Question about 3D on HMD

I am curious if there are people interested in 3D photo / video materials and who have mobile phones with high resolution screens (minimum QHD - 2550x1440 pixels, Sony 4K is the best) and some HMD to see them.

On good HMDs with High Resolution screens, the 3D show is at the highest level.

So, there is anybody interested on this forum?

The King 7S has a qhd screen, and a glassless 3D Stereo display.

I stuck my 1088p smart phone in the almost 50 year old plastic 3D card viewer below and it worked just fine.

Virtual reality devices are basically the same type of device, just with a headband and blinders so you can't see anything but the screens.  Some use phones and also work just fine.

The biggest problem with either is moving through the images on your phone.

I have used this android app in the past :

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jp.suto.stereoroidpro&hl=en_US

I have a number of Stereoscopic 3D displays for viewing my own digital 3D stills. My favorite way to view 3D slides has always been a hand-held viewer, so I have tried a number of HMD digital devices to replicate the experience. The best two that I have tried so far:

http://www.cyclopital3d.com/View-Vaster.html

http://cinera.net/product/cinera/

The View-Vaster has outstanding optics, but the viewing experience is dependent upon the phone you use with it. I use it with an HTC DROID DNA phone which is a 5 inch screen 441 PPO 1920x1080. It is a clear image with decent colors, but the pixels are visible giving you a screen door effect. Not horrible, but certainly not ideal. I have seen this viewer used with the Sony Xperia phone and there was no screen door effect in general. However in images with uniform light colored areas, like open sky, you can see a light herringbone effect. Given the expense of the phone, I never sprang for one.

The Cinera on the other hand, has a full 16:9 aspect ratio and bright clear display with absolutely no screen door effect. It is the best digital 3D handheld viewing device I have ever experienced. The only thing I don't like about it, besides the expense, is that the lens are plastic and while good quality, they exhibit chromatic aberration.  Unlike the View-Vaster, the lenses are fixed-focus.  This has not been a problem for me and others who have tried it, but folks wearing eye glasses cannot see the extreme edges of the screen.  This is also a stand alone computer running Android, so over time there is risk of problems with the electronics or software.  There is a $100 discount if you buy direct.  It is also available on Amazon for less than full retail, but not discounted as deeply.

Overall I would recommend the View-Vaster for most people, but the viewing experience on the Cinera appears to be the gold standard for now, for this sort of viewing device.

Yes, Cinera have the best overall viewing quality (because of dual 2560 x 1440 screen), but only 66° Field of View...

Only? As it is I wish it had just a wee bit less. I understand the designer's goals in trying to make the viewer as immersive as possible, but it causes a bit of vignetting for folks who wear glasses. Fortunately that is rarely a problem for me since I don't routinely crop my 3D photos to a 16:9 aspect ratio, so most of my images do not stretch the full width of the display.

Yes, the Oculus Rift has 110° field of view. But the image quality is not as good and so far I have found that device disappointing for viewing high quality 3D stills.  I think the Cinera, being designed primary for watching movies with the goal to provide the highest image quality possible, makes it a better device for viewing 3D still images, rather than a true VR viewer like the Oculus Rift which has very different goals.

Another disadvantage of the Cinera is that image quality is in some ways too good.  I've had 3D images that look fine on my 65" OLED 3D TV, but on the Cinera I discover that the focus was a bit softer than I realized.  But this is a good thing; it forces me to up my game with my camera handling.  When viewing 3D stills, you really want the image to be sharp from foreground to background and edge to edge.  Easy to do with virtual world CGI, not always so easy with meatspace photography.

If fixed that gives me headache very quick...

With a VR headset strapped to your face, I can see how this would be disconcerting.  But I  do not use the head mount.  I either hold the viewer up to my eyes, like an old fashion stereoscope or in the case of the Cinera, use the provided support arm.  In neither case is there the natural expectation to 'look around'.  It is more like viewing a TV screen or photograph, rather than attempting to create a VR experience.

Bill Costa wrote:

Another disadvantage of the Cinera is that image quality is in some ways too good. I've had 3D images that look fine on my 65" OLED 3D TV, but on the Cinera I discover that the focus was a bit softer than I realized. But this is a good thing; it forces me to up my game with my camera handling.

That's similar to my experience when I began viewing my printed Holmes cards with a Keystone Visual Survey Telebinocular rather than an antique stereoscope.  The Telebinocular has achromatic lenses (it is the best Holmes card viewer made, IMO), which revealed similar defects in my work!

Keystone Visual Survey Telebinocular rather than an antique stereoscope.

A friend of mine has one of those.  Wonderful optics.  But that damn thing weighs a ton! 

Keystone

Yes, they are not very portable.  They were made for vision testing. and are designed to set on a bench or table unassisted, and stay put.

They are VERY comfortable to use (once adjusted for the viewer's height), and provide great illumination of stereo cards.

Yes, [the Telebinocular] are not very portable. They were made for vision testing. and are designed to set on a bench or table unassisted, and stay put.

While I got the CINERA with the intent to use it as a handheld viewer, I think I may end up using it more like the Telebinocular.  While the CINERA is light, it requires a power cord to use.  The internal battery runs for only a few minutes at best and the device complains if it is not plugged in.  While the supplied support arm works well, it requires being clamped or bolted to a table.  Given how light the CINERA is, I think an old fashioned microphone desk stand with a goose neck would be a decent, and more convenient to use, alternative.

Perhaps I should start a new thread, BUT...

What is you opinion about the quality of viewing with the Cinera??