# What resolution would make VR crystal clear?

Posts: 33
Brain Burst
What resolution do you think it would take until we are ready to reach perfect clear quality for gaming. Looking in the worlds of these games and things are quite fuzzy in the distance and writing can at times be hard to read forcing one to squint to see it clearly, this is something i expected though i don't know if i expected it to be quite fuzzy especially in the distance. Do people think that 4k will be enough to satisfy our eyes and take away the strain or will it be even higher at lets say 8k before we get that smooth Chrystal image we all seek.

• Posts: 6
NerveGear
Probably even higher than that.  Brute forcing that is a long long time away.  So hopefully we'll see some sort of eye tracking solution in the next few years so only a smaller part of the display needs to be rendered at a higher resolution.  Then we don't need to wait for graphics card that can push 16k at 120hz or cables with enough bandwidth!

• Posts: 13
NerveGear
edited April 2017
The pixel density where individual pixels are indistinguishable (the so called "retina" display resolution) is considered to be above 57 pixels-per-degree (source: Wikipedia). At 90 degrees POV, this results in horizontal resolution of 5130, more than 4x the current resolution. May be laser DLP or printed OLED will get there sooner than 10-15 years.
• Posts: 60 Poster of the Week
Based on some quickly googled numbers that are probably inaccurate:

If you want full human FoV, then assuming the FoV of each eye is 150x180 degrees, and assuming someone with good eyesight can distinguish between about 60 pixels per degree, then some simple multiplication gives you a total resolution of 18k x 16k. That's over 100 times the pixels that the CV1 has.

But that's not taking into account the distortion the lenses introduce, which makes the pixels in the center of your vision appear larger. That's also not taking into account that you'd still want to exceed that resolution, through either supersampling or optics, to make it so things don't look jagged with high contrast.

It's gonna be a while.
• Posts: 859
3Jane
I've only had my rift since last Friday, after reading everyone's points and opinions on what they think needs improving over the past year I think the Rift is perfect and the graphics are great. The only think I noticed is there seems to sometimes be a kind of glare on the lenses, I think that's what it's called. If they could get rid of the lens glare on CV2 then that would be great but having said that I don't notice it in games. So once your playing Robo Recall or Dead & Burred etc, you don't see such things.
• Posts: 1,078
Wintermute
I've only had my rift since last Friday, after reading everyone's points and opinions on what they think needs improving over the past year I think the Rift is perfect and the graphics are great. The only think I noticed is there seems to sometimes be a kind of glare on the lenses, I think that's what it's called. If they could get rid of the lens glare on CV2 then that would be great but having said that I don't notice it in games. So once your playing Robo Recall or Dead & Burred etc, you don't see such things.
We call them "God Rays", but yea .. depending on the graphical display of the game if there is too much contrast with a dark background you will get the foggy god-ray lights. From what I understand, PSVR already manage to solve this so I think the CV2 would definitely be improved in this area as well.
• Posts: 1,777 Valuable Player
edited April 2017
Sony haven't "solved the problem", they simply used a heavier conventional lens rather than the Fresnel lenses in the Vive and Rift headsets.

edit: I realize I might be seen as picking nits.  However, it's like saying you solved the unintended acceleration problem in your Toyota by buying a Nissan.  I do think we will see a new solution to the problem in the next generation of display/lens combination.  There was too much backlash about god-rays on both Rift and Vive this time around.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C Clarke
• Posts: 1,078
Wintermute
edited April 2017
Zoomie said:
Sony haven't "solved the problem", they simply used a heavier conventional lens rather than the Fresnel lenses in the Vive and Rift headsets.
Did that not get rid of the God Rays?

Edit: Oh I get what you mean. They traded off making it heavier weight-wise (a solution that already existed, but inherently its own problem). Fair enough. I've never actually had the chance to use a PSVR to check it out myself.
• Posts: 1,777 Valuable Player
I think Fresnel Lenses also result in a larger 'in focus' area than conventional lenses, at least on the inexpensive side of the spectrum.  The ultimate solution would be a curved screen that covers our entire FOV at an appropriately high PPD - but for now we're using Palmer Luckey's innovative solution of using a lens to effectively wrap a flat screen image across a curved surface close to our eyes.  The most obvious drawback is distortion, which they largely correct with processing the image.  The OP wants a perfect solution, and to be honest that will probably either require a high density wrap-around screen with no lens, or some sort of projection directly onto the retina.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C Clarke
• Posts: 4,243 Valuable Player
Zoomie said:
... The OP wants a perfect solution, and to be honest that will probably either require a high density wrap-around screen with no lens, or some sort of projection directly onto the retina.
A lens will always be required with a screen-based solution, to correct the focal distance, due to the screen being so close to the eyes.

i7 5820K @ 4.25 GHz | EVGA GTX 1080 SC | Gigabyte GA-X99-UD4 | Corsair DDR4 3000 32 GB | Corsair HX 750W
Corsair Hydro H100i | Samsung SSDs: 860 Evo 1 TB, 850 Evo 1 TB, 840 Evo 1 TB | Seagate BarraCuda HDD 3 TB
• Posts: 1,777 Valuable Player
Yes, you're absolutely right.  Forgot that little gem.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C Clarke
• Posts: 1,066
Wintermute
there are some meta materials that are flat but produce optical warping effects similar/identical to conventional optics - they're horrendously expensive to manufacture and are not ready for consumer usage, but I expect they will be added to the mix at some point - then you'll see thin film optics that do whats needed to have a wrap around screen.
Though you are more than slightly incoherent, I agree with you Madam,
a plum is a terrible thing to do to a nostril.
• Posts: 2,228 Valuable Player
nalex66 said:
Zoomie said:
... The OP wants a perfect solution, and to be honest that will probably either require a high density wrap-around screen with no lens, or some sort of projection directly onto the retina.
A lens will always be required with a screen-based solution, to correct the focal distance, due to the screen being so close to the eyes.

I'm expecting retinal projection will eventually replace screens, but we're talking 3-4 generations of HMDs from now, I think.  And it looks like you'll probably need multiple projectors to get the field of view, so it has its limitations too.