably look for an ultra short throw out of convenience. If you have a higher budget though, I'd recommend looking at some higher-end models.
> reflected image from a projector screen is gentler on the eyes than a projected one from a computer monitor
If true, that is a very strong reason. However, it strikes me as a [citation needed] or questionable extrapolation from indirect/diffuse room lighting or bias lighting.
Paper is more pleasant on the eyes for many reasons that don't apply to a reflective very bright projector screen.
* Better for say, photography
The muscles that contract or relax to change your lens shape (to focus your vision at different lengths) don't work linearly. Most of the work/tension of the lens is happening in the last meters range. Such that looking out at a 10m distance or 200m distance is a lot closer in muscle tone then the tension applied to focus between 10m and 0.05m.
Most likely what is happening is that the visual field workspace is equivalent but the eye strain is considerably reduced from being able to not look at something so close by such as the displays we use every day.
The theory in the article is that this is due to reflected vs direct light but I think this is a post rationalization derived from the author's experience. The perceived experience is that it is easier on the eyes. The reason is less clear.
Also, having to be in a dim room focusing on a brighter light is itself uncomfortable.
But in the case of a projector, the screen is lit by extra light; I'm not sure the situation is all that different from a regular monitor.
https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/other/defiant-rea...
but with an L-shaped standing desk from IKEA, with windows on the right side (behind the auxiliary desk), doors on the left, and remaining wall surface filled with random assortment of cabinets and wardrobes.
Having the desk in the middle doubled the usable wall surface area I could put closets and cabinets against. Also, I have something behind the screen for eyes to refocus on, reducing the strain.
(Also, I was totally going for the "Starfleet ready room" style; that's as close as I got. It's really hard to capture the feel without a proper carpet; unfortunately, I have dust mite allergy, so that's off the table.)
I'm generally interested in alternatives (televisions, HMDs, etc.) to traditional monitors, but I don't see many benefits to the setup described in his post. It would be more interesting if the image were projected onto the ceiling since that can result in a more relaxed posture and is an orientation very difficult to achieve with a monitor.
> Main plus points: Larger viewing surface;
This seems entirely dependent on angular distance. An average desktop monitor would be similar to the setup here.
> Indirect, reflected light is easier on the eyes than a direct, projected one.
Is this true? I'd guess that it is more a matter of overall brightness. I don't think the eye can distinguish between an emitted and reflected photon.
Plus less tripping when I stand up
I'm currently happy with my 38" 4K monitor (Asus/ROG PG38UQ) - better for the eyes than 32" at 4K, not as huge as 43", nice colors, contrast and brightness.
This particular projector has a very short throw, so you can get a massive screen from just a few feet away. But the larger the screen the less bright it will be and the darker you'll need to make the room, which can limit its use during the day.
It's also a reliable source of heat, which can be an issue depending on the season.
I'll see "sparkles" or flashes of a solid color out of the corner of my eye, but never if I try to look directly at the screen to catch it. I chocked it up to some sort of PWM based lighting or something that's more detectable in my periphery because of how cones and rods work. Sounds like I might be close, but not quite?
I used to see a similar thing with a flatbed scanner that used RGB LEDs instead of a CFL tube. You could often see the flicker of the PWM signal they were likely using to control the brightness of the LEDs as solid flashes of red, blue, or green.
GP post said: "if you are sensitive for temporal hijinks" - I think I'm just really sensitive to temporal hijinks, especially in my periphery. I suspect most people are, as our eyes have higher concentration of rods to detect movement in our peripheral vision.
I've noticed that the quality of light I get out of a constant current light meant for videography is fantastic and has none of these "temporal hijinks", and I think it's because it simply doesn't flicker.
Still - none of this is said to undermine your good advice.
Then I’ve tried oculus quest 2 and honestly it might be paranoia but I’ve noticed my near sight dropping too obviously after just couple of sessions.
You mean your vision got worse after using quest2?
It's less than you'd think.
So she’s paying $350 more up front just for set up, and then $50 more per year just to use it. How is that “not that bad”? Seems wasteful, especially if the person in the blog claimed that $1k was “crazy expensive” for them.
$1k is pocket change for a lot of people on this forum, including myself, but if $1k is a lot to you then this seems like a strange purchase.
criticism aside, this is a cool project and i enjoyed the blog post.
I wouldn't consider a loud projector, but I love using my 48" OLED.
