Slashdot Mirror


210 Degree VR Headset With 5K Display Revealed By 'Payday' Developer Starbreeze

An anonymous reader writes: Starbreeze Studios has taken wraps off of StarVR, a new VR headset with dual displays comprising a 210 degree horizontal field of view with a total resolution of 5120x1440. The headset's origins come from InfinitEye, a company working on a super-wide dual-display headset back in 2013, which went into stealth mode for quite some time before being reborn as StarVR in partnership with Starbreeze Studios. The studio is the developer behind the Payday franchise, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, and now Overkill's The Walking Dead, which will have a VR component utilizing the new headset.

79 comments

  1. I guess I'm the only one by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    I'd just like to be able to watch movies on a headset and don't really care all that much about the VR aspects. I get it, for gamers it'll be awesome. I'm just not sure of the utility of VR for non-gaming entertainment.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:I guess I'm the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I'm the only one

      Probably not, but you may be the only one who thinks posting that "I personally don't want one, even though plenty of people do, and here's why" adds anything to the discussion.

    2. Re:I guess I'm the only one by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      If you have the headset, why not add the VR stuff at the same time? Besides, some movie makers are considering adding VR aspects to their movies. Imagine being able to look around; even the action would probably still be limited to what's in front of you, it would add a whole new level of immersion. Certain movies will benefit greatly from this, though whether the additional cost and effort is worth it remains to be seen.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:I guess I'm the only one by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      I'll be interested when the resolution is good enough for productivity apps—Photoshop, IDEs/editors, etc. A virtual room full of monitors for the price/energy/materials of a couple smartphone displays and lenses...

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    4. Re:I guess I'm the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Object manipulation for production/demonstration, various types of environment exploration (for the industry and for leisure -natural landscapes, ruins, museums, areas far away, areas destroyed long ago, space exploration, fantasy world exploration, exploration of fictive environments from movies/books/video games), simulations of all kinds for professional training and safe/easy entertainment (e.g., 'extreme' sports, expensive activities, stuffs you can't do now/easily because of your current location/climate, etc.), doing various stuffs for the industry and for leisure which in 'real life' would require a lot of materials which would then be cheaper to use for other things, etc.

      Of course, having only visual, audio, and depending on the cases some amount of tactile feedback (shaped controllers, walking/moving around, augmented reality for details actually present in 'real life' but 'reskinned'), would still restrict the experience, in comparison to even more immersive experience, with the idea of sending complete sensory environments directly to the mind, with or without an internal electronic chip. Until then, you can however always train your lucid dreaming skills.

    5. Re:I guess I'm the only one by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      A lot of the extreme sports guys are bringing GoPro cameras with them now. If you could get a 360 degree camera into a viable form factor, it'd be a no-brainer to switch. Watching a youtube video of a skydive is kind of neat, but I think actually being along for the ride would be a gamer changer.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    6. Re:I guess I'm the only one by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      If you have the headset, why not add the VR stuff at the same time? Besides, some movie makers are considering adding VR aspects to their movies. Imagine being able to look around; even the action would probably still be limited to what's in front of you, it would add a whole new level of immersion. Certain movies will benefit greatly from this, though whether the additional cost and effort is worth it remains to be seen.

      I imagine at some point first person movies are going to emerge for VR. Don't know how it will turn out but it could make for an interesting experiment in cinema.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    7. Re:I guess I'm the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you just drop a 360 degree camera with automatic parashute from an airplane?

    8. Re:I guess I'm the only one by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      i've seen videos online that are made using GTA clips. I suppose that rockstar could provide access to the entire world in these clips to turn them into VR clips.

    9. Re:I guess I'm the only one by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "I'd just like to be able to watch movies on a headset and don't really care all that much about the VR aspects. I get it, for gamers it'll be awesome. I'm just not sure of the utility of VR for non-gaming entertainment."

      If you watch a movie and you see the victims' eyes widen in fear, you can look over your shoulder and see the killer coming at them.
      It's like a hologram but you're in the middle of it instead of outside.

    10. Re:I guess I'm the only one by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      What if you just drop a 360 degree camera with automatic parashute from an airplane?

      Heck, why go down. Why not shoot one into space. A truly immersive VR flight through orbit would be utterly epic.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    11. Re:I guess I'm the only one by gregmac · · Score: 1

      > Watching a youtube video of a skydive is kind of neat, but I think actually being along for the ride would be a gamer changer.

      Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Even better, watch it in the Youtube app on an Android phone/tablet.

      --
      Speak before you think
    12. Re:I guess I'm the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, 5K suddenly isn't good enough?

      I am a graphics artist/game developer and I do most of my work at 1920x1080. Haven't had any issues with it.

    13. Re:I guess I'm the only one by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Yes! That's exactly what I'm talking about! That's cool just watching it on a flat screen, must be amazing with a VR headset.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    14. Re:I guess I'm the only one by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      There are ways that it could be used for entertainment like that but I think it'd actually not end up being that well done. Consider that currently one of the more important elements of a movie is the skill with which it is shot. That is to say that the style and manner in which you record the actors can be as important as the story it's self. And it isn't just about making sure the viewer can see everything that is happening, often times not showing things on screen is just as critical as putting them front and center.

      I suppose though that the advent of VR doesn't mean we can't have more traditional movies also. After all people still go to see broadway shows, operas, and plays.

  2. Would that be in F or in C or in K? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Need to know before I don the helmet.

  3. Links? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey timothy, what's with the "bit.ly" strings? Don't you know how to make simple HREF tags anymore?

    1. Re:Links? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably goatse. Why else would anyone use a Libyan URL obfuscator?

  4. What's the refresh rate and response time? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2

    Because those are going to be the two showstoppers, as always. Until we have VR headsets that are effectively "transparent" to the player biologically they're not going to be more than a gimmick.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:What's the refresh rate and response time? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that to drive a 5120x1440 display at the necessary refresh rate, it's going to take quite a lot of GPU power. I find it annoying when the framerate drops when playing games on a regular 2D display, I can't imagine how it would feel with a VR headset. Puke-o-rama?

    2. Re:What's the refresh rate and response time? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's OK, it's likely to be expensive enough to where only people who can afford a pair of pissed-off graphics cards can afford it anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:What's the refresh rate and response time? by qpqp · · Score: 1

      Price is also an important factor. How much is it?

    4. Re:What's the refresh rate and response time? by Z80a · · Score: 1

      The most problematic part of the low frame rate VR can be mitigated/fixed by using a technique Carmack came up with called time warping:
      https://youtu.be/WvtEXMlQQtI
      It uses the Z-buffer data and a 3D half sphere to make the 3D headtracking always have the full frame rate your VR equipment can provide, even if the rendering itself runs slowly.

    5. Re:What's the refresh rate and response time? by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      The problem of low refresh rate gets even worse as the FOV gets wider.
      Human peripheral vision, while being far less detailed, is far MORE sensitive to movement and brightness, meaning that we can see screen flicker near the edges that we can't see directly in front of our eyes.

      This is one of the reasons stopping Oculus from making a wider FOV headset. Widening FOV is easy, keeping people from getting sick is hard.

    6. Re:What's the refresh rate and response time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering an Intel Iris graphics chip can drive my 4K at 30fps which is HIGHER total pixel count than this headset (3840*2160/5120/1440=1.125 as many pixels) it really doesn't take that much of a graphics card to power one of these anymore. A $300-400 graphics card investment for a desktop for what's likely to be a couple hundred dollar headset seems pretty reasonable to me, and it's not like it needs to render all of the 3D at the full pixel resolution considering it needs to distortion-map the graphics to match the optics anyways.

      - WolfWings, too lazy to login to /. in way too many years.

    7. Re:What's the refresh rate and response time? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is your Intel Iris GPU driving a 4K, 2D desktop at 30fps or a 4K, 3D modern game at 30fps?

    8. Re:What's the refresh rate and response time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your Intel Iris GPU driving a 4K, 2D desktop at 30fps or a 4K, 3D modern game at 30fps?

      Yes.

    9. Re:What's the refresh rate and response time? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      What's the refresh rate and response time?

      It sounds like they're using Samsung's 1440p AMOLED panels. So the response time is almost instant, but I don't know if those panels can be driven at 90Hz.

    10. Re:What's the refresh rate and response time? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      That's a non-question, we already know it's going to cost your anal virginity.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    11. Re:What's the refresh rate and response time? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      And don't forgot the modern obsession with blur shaders like bloom and motion blur... despite the fact the human eye blurs anything fast moving anyway.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  5. I guess I'll do timothy's job by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Starbreeze Studios has taken wraps off of StarVR, a new VR headset with dual displays comprising a 210 degree horizontal field of view with a total resolution of 5120x1440. The headset's origins come from InfinitEye, a company working on a super-wide dual-display headset back in 2013, which went into stealth mode for quite some time before being reborn as StarVR in partnership with Starbreeze Studios. The studio is the developer behind the Payday franchise, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, and now 'Overkill's The Walking Dead', which will have a VR component utilizing the new headset.

    1. Re:I guess I'll do timothy's job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who uses the oculus on a regular basis... it's not the fov that's a problem.
      I actually usually wish there was a small space below so I could see the keyboard or my controller if I drop it.

      The pixel density is more important so I would probably like it if there were the same number of pixels in my "tiny' 100 deg view..

    2. Re:I guess I'll do timothy's job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir/madam are the hero we neither deserve nor expected, but the one needed.

  6. Overkill's The Walking Dead? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    This is VR. There's a lot of other options to choose from to entice people to buy your hardware.

    Imagine a first-person-view Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball. ^_^

  7. i love you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i love you too.

  8. 210 degree FOV? Useless! by Khyber · · Score: 0

    Given the normal human eye has roughly 95 degree FOV, two together would be 190 degrees.

    All those wasted pixels and the need for more powerful hardware to drive what you can't even fucking see.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Funny

      right because your eyes are bolted into your head and thus cannot move!

      all those wasted seconds spent on your dipshit commentary that nobody should ever fucking see.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Khyber · · Score: 0

      You're stupid, aren't you?

      Best human peripheral vision INCLUDING looking as far to the side as you possibly can only results in about ~190-195 degrees FOV. Binocular vision is only ~115 degree FOV.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Yep, you're stupid.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Khyber · · Score: 0

      Here's a relevant quote for your dumb ass, too.

      "Note that eye movements do not change the field of view."

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With eyeball rotation of about 90 (head rotation excluded, peripheral vision included), horizontal field of view is as high as 270

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye

      This is easy enough to confirm. Although not quite 270 degrees, I can sit with my head facing my computer monitor, and turn my eyes enough to see things about ~30 degrees behind me without strain. The field of view with eye movement is noticeably larger than 180-190 degrees.

    5. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the normal human eye has roughly 95 degree FOV

      Given that the eye can move about 90 degrees and can see more than ~10 degrees at a time, your figure sounds more appropriate for the field of view of a single eye not taking into account the motion. No citation really needed for this, since any one can check this easy enough unless they have a medical issue with their eyes.

    6. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Umm, no. According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye) the average human eye has a horizontal field of view of about 155 degrees. 60* toward the nose, 95* away. If you include eye motion, that increases to as much as 270 degrees. Yes, that means you you can see a ways behind you without turning your head - try it sometime.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hi, CTO of Starbreeze here. Khyber's comment revealed an oversight that all of our highly trained engineers somehow missed over the last 12 months of design and testing. How silly of us! We will of course be going back to the drawing board now and redesigning the product to be more efficient, and firing all of the incompetents that led us into this embarrassing snafu.

      Khyber, your instantaneous grasp of the subtle details of VR headset design marks you as some kind of prodigy/genius. Please contact our HR department immediately for a job interview; we're understandably quite eager to have you on our team.

    8. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      LOL!
      wikipedia:

      With eyeball rotation of about 90 degrees (head rotation excluded, peripheral vision included), horizontal field of view is as high as 270 degrees

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    9. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beside what the others said, there is also an interest in having at least some amount of light similar enough to some more degrees of FOV around your real FOV, for the result to be even more 'realistic'. A similar idea is applied on TVs by Philips with the 'ambilight' feature. But you sure don't need HD screen parts for this.

    10. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      They are probably using off-the-shelf panels, and it's cheaper to do 210 instead of 190.

    11. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      A typical human eye can see 100 degrees away from the nose. That's 200 degrees already.
      Not everyone is identical, some people will see more, some less.

    12. Re: 210 degree FOV? Useless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Dick.

      Still being a dick, I see.

      You complete dick.

    13. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      VR without 3D is really rather pointless. So the field of view is blocked by the requirement of showing two different images one to each eye. Now as both eyes have to track together that means, the left eye can see no further left than the right eye can see left because you do not want the right eye to ever see the left eye image. and the same in the other direction, this hugely limits the field of view. Doing a single image is of course mind bogglingly stupid because you have just abandoned 3D which will be by far the biggest selling point for VR. So parent right for the wrong reasons (sucks huh) and Starbreeze are managed by idiots. The closer to the eyes you can the display the wider the field of view possible but then focus becomes a huge problem (no one who wears glasses can use them) added to that the visual focus problem of seeing things perceived to be further away at the same focus. Then there are issues of focal distortion with flat screens versus curved screens and how the image is presented.

      Doing VR without 3D is a certain money burning loser, run from them, give them no money, do not let them suck you in. In fact VR without 3D will be supermarket bargain bin variety VR.

      So two screens a requirement, visually completely separate. Sufficient space between the eyes and the screen to allow focusing lenses to adjust the focus to the individual. Curved screens whilst preferable might not be possible with an intervening focal adjustment lens. Having sufficient space for glasses likely not the best method and forcing the wearing of contact lenses is going to be a big ask, especially for older people presbyopia contacts in and out and in and out.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Highly trained engineers, eh?

      Yea, please come back and talk to me after you've worked for one of the largest display manufacturers on the planet (Chi Mei) as their panel design engineer and optics alignment (we were doing VR headset wel before Oculus and others - remember the old Networked mech game in the arcades? Chi Mei designed those panels and VR headsets.)

      AKA I've got years of experience over your fresh college-trained boys.

      Try again when you're actually up to date with technology we had since the 90s.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You failed.

      " For example, binocular vision, which is the basis for stereopsis and is important for depth perception, covers only 114 degrees (horizontally) of the visual field in humans;[5] the remaining peripheral 60–70 degrees have no binocular vision (because only one eye can see those parts of the visual field)."

      114+70 = ?

      The placement of your eyes DIRECTLY EXCLUDES the possibility of seeing "Not quite 270 degrees" Your eyes cannot move 90 degrees in socket unless you've got seriously damaged or weakened muscles.

      And your wikipedia article has so many warnings at the top of the page as to pretty much prove the unworthiness of the article.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    16. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Yep, you go ahead and laugh because you're too lazy to read the contestor's wikipedia link and see the massive warnings written overhead compared to my chosen article, which has FAR BETTER SOURCING and ZERO WARNINGS at the top of the page.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    17. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      More proof your source s bulshit:

      http://www.vision-and-eye-heal...
      https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
      http://www.best-3dtvs.com/wp-c...
      http://www4.uwsp.edu/psych/dog...

      Unless your eyes are on the side of your head like a dog or bird, you aren't getting past 200 degrees FOV IN ANY SITUATION.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    18. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Yep, you go ahead and laugh because you're too lazy to read the contestor's wikipedia link

      i laugh because you are so fucking stupid it's just amazing.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    19. Re:210 degree FOV? Useless! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You keep on laughing, then.

      Considering I've had lots of experience over these start-ups (I worked for one of the biggest LCD supplier on the planet as an engineer, and I worked in their optics division) these people ARE FULL OF SHIT and fooling your supposedly brilliant ass with marketing.

      I bet you fall for the "300w LED" (when it's only drawing 150w) bullshit marketing, too.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  9. Feeling of Dèja vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting a feeling I've seen all this before in the era of the home computer.

    Lots of starry eyed hopefuls launching different products around the same time. Different specs, concepts, approaches... incompatibilities.
    And then one after the other died off with only a few surviving, setting the framework of what is to come for the next decades.

    So who is going to end up being the de facto standard?

    Probably the not specially interesting guys somewhere in the corner. Unfortunately it's rarely the technical aspect of what makes a winner, but boring stuff like organizational talent, salesmanship and perhaps a smattering of sociopathic business practices.

    So who's going to win the VR head-set wars?

    1. Re:Feeling of Dèja vu by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Dunno. But whoever wins, we lose. Gaming will get more expensive and more gimmicky. For reference, see any "innovation" in the gaming world, from VR-Boy to Kinect.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Is it going to be sold like Payday? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I.e. you buy the frame and then you get to pay for the rest of it piece by piece?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Is it going to be sold like Payday? by Xenx · · Score: 1

      That would imply a modular aspect to the headset. This would be boon, not a bane.

    2. Re:Is it going to be sold like Payday? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you bought it for X, thinking that this would be the price, only to find out that it's X+n*X (with n being an arbitrary number pulled out of the maker's ass) to actually get what they promised, it's not.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Is it going to be sold like Payday? by Xenx · · Score: 1

      First, it was a joke. Second, that's not how DLC works. DLC is very specifically extra content, above and beyond the base game. There is always better and worse DLC, and I don't approve of the trend of releasing shit tons of it for every little thing. But, the company is providing the base game as a complete experience and DLC isn't needed to enjoy the game.

    4. Re:Is it going to be sold like Payday? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, the DLC is not needed to play the game. But by that logic the KSP demo is a complete game, you don't need mods or additional planets just to play it.

      If a game makes it very obvious that there are (going to be) missions that span 7 days while you get a total of two different three day missions (and none longer) with release, I can't really say that a game is "complete".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. 1st person DoA by DrYak · · Score: 2

    Imagine a first-person-view Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball. ^_^

    First person ? Dead or Alive ?

    You mean risking to get hit in the face by your (avatar's) own oversized breast due to jiggle physics turned up to eleven ?
    That surely is going to be a wonderful first-person experience.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:1st person DoA by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Well, I meant first-person view but as a 3rd-party player watching the game.

    2. Re:1st person DoA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever considered eating your own turds?

  12. Still have a ways to go by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    20/20 vision is defined as the ability to distinguish a line pair spaced 1 arc-minute apart, or two pixels per arc-minute. 210 degrees is 12600 minutes, so this thing would have to be 25200 pixels across a 210 degree field of view in order to be good enough so you can't see the pixels. We're about 1/5th the way there (measured as linear resolution). In terms of apparent pixel size, this thing (24.4 pixels per degree) is roughly equivalent to viewing a 50" 1080p TV from 24 inches away.

    Incidentally, this is why I don't mind the increases in phone screen resolution, and why I don't think graphics cards are fast enough yet. Yes the resolution is excessive for use on a phone. But manufacturers are using it as an excuse to fund R&D into higher res screens which will one day be useful for VR overlay displays built into things like Google Glass and Microsoft HoloLens. And we're going to need low-power graphics cards to drive those high-resolution screens with virtual 3D images, so there's still a ways to go in improving those as well.

    And for those of you saying you're not interested in a VR headset, the biggest impediment to the miniaturization of mobile computers right now is the screen. If you've ever taken apart a tablet or a phone, the electronics mostly fit into a thin PCB about the size of a ball point pen. People want a bigger-than phablet screen on their phones, but they don't want to carry something that big around in their pockets or purses. The obvious solution is to move the screen closer to the eye, like Glass or HoloLens. Then the display can cover the same angular field of view as a HDTV viewed a few feet away, but be much smaller in linear size than even a smartwatch. Moving the screen closer to your eye also increases the effective brightness, reducing the lighting requirement thus allowing you to use it all day with a smaller battery. My guess is this screen size problem will be solved either with VR-style glasses displays, or flexible screens which can roll up into something the size of a pen when not in use.

    1. Re:Still have a ways to go by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Glass should be a monocle. If it was? I would buy one. I might even buy two and send you one just because you made me think of it. I wonder how much Google would charge me for a one-off?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Still have a ways to go by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      People who aren't interested in VR may be interested in augmented reality, like the stuff Magic Leap is developing.

      VR has proven to be useful for things like training soldiers and experts in other fields, but it's not clear that it'll be useful for anything else. AR is pretty much guaranteed to be useful if it will work, because augmenting reality is pretty much useful by definition.

    3. Re:Still have a ways to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20/20 vision is defined as the ability to distinguish a line pair spaced 1 arc-minute apart, or two pixels per arc-minute.

      This is right for the centre of your field of view, the fovea, but it goes down quickly (exponentially!) as you move away from it. According to the graph in the article I linked, the resolution goes down to 50% in just 2,5 degrees (150 arcminutes), to 20% in 10 degrees (600 arcminutes), and to 10% in 15 degrees. A current resolution display will give you 20/20 if you could track where your eyes are looking exactly, and do it fast enough.

    4. Re:Still have a ways to go by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Except you don't need that kind of resolution across the entire field of view. You'd you need that kind of resolution in the center and as you get further away from that point you can have lower and lower resolution. I have no idea how you'd build a screen with that though. An alternative though would be to use lenses to take a smaller display and stretch it out to cover the full 210 degrees. That would also require some funny drivers though that would be squishing the outside 45 degree arcs or whatever into a narrower part of the the display than they proportionatly represent.

  13. a 210 degree headset by dwpbike · · Score: 1

    would certainly help with my sinuses. does it do wet and dry heat?

    1. Re:a 210 degree headset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fahrenheit or centigrade?

    2. Re:a 210 degree headset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kelvin.

  14. "Big Nose" problem. by CityZen · · Score: 1

    The displays on this headset are angled apart, which means that both eyes cannot see both edges of both displays. If the left eye can't see much over to the right (and correspondingly, the right eye can't see much over to the left), then this display will suffer from the "big nose" problem. It's like when you place your flattened hand perpendicular to your face between your eyes.

    The number I'd like to see is what the 100% overlap FOV is. That is, what's the FOV where both eyes can see the same imagery?

    1. Re:"Big Nose" problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the custom Fresnel lens are for.
      Essentially the lenses re-project the screen to appear in front of the eye.

  15. 3rd party DoA by DrYak · · Score: 2

    as a 3rd-party {..} watching the game.

    External camera following the DoA girls ?

    I see where this is going...

    Unlock the special "colibri" mode and fly around following your team to the showers after a play !

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:3rd party DoA by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Unlock the special "colibri" mode and fly around following your team to the showers after a play!

      Sold!

  16. Inventing terms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5k my ass

  17. WoooHOO!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eventually it goes so high def your actually TAKING THE BEATING!!!! may the remains of the 20th century RAGE you all.