cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

2160×1200 Everyone is fine with that?

sarfios
Honored Guest
Hey folks,

Is everyone fine with the final resolution of 2160x1200? I've heard a lot of blahblah, how resolution is not everything in VR, but as owning DK2 right now and having 1920x1080

These 90 hz are the biggest improvement? worth to even consider getting it?

I know a lot of people will start saying how shallow I should be for care for that only but... really not even 1440p? We've waited 3 years for almost for that?

It's clear that in order to adopt the VR from the masses and become a thing in the future it should be more accessible and stuff... but ffs we had 1440p from a mobile PHONE VR back in 2014, but in 2016 we will get less than 1440p for DESKTOP?

WAW

I guess VR won't be ready in the next 2-3 years, when 10/14nm CPU/GPU start popping up and having 4/5k phone displays available.
382 REPLIES 382

Dark_Fread
Explorer
Personnaly, I think 75Hz was enough (but you can't spit on 90Hz even if your PC can't reach it).
I am far less confident about a 2160*1200 resolution. After all, it is quite a little improvement in comparison to the DK2, and the lack of resolution was incredibly noticeable.
But as you can not really expect the 2016 computers to render 2016 games in 4k, it sounds like a reasonable choice.

You may not want to see the CV1 as the VR final revolution. It will only be a glorious beginning.
OR DKII - Win7 64 - Phenom X4 965 - Radeon R9 380 2Go (15.7 driver) - RT v7.0

MrMonkeybat
Explorer
"Mradr" wrote:
"danknugz" wrote:
SDE will always be an issue because it is a problem inherent of using lenses and putting your eyes so close to the screen. It is a fundamentally flawed design IMO. Yes I guess you could say wait for 24K pixelspace, but in reality, VR will continue to suffer from SDE and other health related issues stemming from having your eyes so close to such a rapidly refreshing/strobing screen.



CV3-5 might have the answer to help lower it a bit as we move on to custom flexible screens that might allow us to increase FOV while decreasing the need from the lenses as it bends the image around our eyes instead, but even then ~ idk ~ I don't think we will ever be "happy" about it, but as things continue going forward ~ they will get better and I think that's the answer to the question.


No you definately need lenses if you are not severly short sighted major headaches would follow if you did not use lenses to increase th focal distance to a comfortable distance "3d Head" is not the solution.The problem is angular resolution pixels per degree when you spread out a normal resolution over 100 degrees you can see the individual sub pixels people talk allot about "pixel fill" the size of the gaps between sub pixels but that is really only a small part of the problem when you still have multicolored sub pixels only a third or less of the screen will the lit up with certain colors. Until we have 10k screens or direct retinal projection the solution will be diffusor layer blurring the sub pixels together.

Anonymous
Not applicable
"mrmonkeybat" wrote:
"Mradr" wrote:
"danknugz" wrote:
SDE will always be an issue because it is a problem inherent of using lenses and putting your eyes so close to the screen. It is a fundamentally flawed design IMO. Yes I guess you could say wait for 24K pixelspace, but in reality, VR will continue to suffer from SDE and other health related issues stemming from having your eyes so close to such a rapidly refreshing/strobing screen.



CV3-5 might have the answer to help lower it a bit as we move on to custom flexible screens that might allow us to increase FOV while decreasing the need from the lenses as it bends the image around our eyes instead, but even then ~ idk ~ I don't think we will ever be "happy" about it, but as things continue going forward ~ they will get better and I think that's the answer to the question.


No you definately need lenses if you are not severly short sighted major headaches would follow if you did not use lenses to increase th focal distance to a comfortable distance "3d Head" is not the solution.The problem is angular resolution pixels per degree when you spread out a normal resolution over 100 degrees you can see the individual sub pixels people talk allot about "pixel fill" the size of the gaps between sub pixels but that is really only a small part of the problem when you still have multicolored sub pixels only a third or less of the screen will the lit up with certain colors. Until we have 10k screens or direct retinal projection the solution will be diffusor layer blurring the sub pixels together.


heheh, funny I said that before that post ^__^; I guess I was right 😛 thanks! I also never said we would get rid of them ~ just wouldn't have to have as stronge type to bend the image around the eye. The bendable screens would help with that. There is also new optical technology coming out that is to help thin out the lenses as well for the same power level. That'll help not having to have such a big device on the head. I forgot where I saw that article, but I think I posted about it a while back. It should help over all, but looks to cost a pretty penny for a while. Oh well, if it help shrink the lenses, it could mean a bit more wiggle room for glasses users and maybe allow small projectors.

Edit: here is something about the stacking http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition ... ing-device

There are also new stacking OLED coming out as well that can stack the different colors in one pixel slot that should help with the multicolored issues found in todays screens. That will be a long time before we see that though. That's also one of the many reasons a lot of us are asking what screen type they're using 🙂 pentile vs rgb

Seems like LCD/screen tech has a long shelf life to go, but the problem seems to be how do we scale up that high that fast xD As I talk about a while back, we will have to do something about that first before worrying about what the current hardware level is for CV1. CV3-4-5 will be crazy:) and only get better, so that is why we will have to just "live" with that we "currently have" (meaning what that year can provide technology wise) until something can be done about the ever increasing resolution request. After that, 24k x 24k wont be anything but amazing sight:)

willste
Explorer
"RonsonPL" wrote:
Meanwhile:

months ago: Palmer Luckey:
"We can not have any higher resolution, since higher res means even worse SDE"

today:

John Carmack:
adoroo asked: I can´t stand pixelation! Please tell us that there is no more the "screen door effect
John Carmack's response: On GearVR? Try de focusing it a bit. Otherwise, you may need to wait for 4k displays."

https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/statu ... 4684452864

Could it be:
Palmer said what he said because he was taught well about how PR works and he follows the guides he was thought.
John said what he said, because he, as he often does, disregarded the strict and stiff orders from PR/Facebook bosses?
?
If I had to bet on one of two options, I would bet that Palmer didn't lie. But I do think the chances for scenario above are higher than 0%, so worth a thought.
I don't think John would ever mixed SDE with pixelation due to lower res. That guy clearly wrote "SDE". John would not missed it IMHO. Not a chance.


Palmer doesn't strike me as a PR kind of guy either, but it does seem like the only explanation for arguing so strongly that higher rez always equals more screen door. Clearly the major factor for screen door is pixel separation. Which should get smaller on higher PPI displays. Thus higher res will lead to lower SDE as long as pixel separation is shrinking. Though obviously you could build a screen with little pixel separation and giant pixels.

jyoun
Explorer
Did Palmer really say that? I thought SDE goes away as resolution increases, all other things being equal... 😐

Also, will we ever move to retinal projection displays like the Avegant Glyph, where SDE is basically a non-issue?

willste
Explorer
"jyoun" wrote:
Did Palmer really say that? I thought SDE goes away as resolution increases, all other things being equal... 😐

Also, will we ever move to retinal projection displays like the Avegant Glyph, where SDE is basically a non-issue?


He actually argued about it for awhile on Reddit. Trying to shut down the argument that 4k would solve all of our problems.

RonsonPL
Heroic Explorer
"jyoun" wrote:
Did Palmer really say that?


Yes. And it certainly has some logic in it, like smaller pixels = less area emitting the light. This might be an issue that prevents any 4x higher resolution diplay to be usable for VR, if the amount of light is too low. After it gets blurred by the Fresnels, it might get too dimm.

It might be the world needs a truly VR dedicated display production line, but no such line exist.
Recent talks at OC2 brought this statement: we might have to wait for some revolutionary technology. That would hint that if Oculus representative says something like this, he knows there won't be any such production line within next year or two.
I just hope that revolutionary technology means curved OLEDs, not something that will appear in 2025.
Anyway - I wouldn't bet that 4K (4x more pixels than CV1) is certain within next 5 years.
I think if we'll get that before 2019 comes in, we'll be lucky.
Not an Oculus hater, but not a fan anymore. Still lots of respect for the team-Carmack, Abrash. Oculus is driven by big corporation principles now. That brings painful effects already, more to come in the future. This is not the Oculus I once cheered for.

jyoun
Explorer
"RonsonPL" wrote:
"jyoun" wrote:
Did Palmer really say that?


Yes. And it certainly has some logic in it

That's why I said "all other things being equal" but you're saying that can't be the case, or at least is the case now to which I agree, but in the future it's not like high res will be a problem and we are stuck with 1-4k forever?

I couldn't find the article you quoted, but I'm sure there is more context to it than that simple statement... any links?

willste
Explorer
Your looking at Sony, LG and Samsung I believe as some of the primary screen tech resources. They have some great screen tech but likely non of it has been VR focused.

The first few years of VR sales may go a long way to determine how quickly these companies ramp up their VR screen R&D.

Hopefully improvements don't require a "break through" to get noticeably better.

MrMonkeybat
Explorer
If fill factor was so important then why do green scenes in Gear VR look so much better and less screen doory than the blue scenes that use a larger percentage of the screen.The green scenes using the tiny but twice numerous green sub pixels look way better the Red or blue scenes using the larger(including total screen space) but half as numerous red and blue sub pixels, including the obvious screen door effect. If "fill factor" was so important then the opposite would be the case. Pentile can make a similar number of sub pixels look sharper when you are near the resolution limits of the human eye like a cell phone at arms length, but when a normal resolution is stretched across your FOV as in VR half the red and Blue pixels being missing is very easy to notice.

Fill factor is easily fixed with a difusor layer in the optics anyway I wouldn't sacrifice resolution or RGB for it. In mass production it should not be too hard to get a difusor of the correct thickness for the ppi of the screen, filling in the gaps without blurring anymore than necessary.