The author persistently conflates AR and MR throughout the posting, evaluating the Quest Pro as an AR device but the concluding at the end it's a terrible "MR" device because it failed at their AR tests. It seems to suggest they really think these terms are synonymous but they aren't. While AR aims to enable display and interaction with the real world but with augmentations, MR aims to bring virtual objects into the real world and allow you to interact with those. You really don't need such a high fidelity view of the real world to do that. The virtual objects are rendered with very high fidelity.
I am fairly confused by the low res cameras used in the QPro. I have to assume Meta were just heavily constrained by the need for them to do double duty as tracking cameras and pass through cameras, so higher quality cameras just weren't available. But why only a single color pass through camera? This really doesn't make much sense other than if you allow that the processor on the Quest Pro is so limited that even if it had both feeds it probably couldn't process them.
I think it's actually great news that there is so much optimization left to do. Seems like they should be able to improve it a lot over time, and in the meantime it's pretty adequate to enable exploration of some unique experiences.
I am fairly confused by the low res cameras used in the QPro. I have to assume Meta were just heavily constrained by the need for them to do double duty as tracking cameras and pass through cameras, so higher quality cameras just weren't available. But why only a single color pass through camera? This really doesn't make much sense other than if you allow that the processor on the Quest Pro is so limited that even if it had both feeds it probably couldn't process them.
I think it's actually great news that there is so much optimization left to do. Seems like they should be able to improve it a lot over time, and in the meantime it's pretty adequate to enable exploration of some unique experiences.
edit: VR => MR