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

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

2160×1200 Everyone is fine with that?

17891012

Comments

  • MradrMradr Posts: 4,179 Valuable Player
    Here we go: Just release: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/unreal ... 29973.html

    So no one cares, huh :P?
  • RonsonPLRonsonPL Posts: 1,115
    Trinity
    Mradr wrote:
    Here we go: Just release: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/unreal ... 29973.html

    So no one cares, huh :P?

    Please point me to the page you're referring to, because I've read the text on the linked page and found nothing that would say anyone cares about proper PC VR.
    Animation aids are good, but the rest... some not important stuff about lighting, shadows, automatical weathering and dirt accumulation in a scene, some particles stuff, and obvious steps toward VR support, of course with mobile at least equally important for Epic, if not more.

    I didn't read all that 70 pages though. ;)
    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.
  • RonsonPLRonsonPL Posts: 1,115
    Trinity
    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.
    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.
  • r00xr00x Posts: 389
    Nexus 6
    I'm not sure how to interpret Palmer's comment on SDE really. It seems counter-intuitive that raising resolution would increase SDE for a given screen size. True, pixel density and pixel pitch are distinct from each other, but it can't be true of all displays that the pixel pitch shrinks more than the increased density would compensate for.

    It may therefore be that on *some* of the panels they were testing, higher-res models actually exhibited worse SDE because the pixels were of such a fine pitch (i.e. lots of dead space between them, even though there were more pixels). The only ways to overcome this would be:
    • Use a lower-res panel with larger pixel pitch to reduce SDE
    • Use a higher-res panel and take measures to mask SDE (which I believe is their approach for CV1 by putting a filter in front of the display. You can put a matte screen protector/film on the DK2 panel to reduce SDE in the same way.)
    • Find/wait for market to produce/pay for design and production of a panel of higher res but with a favourable, large pixel pitch for minimal SDE
    • Use a higher-res panel that is of *such* high res that any SDE issues are insignificant (there are simply too many pixels for the grid to be visible to the eye, even if the pixel pitch is very small compared to the dead area on the panel). This would likely necessitate 4K panels as a starting point, as implied by John Carmack.
  • MrMonkeybatMrMonkeybat Posts: 640
    Brain Burst
    All displays with sub pixels have SDE pentile sub pixels are the worse. Cresent Bay and Vive just reduce it by have optics that blur them together a bit. I would not take what Palmer says as gospel go back far enough and you can find quotes from him saying OLED is not appropriate for VR and position tracking is not necessary.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 4,179 Valuable Player
    r00x is mostly right though but I will throw in my exp with higher resolution and the current refresh rate from a few HMD I've tested. It seems that SDE is worst as you increase resolution with in the same size box. You don't see this if you are just looking at a 4k phone, but up close with lenses it seem to show. I have a feeling it is do to the dead space between the pixels as well and that it is increasing do to the fact the eye was catching the pixels as they change and where the pixels broke up at that created "waves" making the SDE show just as clear as if I was on the DK2 screen. The image quality went up for sure, but the SDE was still there.

    Also, as the screen quality increase, the less it felt fluid. Now, they were using a 60hz screen, so that might have been it, but it sure felt weird as I moved my head and saw the "waves" follow by a little bit of "lag".

    So there is something about it, but I'm not sure as that subject is above my head at that point. I like to have a higher resolution, and I think they can do it once hardware catches up, but unless they can fix that ~ I am sure people would cry that the SDE was still there. Also, didn't they say they would need something like 24k by 24k just to remove the SDE to the point it wasn't noticeable? xD That's crazy!
  • danknugzdanknugz Posts: 1,989
    Wintermute
    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.

    Only when VR progresses past using lenses, for example something like a helmet based HMD with a much larger screen that sits 3 or 4 inches from your eyes and still covers your entire FOV without using lenses, will things like SDE be manageable.
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on forums?
  • MradrMradr Posts: 4,179 Valuable Player
    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.
  • YoLolo69YoLolo69 Posts: 1,161
    Wintermute
    Screens in VR devices are placeholder for future technologies coming like projecting directly on eyes. All problem resolved, complete FOV, eyes tracking, real focus, etc. I don't expect to see in ten years an Oculus device using same screen technology 24K or upper. At that time we will laugh when we will see a CV1 in a museum ;)

    “Dreams feel real while we are in them, it's only when we wake up that we realize something was strange.” - Dom Cobb

    "Be careful, if you are killed in real life you die in VR too." - TD_4242

    I7 10700K,  GTX1080 OC 10%, 32GB DDR4 3200Mhz, Oculus Rift CV1

  • Dark_FreadDark_Fread Posts: 58
    Brain Burst
    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
  • MrMonkeybatMrMonkeybat Posts: 640
    Brain Burst
    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.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 4,179 Valuable Player
    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 :P 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:)
  • willstewillste Posts: 675
    Brain Burst
    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.
  • jyounjyoun Posts: 232
    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?
  • willstewillste Posts: 675
    Brain Burst
    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.
  • RonsonPLRonsonPL Posts: 1,115
    Trinity
    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.
  • jyounjyoun Posts: 232
    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?
  • willstewillste Posts: 675
    Brain Burst
    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.
  • MrMonkeybatMrMonkeybat Posts: 640
    Brain Burst
    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.
  • ChivasChivas Posts: 206
    Nexus 6
    I suppose Vive and Oculus are using displays with the same resolution for good reason. One is that any higher resolution would require even more powerful computer systems to drive them.

    If the OLED displays have the same resolution, then the most important factors are comparing the displays VR characteristics. Luckey has suggested that the Rift will have custom VR displays supplied by Samsung. We don't know if Vive is using an off the shelf smartphone display or having custom displays made aswell.

    Will the displays have different pixels, sub pixels, space between pixels. Will the displays VR characteristic combined with custom lenses, and special optic software reduce SDE, and increase perceive resolution? etc etc Its rumoured that Sony has been able to combine some of these features that made the SDE disappear with an even lower resolution display.

    I think we will have a few answers to those questions when Vive announce their final specs in the coming months, and we can almost guarantee that Oculus will immediately follow suit with their final specs, content bundle, price, and preorders. Especially if they think their HMD Specs, perceive presence, content bundle, and price is better.

    If not we will just have to avoid preordering until we try the Vive/Rift at Gamespot/Best Buy.
  • RonsonPLRonsonPL Posts: 1,115
    Trinity
    I want to think it's about the prototypes, not the final product, but this certainly doesn't help to dismiss our fears about PenTile in CV1:

    J. Carmack's comment on Sony stating they have RGB contrary to the others:
    legitimate statement versus the diamond pixel arrangement on the Oculus / Vive panels, put 1080 stripe still < 1440 diamond
    https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/statu ... 3282955264

    Maybe Carmack completely doesn't recognize CV1 as anything worthy, and in his head Oculus=mobile VR? CV1 isn't 1440p.
    I wish I could throw a rotten egg at the person who decided that this information (RGB or PenTile in CV1?) should be some kind of huge secret, if it's not because it's PenTile and they just want to keep this hidden as long as possible.
    First final CV1 was already produced. Really. What's the point of torturing the VR fans with this "secret"?

    If you share my point of view and/or fear of PenTile, please post here. Maybe if a group of people asks, Cybereality would have a reason to ask and bring us the answer?
    I don't think Carmack reads comments from unknown people on his Twitter, so there's no point in trying. Or am I wrong?
    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.
  • Dark_FreadDark_Fread Posts: 58
    Brain Burst
    RonsonPL wrote:
    I don't think Carmack reads comments from unknown people on his Twitter, so there's no point in trying. Or am I wrong?

    I tried a few times and he never replied.
    (but I possibly suck at asking questions)
    OR DKII - Win7 64 - Phenom X4 965 - Radeon R9 380 2Go (15.7 driver) - RT v7.0
  • ChivasChivas Posts: 206
    Nexus 6
    edited October 2015
    In case people haven't heard, Oculus is now in competition with Vive. We haven't heard diddly squat about the finer specs of the displays from either developer, for good reason, and won't until Vive announces their supposed early release date, specs, price, and content bundle.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 8,122 Valuable Player
    I think you're all more than a little bit insane. It's obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that VR is just the beginning. Forget about the size of displays, in 10 years time there won't BE any displays, you crazy fools!!!

    In 2025 it's going to be all about the Holodeck. 8-)

    And everything will be hunky dory as long as you don't let Moriarty anywhere near the bloomin thing :shock: :lol:
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • MrMonkeybatMrMonkeybat Posts: 640
    Brain Burst
    RonsonPL wrote:
    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.

    We need QLED displays! (that is quantum not organic)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_d ... Comparison
    Nanocrystal displays would render as much as a 30% increase in the visible spectrum, while using 30 to 50% less power than LCDs, in large part because nanocrystal displays wouldn't need backlighting. QD LEDs are 50-100 times brighter than CRT and LCD displays, emitting 40,000 cd/m2. QDs are soluble in both aqueous and non-aqueous solvents, which provides for printable and flexible displays of all sizes, including large area TVs. QDs can be inorganic, offering the potential for improved lifetimes compared to OLED (however, since many parts of QD-LED are often made of organic materials, further development is required to improve the functional lifetime.)

    Other advantages include better saturated green colors, manufacturability on polymers, thinner display and the use of the same material to generate different colors.

    They can now be printed at with RGB triads at 2,460ppi resolution http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15051 ... 49_F1.html

    So as small 4k lcd screens are already being produced the IGZO TFTs for such QLEDs to printed onto already exist when you consider that for LCDs the TFT is only allowed to take up a small portion of the pixel, not needed in emissive displays.
  • RonsonPLRonsonPL Posts: 1,115
    Trinity
    @mrmonkeybat

    I'll take 2000p display over 8000p with motion blur.
    Until some company states that it plans to produce something that doesn't rely on LCD technology and is capable of 120+fps without any motion blur, I'm not interested in any of the display's good sides. That's why I play 2D games on my TN monitor instead of VA or IPS. TN still image quality is awful compared to the CRTs. And yet overall, in gaming, it's much better than IPS/VA monitors. In VR motion quality is even more important.
    Besides, this technology seems to add a lot to the cost of end-user price.
    Just remember that OLED was supposed to be 'very cheap, cheaper even than LCDs". Those were the words I've read about 10 years ago and... Well... In 2015 still I don't have OLED monitor/TV in my house, for some reason. ;)



    @Chivas

    Well, something tells me you guys would defend any decission, as long as it's the decission of the beloved Oculus. ;)
    I wouldn't call that a perfectly good reason. Far from it, actually. ;)


    @snowdog
    Yeah, and in 2200 VR will be even better, but I'll be dead then, so it's kind of not so much interesting to me. ;)
    Likewise, I will dead as a gamer in 2025. I've waited 13 years for truly surround sound (first 4.1 5.1 and 6.1 speaker setups with proper game and hardware support), and then a few years later I was banned from enjoying it by hearing problems. That's infuriating. Knowing this feeling, I really wouldn't want to get 8K 180°FOV VR when my vision is already capped at 480p. Not everybody is lucky Palmer Luckey to be young and have 30-40 years of gaming future.
    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.
  • YoLolo69YoLolo69 Posts: 1,161
    Wintermute
    I'm not sure future of VR goes through screens directly in front of your eyes. My current DLP Sony projector which is pretty old but can achieve a real native fullHD resolution (1920x1080) have absolutely no SDE. My screen is 240cm long x 135cm high and I can take a magnify glass and watch pixels they are perfect square and completely touching each other, nothing in between, and without any blur at all. I guess the DLP wheel which turn fast with the RGB filter is intentionally not fully centered on the axe and produce some micro movement filling the gap between pixels (just an idea). In any case the result is perfect, and I was able to compare this with a LCD projector where you see big awful RGB pixels when you are too near the screen. I'm pretty sure future of VR will be made with some kind of projection, directly on eyes, or on a small curved translucent surface (like half an egg) near eyes.

    “Dreams feel real while we are in them, it's only when we wake up that we realize something was strange.” - Dom Cobb

    "Be careful, if you are killed in real life you die in VR too." - TD_4242

    I7 10700K,  GTX1080 OC 10%, 32GB DDR4 3200Mhz, Oculus Rift CV1

  • shadowfroggershadowfrogger Posts: 502
    Trinity
    YoLolo69 wrote:
    I'm not sure future of VR goes through screens directly in front of your eyes. My current DLP Sony projector which is pretty old but can achieve a real native fullHD resolution (1920x1080) have absolutely no SDE. My screen is 240cm long x 135cm high and I can take a magnify glass and watch pixels they are perfect square and completely touching each other, nothing in between, and without any blur at all. I guess the DLP wheel which turn fast with the RGB filter is intentionally not fully centered on the axe and produce some micro movement filling the gap between pixels (just an idea). In any case the result is perfect, and I was able to compare this with a LCD projector where you see big awful RGB pixels when you are too near the screen. I'm pretty sure future of VR will be made with some kind of projection, directly on eyes, or on a small curved translucent surface (like half an egg) near eyes.

    This technology is probably the leader in direct projection to the eye technology. Google have already brought them out or funded them at around 400-500m.
    http://www.technologyreview.com/feature ... agic-leap/
    Visit my amateur homegrown indie game company website!
    http://www.gaming-disorder.com/
  • MrMonkeybatMrMonkeybat Posts: 640
    Brain Burst
    RonsonPL wrote:
    @mrmonkeybat

    I'll take 2000p display over 8000p with motion blur.

    I am not talking about that silly LCD Quantum Dot hybrid aproach in the article Iinked to http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15051 ... 49_F1.html they are printing true emissive RGB QLEDs if they really can be 50-100 times brighter than LCDs and CRTs then you could get some very low persistence with that. OLED resolution seems to be limited by the size they can print the OLEDs rather the size they can make the TFTs that drive them so high resolution printing of QLEDs is good news.
    YoLolo69 wrote:
    I'm not sure future of VR goes through screens directly in front of your eyes. My current DLP Sony projector which is pretty old but can achieve a real native fullHD resolution (1920x1080) have absolutely no SDE. My screen is 240cm long x 135cm high and I can take a magnify glass and watch pixels they are perfect square and completely touching each other, nothing in between, and without any blur at all. I guess the DLP wheel which turn fast with the RGB filter is intentionally not fully centered on the axe and produce some micro movement filling the gap between pixels (just an idea). In any case the result is perfect, and I was able to compare this with a LCD projector where you see big awful RGB pixels when you are too near the screen. I'm pretty sure future of VR will be made with some kind of projection, directly on eyes, or on a small curved translucent surface (like half an egg) near eyes.

    The sequential color from the color wheel(picoprojectors use alternating lights or lasers) used by most DLP projectors (I cant imagine fitting a 3DLP projector on an HMD) makes them unsuitable for VR you will get color fringing as you look around. And although they dont have the latency LCDs have they are not capable of low persistence as the luminence is governed by how long each pixel stays on unless you want something like 6bit color. The gap between DLP mirrors is very small it takes very little defocus to fill them in. Some DLP projectors use wobulation technology with the DLP chip mounted on piezos which shifts the chip half a pixel left right up and down to so a DLP can pretend to be twice the resolution. http://www.popsci.com/00html/article/2005-10/wobulation

    Scanning mirrors like those used in Microvision projectors have a fixed sinusoidal rhythm rather than a true raster scan, limited use for VR, Magic leap is apparently using vibrating fiber optic projectors that scan pixels in a spiral pattern. I dream for advancements in electro optic prisms and lenses which will allow RGB lasers to do a wide angle foveated raster scan of the retina.
  • RonsonPLRonsonPL Posts: 1,115
    Trinity
    mrmonkeybat

    It was almost morning when I wrote the post above, and sure enough, I forgot to write "in the near future". It should be:

    Until some company states that it plans to produce something in the near future, that doesn't rely on LCD technology and is capable of 120+fps without any motion blur
    For now:
    Wiki:
    At present, they are used only to filter light from LEDs to backlight LCDs, rather than as actual displays.
    I've read your link, but just the possibility is not good enough. There's a possibility to produce SEDs/FEDs and better OLEDs and it's just being ignored because manufacturers think noone wants the quality and the investment would bring loss of money, since all that matters nowadays is mass-market, where price is 10000x more important than quality and high quality is less desired than some stupid gimmicks (LED, smart features in LCD TVs for example).

    Level 1: "we can do this" = I'm 1% interested.
    Level 2: "we will do this within next few years" = 50% interested
    Level 3: "we surely will do this and sell it with prices achievable by individuals, not just TV studios and army, which are able to pay 20 000$ for one display" = 100% interested

    I'm sorry to be so sceptical, but I've got burned painfully by SED/FED news. So much hope for so many years... and nothing.
    Anyone remembers this site:
    http://www.sed-tv-reviews.com/
    ?
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.