New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Would an 8.4" screen be too big? Samsung unveils new tablet

DreamwriterDreamwriter Posts: 1,101
3Jane
edited June 2014 in General
We know Oculus is getting a next-gen screen from Samsung for CV1 (thanks to a tech-exchange deal they made). We know it's gonna be higher res than DK2's 1080p and will have a larger FOV. Well, Samsung recently announced the Galaxy S tablet with an 8.4" AMOLED screen, resolution 2560x1600, and it's being billed as the thinnest/lightest tablet Samsung has made. Would that screen be too big for a Rift? Or could this possibly be the screen we're gonna be getting in CV1?

Comments

  • vrrookvrrook Posts: 51
    That would be like strapping a medium pizza to your face... But less tasty.
  • zztoplesszztopless Posts: 47
    For what it's worth, the new 10" tablet has an RGB (ie non-pentil) OLED panel...
  • ChristiaanChristiaan Posts: 386
    Art3mis
    The effective resolution would be marginally north of DK1, and far worse than DK2 ....

    .... with a personal pizza strapped to your face (maybe a medium if your outside the U.S.). :mrgreen:
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,561 Valuable Player
    Pretty sure we're getting a different custom screen. There was a point I heard a 2 screen setup to increase FOV... if that's the case... it'll be smaller, but longer witch would go for a 2k screen.

    Then again.. we might get this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3E7fUynrZU
    If that's the case, then we can increase FOV by a lot.... 180 viewing side to side with maybe a 160 up and down.
  • MrMonkeybatMrMonkeybat Posts: 640
    Brain Burst
    The Lockheed prototype apparently focused on a larger screen area, so it depends what kind of optic arrangement they use, but rumors are it will be smaller. I have seen articles advertising prototypes with the same resolution on smaller screens.

    If the deal with Samsung is good they should have the highest PPI technology cut to custom dimensions.
  • DreamwriterDreamwriter Posts: 1,101
    3Jane
    Mradr wrote:
    Pretty sure we're getting a different custom screen. There was a point I heard a 2 screen setup to increase FOV... if that's the case... it'll be smaller, but longer witch would go for a 2k screen.

    Then again.. we might get this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3E7fUynrZU
    If that's the case, then we can increase FOV by a lot.... 180 viewing side to side with maybe a 160 up and down.
    They've never considered a 2 screen setup, that would worsen the experience, raise the price, and be a complete design change, which we know we aren't getting. The single-screen setup is one of the innovations that makes the Rift possible, and the DK2 is supposed to be similar to CV1, since the whole point if DK2 is to allow developers to make VR games and apps that run on the final device.
  • ThreeEyesThreeEyes Posts: 2,230
    NerveGear
    I think it's hard to say what OVR has and has not considered. They have probably considered lots of things.

    This is also engineering and when designing one product, certain design choices will be appropriate, but change the target slightly and the landscape can completely change.

    Facebook changes things up with trying to reach the million person metaverse. That may or may not mean going for more of an AR experience instead of totally immersive VR. But for people to be in the metaverse while riding a bus or train, or even plane, or sitting in a park, etc, they will need to have images superimposed over real life. They need to stay aware of their surroundings. That's when two displays and stuff like this starts making sense: http://www.emagin.com/optics/

    And while there may be a price penalty, mass production has a habit of fixing a lot of that. If you aren't going for fighter pilot quality, molded plastic can make a satisfactory lens provided refractive index is favorable, etc.

    They also don't need to abandon immersive VR to do this for AR and the metaverse. Nothing says they can only have one product line. Have they considered it? Who knows?
  • DreamwriterDreamwriter Posts: 1,101
    3Jane
    ThreeEyes wrote:
    I think it's hard to say what OVR has and has not considered. They have probably considered lots of things.

    This is also engineering and when designing one product, certain design choices will be appropriate, but change the target slightly and the landscape can completely change.

    Facebook changes things up with trying to reach the million person metaverse
    My point was they've never once suggested or hinted that they would ever go to a two screen setup, and when asked have mentioned the downsides to doing so. And of course they have said time and time again that DK2 is going to be similar to CV1, they were waiting for CV1's design to be more locked down before announcing and releasing DK2.

    As for Facebook, they also said that wasn't going to change one thing about CV1 - CV1 was too far along when the Facebook purchase was made for it to do much more than speed up the release and affect the final price. And Facebook said they weren't going to alter anything about the Oculus Rift at all, at least for now.

    CV2 is where to look for alterations due to the infinite finances of Facebook.
  • MrMonkeybatMrMonkeybat Posts: 640
    Brain Burst
    I think you are referring to old quotes Dreamwriter. They said CV1 would be extremely similar and shortly follow DK2 before Facebook after that deal they said CV2 just became CV1. And at E3 one of the interviews said they have a CV prototype and it is a total re design with new optics. I think this is the video:

    I have not watched the hole thing again but it looks like the one.

    They are also selling them for cost price now, so they can use better hardware without over pricing the market. With there capitol and Samsung deal they can also get custom cut panels and as one of the main price factors in display panels is screen area and defect rate, so two smaller square panels may be cheaper than a larger rectangular one because each defect that bins a panel takes out less surface area. Meanwhile The asics that drive flat panels where small and cheap 10 years ago and there would be advantages of using 2 or 4 drivers per panel to increase refresh speed like they do on UHD screens. Those light weight flexible Samsung screens could also be used to make a HMD with a dual screen form factor from a single screen, but after how many years Moore's law since flat panels became cheap I think they should make the refresh cycle as parallel as possible to reduce rolling shutter and increase frame rate.

    On second thoughts I should convince myself that CV1 will have no improvements over DK1 so that when CV comes out I am amazed by it. :o
  • ThreeEyesThreeEyes Posts: 2,230
    NerveGear
    As for Facebook, they also said that wasn't going to change one thing about CV1 - CV1 was too far along when the Facebook purchase was made for it to do much more than speed up the release and affect the final price. And Facebook said they weren't going to alter anything about the Oculus Rift at all, at least for now.

    CV2 is where to look for alterations due to the infinite finances of Facebook.

    Totally agree. I wasn't talking about CV1 and I had assumed that you weren't either. At E3, Palmer and I believe Nate both said the CV1 design was pretty well locked in.

    I was talking about the future where the Facebook influence would come more into play. Down the road is where I see a divergence between fully immersive and AR type experiences and the AR approach seems much more appropriate for a metaverse kind of application.
  • nicorosenicorose Posts: 153
    2560x1600

    Guys.. Just think of the majority! The majority dosnt have a PC to render a Game in that resolution (in 3D) with a constant high framerate. Mabe in 3-4 Years. But not now!

    When the rift only runs on high end PCs for 3000 $ or Graphics Cards for 700 bucks nobody (but Nerds) will buy it. And that will be a Problem.

    Maybe they should consider to make 2 Versions. One for the masses with a normal HD Display like the DK2. And one for VR Freaks with a big budget.
  • DreamwriterDreamwriter Posts: 1,101
    3Jane
    nicorose wrote:
    2560x1600

    Guys.. Just think of the majority! The majority dosnt have a PC to render a Game in that resolution (in 3D) with a constant high framerate. Mabe in 3-4 Years. But not now!

    When the rift only runs on high end PCs for 3000 $ or Graphics Cards for 700 bucks nobody (but Nerds) will buy it. And that will be a Problem.

    Maybe they should consider to make 2 Versions. One for the masses with a normal HD Display like the DK2. And one for VR Freaks with a big budget.
    Doesn't matter what we think, Oculus has said a few times that the screen is gonna be a next-gen Samsung display with a higher resolution than 1080p. I agree with you that the first one probably shouldn't be higher res, and just use one of the other many ways to solve SDE than resolution, but I don't work with Oculus :)
  • CalibosCalibos Posts: 108
    Art3mis
    Is there some technical reason that I am unaware of that means this 'anti 4k Rift till we have the GPU's to run it' meme just won't die?

    4K+ ASAP to remove SDE from the getgo.
    Play content at Lower RES till GPU's catch UP.
    GPU's catch UP, play content at native 4K res.
    Didn't have to buy a new 4K rift, already owned one, enjoyed no SDE from the beginning. Enjoyed native 4K content a few years latter with my new GTX 980ti

    ???????
  • MrMonkeybatMrMonkeybat Posts: 640
    Brain Burst
    As the "wants low res" meem has come up again I will quote myself from another thread.
    willste wrote:
    Stop worrying about having too much resolution, thats a stupid problem to have :). Less demanding game engines will run at 4k easily. New ones will just have to up sample *shrugs*. Then hopefully in 2016-2017 we get some major hardware leaps that have the bandwidth to handle 4k and beyond properly.
    Indeed I groan whenever I see someone bring this up. As someone who has for a long time been OCD about getting the native resolution of my screens I can kind of see where they are coming from but with the rift using barrel distortion and chromatic correction there really isn't one. If you go to the the "maintaining frame rate" section of this lecture he talks about using a different render resolution for every frame before applying the distortion at the native resolution. Apparently you can use render resolutions all over the place and people don't notice artifacts except for persistently very low resolutions being fuzzy of course.
    http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020714
    In that lecture you may also notice that the barrel distortion takes very little GPU time and this will scale up to higher resolutions linearly. So until it is announced that "100% distortion free optics confirmed" even mentions of exact half or third resolutions are nonsense, unless you are raytracing there is no native resolution of a pincushion distorted screen with chromatic aberation. There are also alot of great old and low end games like HL2 and Lucky's Tale that will run in a very high res on mid range cards. A high res screen will also allow virtual theater better than allot of big expensive TVs and projectors.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,561 Valuable Player
    nicorose wrote:
    2560x1600

    Guys.. Just think of the majority! The majority dosnt have a PC to render a Game in that resolution (in 3D) with a constant high framerate. Mabe in 3-4 Years. But not now!

    When the rift only runs on high end PCs for 3000 $ or Graphics Cards for 700 bucks nobody (but Nerds) will buy it. And that will be a Problem.

    Maybe they should consider to make 2 Versions. One for the masses with a normal HD Display like the DK2. And one for VR Freaks with a big budget.

    Well commits like these make me think why do you even have a voice at all? They could make these things 4k and it wouldn't effect you. All you would've had to do is lower the res in game until your system is ready for 4k. It's no different than how other monitors work right now. One version can do both things you just ask for... so I guess I don't see points like these at all. I don't think we'll see 2560x1600 screens tho xD

    Na, there is really no reason they can't do it other than cost. Higher res screen do cost more, so I understand why some right now are saying it's pointless to give 4k screen atm, but the argument to say that you need a stronger computer to run these at 4k is just a stupid point by itself. Computers will get faster and faster... they already double my GPU performance and they will only double the performance of what they have now.

    Than again, I don't see us getting 4k. It'll be nice, but I don't think we'll see 4k HMDs. At best we might get flexible screens at the 2k res, but I don't see us getting 4k. Remember, they said that these things will be at cost and they said it'll cost somewhere between $300-400. If you're hoping for a $250 or lower version... then you will just have to be behind one gen like everything else I fear. Who knows tho? They might have a lower version that doesn't have all the bells and whistles as this continues.
  • nicorosenicorose Posts: 153
    "They could make these things 4k and it wouldn't effect you. All you would've had to do is lower the res in game until your system is ready for 4k."

    Yup sure you can, but the interpolation will look bad as hell. Imagine you have a 4K screen and only can play 1080p on it. The Picture will be just a muddyblur mess. Couse the Pixels will be scaled up to fit into, and that sucks. Its the same Problem with a monitor. Try to Play a Game in 720p On a HD Screen it will look messy and blury. See PS3 and Xbox 360 Games on a full HD TV. From the Sofa it will be okay but that right before your Eyes?... Nope.

    And you forget one BIG thing. Its not only the resolution its also the fact that we need a stereorendering so 2 different Frames at that "high resolution" at the same Time. Thats increases GPU Power alot, if you want to play a Game in realtime in 75 Frames on a PC in 4K and Stereo! You PC must be able to render 150 FPS! to get 75 real Stereo Frames. And that in 4K. Thats intense! :mrgreen:
    Sure, one day it will be no problem. But at the moment it will only work with GFX Cards for 800 Bucks.
  • MrMonkeybatMrMonkeybat Posts: 640
    Brain Burst
    Gaa, the fallacies, the fallacies! :roll:
    nicorose wrote:
    snip
    Yup sure you can, but the interpolation will look bad as hell. Imagine you have a 4K screen and only can play 1080p on it. The Picture will be just a muddyblur mess. Couse the Pixels will be scaled up to fit into, and that sucks. Its the same Problem with a monitor. Try to Play a Game in 720p On a HD Screen it will look messy and blury. See PS3 and Xbox 360 Games on a full HD TV. From the Sofa it will be okay but that right before your Eyes?... Nope.
    snip
    If you go but a UHD tv and play a blu ray on it or a PC set to 1080 I promise you it will look... GREAT! Even if you press your nose against the screen compared to a 1080 screen the same size, contrast ratio etc, the UHD TV will look better with less RGB striping and aliasing. The example you use is even a strait 2:1 ratio so you can turn off all scaling interpolation if you like aliasing so much.

    And guess what with the Rift after an image has been rendered it goes through barrel distortion and chromatic correction so you are going to get scaling no matter what you do! :roll: Ray cast games will still be rare tech demos! :cry: Unless you have one of those expensive future GPUs you complain about. So as there are no native barrel distorted screens there is no native resolution or 1:1 scaling to be had. But the higher the resolution the screen the BETTER it will be at uneven scaling of barrel distortions.

    Did you bother reading the previous posts before writing that, I posted a good source:
    http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020714
    Go to the "Maintaining Frame Rate" section on the side menu. Because frame goes through the barrel distortion they where able to use a slightly different resolution for every frame and NO ONE NOTICED!
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,561 Valuable Player
    nicorose wrote:
    "They could make these things 4k and it wouldn't effect you. All you would've had to do is lower the res in game until your system is ready for 4k."

    Yup sure you can, but the interpolation will look bad as hell. Imagine you have a 4K screen and only can play 1080p on it. The Picture will be just a muddyblur mess. Couse the Pixels will be scaled up to fit into, and that sucks. Its the same Problem with a monitor. Try to Play a Game in 720p On a HD Screen it will look messy and blury. See PS3 and Xbox 360 Games on a full HD TV. From the Sofa it will be okay but that right before your Eyes?... Nope.

    And you forget one BIG thing. Its not only the resolution its also the fact that we need a stereorendering so 2 different Frames at that "high resolution" at the same Time. Thats increases GPU Power alot, if you want to play a Game in realtime in 75 Frames on a PC in 4K and Stereo! You PC must be able to render 150 FPS! to get 75 real Stereo Frames. And that in 4K. Thats intense! :mrgreen:
    Sure, one day it will be no problem. But at the moment it will only work with GFX Cards for 800 Bucks.

    O.o what are you smoking? Can I have some? I been in the tech field for a while now and not once have I notice what you are talking about. Tech has come a long way from your CRT moniters you know. Most of the issue I have ever seen when going from a smaller image to a larger one has been incorrect settings on the computer it self. What's nice is that 1080p is 16:9 while 4k is also 16:9 making it really easy to scale both ways.

    Those 800 buck gpus will come down to 600 this year... and 200 the year after that all while double performance (well 30%) They don't hold value like cars do simply because there are always better model is out there. This means everyone will have 4k access really soon, so why would you even worry about it now? Remember, OC doesn't come out till late 2014 or early 2015.

    I have a feeling that stereorendering will also see a performance boost as the current way of doing is a bit ... well.. burt force? Drivers will also come about to allow 2 gpus to also help with cutting the work load per eye as well.
  • nicorosenicorose Posts: 153
    O.o what are you smoking? Can I have some? I been in the tech field for a while now and not once have I notice what you are talking about.

    So you gonna tell me, that you NEVER noticed a bad scaled blurry picture (compared to HD) when you view an upscaled content on your normal 1080p HD Screen?

    Scaling up 1080p to 4k is the same level as blowing up SD to HD. I seen HD Footage on an 4K TV. Yo got 4 times the pixels on the screen. And when you stand right in front of a 4K TV you also can see that because 1pixel will turn into 4 Pixels on the 4K Screen. So you will get "bigger" Pixels x4. That only simple math.

    Dont get me wrong....
    I want 4K also. But i have to bring up these concerns. Because Oculus sould be made for the masses like Grandma Erna and Uncle Rufus. Not only gaming nerds.


    And now... Peace brothers... :mrgreen:
  • nalex66nalex66 Posts: 5,143 Volunteer Moderator
    nicorose wrote:
    So you gonna tell me, that you NEVER noticed a bad scaled blurry picture (compared to HD) when you view an upscaled content on your normal 1080p HD Screen?

    Scaling up 1080p to 4k is the same level as blowing up SD to HD. I seen HD Footage on an 4K TV. Yo got 4 times the pixels on the screen. And when you stand right in front of a 4K TV you also can see that because 1pixel will turn into 4 Pixels on the 4K Screen. So you will get "bigger" Pixels x4. That only simple math.
    But since the 4K pixels are x4 smaller, those x4 larger pixels are the exact same size as a single pixel on a comparable 1080p screen. The 1080p image scaled up onto the 4K screen won't look any worse than it would on a same-size 1080p screen.
    i7 5820K @ 4.25GHz | EVGA GTX 1080 SC | Gigabyte GA-X99-UD4 | Corsair DDR4 3000 32GB | Corsair HX 750W
    SSDs: Intel 660p M.2 2TB, Samsung 860 Evo 1TB, 850 Evo 1TB, 840 Evo 1TB | Startech 4 controller PCIe USB 3.0
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,561 Valuable Player
    nicorose wrote:
    O.o what are you smoking? Can I have some? I been in the tech field for a while now and not once have I notice what you are talking about.

    So you gonna tell me, that you NEVER noticed a bad scaled blurry picture (compared to HD) when you view an upscaled content on your normal 1080p HD Screen?

    Scaling up 1080p to 4k is the same level as blowing up SD to HD. I seen HD Footage on an 4K TV. Yo got 4 times the pixels on the screen. And when you stand right in front of a 4K TV you also can see that because 1pixel will turn into 4 Pixels on the 4K Screen. So you will get "bigger" Pixels x4. That only simple math.

    Dont get me wrong....
    I want 4K also. But i have to bring up these concerns. Because Oculus sould be made for the masses like Grandma Erna and Uncle Rufus. Not only gaming nerds.


    And now... Peace brothers... :mrgreen:

    So yes, I am going to tell you that... It's always in the settings of the user.

    It's because you are looking at a TV. There are a number things that goes into res and size. Screens that are smaller but have higher res tend to look better than larg screens with less dpi. "If you were looking at a 3" wide screen, then you could say that HD video is 640dpi. But if you were watching it on a six-foot-wide screen, then you could say that the exact same HD video was 27dpi." "resolution and pixel dimensions are two separate things. 1080p specifies that frames are 1920 pixels x 1080 pixels, all the time. Resolution is just that density of pixels per inch/cm/cubit/whatever. It only matters for purposes of output; the effective resolution of, say, a projected image is far different than that of a desktop monitor."

    Again... please let me have a puff!

    Look, they should be thinking a head. Geeks will be the ones buying this first (not your normal players). After a year then your normal players will buy it. After 4 years we will see parents get into it. After 6 we will see families use it (no I didn't pull these number out of my ass). There are way too many things that will be over come before your grandma or your mom for that matter will be able to use it. Same with computers... Right now, Intel CPU can play 4k movies but not games. This leaves a rather large market for its own right. As for games, GPU are only getting bigger and better for less the cost. Next year will be a 30% performance boost and by the end of 2015 another 30%. That's over 60% boost of performance with 20% less power. If that's the case.. then then the add performance will go into displaying the game. As more models come out because of this.. the lower cost it is to jsut slap a video card into your computer making the r290x of today from $600 to $60 in 6 years allowing your common folk access to hardware that isable to power a HMD.

    So no.. you are wrong.. and stop spreading fear :D or I'll have to #noscope you with my 2k HMD when it comes out ;)
  • MrMonkeybatMrMonkeybat Posts: 640
    Brain Burst
    Upscalers have improved alot in the last decade. I remember ten years ago when I was struggling to get allot of games running on native resolution when they stopped selling CRT monitors, native resolution used to be a problem but not so much anymore. If you play a retro pixel art game on Dosbox or Scummvm it is true it will look horrible if you dont zoom to the closest whole number. But with less blocky, less aliased images scaling is good these days open a good quality video in VLC player watch it at 100% zoom and then drag the window slightly larger and it still looks fine.

    I think Nicorose is also confusing the effects of seeing low res image spread across a large screen with the scaling, most HD TVs have been good at up scalling for years now. Do you remember seeing large 480p plasmas in the shops? They sucked even though they where showing content of the native resolution, gaa the screendoor, bad memories. An SD DVD looks allot better on a modern full HD screen of the same size. SD DVDs looked great on a 20inch CRT because it was spread across a smaller screen while a 50inch plasma is spreading the image across a larger screen. If you dont set them to pillar box on 4:3 content you also get all that stretching distortion. Numerous times I would find friends even those who I thought where quite tech savvy playing DVDs in 4:3 letterbox mode on there widescreen TVs.

    And any talk about native resolution on the Rift is IRRELEVANT the render has to go through barrel distortion and chromatic correction before it is displayed so you are going to get scalling no matter what you do.
Sign In or Register to comment.