Slashdot Mirror
Google To Reveal 'World's Highest Resolution OLED-On-Glass Display' For VR Headsets (roadtovr.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Last year at SID Display Week 2017, Google's VP of VR/AR teased a "secret project" that the company was working on -- a VR-optimized OLED panel capable of 20 megapixels per eye -- which was being undertaken with "one of the leading OLED manufacturers." This year, the schedule for SID Display Week 2018 indicates that Google plans to reveal its made-for-VR panel on May 22nd, which it calls the "world's highest resolution (18 megapixel, 1443 ppi) OLED-on-glass display." The company plans to detail the display in a presentation at the event, which will be co-presented with engineers from LG, suggesting the identity of the second partner on the project. Ideal for VR, the 4.3-inch panel is capable of 120Hz refresh rate and is expected to have a resolution of some 5,500 by 3,000, representing a massive leap over today's leading VR panels which offer 1,600 by 1,440 resolutions at 90Hz.
I've seen way too much evidence of Google's seemingly psychotic behavior with respect to committing to a project and then killing that project off like it was a cockroach.
When a credible company brings such a product to market, I'll consider it. In the mean time, I'm quite certain I will live very well indeed without this stuff.
Is a mid sized desktop display maybe 22" with a ratio of 16:10 and 4K resolution. IBM made such a device 15 years ago but you can't get anything close today.
The other 90% of the population, meh!
But the question and problem is, how many pixels CAN the human eye see? Just like 4K televisions you won't be able to see them all. So, another worthless proclamation by the emperor's new clothes.
You are an IDIOT.
All I did was state a preference based on Google's past behavior, and you conclude that I am an idiot ?
At this point the evidence is far more overwhelming that it is YOU who are the idiot.
I would buy a VR headset with that! It might solve the motion sickness and eyestrain issues with typical VR headsets.
Since everything that could be used to drive these panels will be mining coins, nobody can use these at home.
When I looked into numbers on limit of human vision with any detail a few years ago it was only 1MP ... 1000 x 1000 pixels.
If they could get foveated rendering working really well.
Add very high PPD displays.
Combine with custom foveated drivers to run displays.
Then current day graphics cards over current day interfaces would have the capability of driving some insanely amazing shit. Hopefully someone other than Google/Facebook/ETC will be integrating the high res panels into a VR product.
However thought of VR + Eyetracking + relentless Google stalking is a major gross out and may sink the whole thing if the only people serious about VR are ad/marketing companies.
Hope to see technologies other than OLED come on line or at least OLED with some kind of field re-calibration capability. OLED veneer is distracting and only gets worse over time. Perhaps foveated sensors could be designed to pull double duty to update LUTs over time when sitting idle.
" No one is going to prison, and we also don't golf " -Trump / Ponce 2020
Current VR displays cover about a 200 degree field of view. 20/20 vision is defined as the ability to distinguish a line pair spaced 1 arc-minute apart, so 2 pixels per arc-minute. So this corresponds to (200 degrees) * (60 arc-minutes/degree) * (2 pixels/arc-minute) = 24,000 pixels. You need a display that's 24,000 pixels wide for it to display a 200 degree field of view and have the individual pixels not be discernible to the eye. So this display will be a little more than 1/5 of the way there.
Put another way, the angular resolution of this new VR headset will be (5500 pixels) / (200 degrees) = 27.5 pixels per degree. That's about the angular resolution of a 50" 1080p HDTV viewed from 31" away. Or a 24" 1080p monitor viewed from 15" away. The pixels will still be painfully obvious.
Which is about the date hardware will be around to actually run a 5k+ VR headset...
Nobody really wants to wear headgear to watch porn.
Get working on the holodeck and then maybe there will be interest.
Constant beautiful ads!!
I expect that we'll never actually see headsets with panels this high-resolution. By the time video cards can drive VR software at this resolution, we'll have laser retinal displays. The main problem holding these back in the past were rainbow artifacts appearing during fast eye saccades, but waveguides have recently been devised which should prevent this (can't find a source ATM).
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
But the question and problem is, how many pixels CAN the human eye see? Just like 4K televisions you won't be able to see them all.
- Depends on how wide those pixels are spread. More precisely, which angle of your view they each occupy.
The 4k television is just a rectangle in front of you.
Ideal VR headset would cover nearly everything in front of your face, so no matter which direction you turn your eyes, there's still picture on the screen.
So these 5.5k pixels are going to get spread across your whole field of vision, i.e.: at least 180, or ideally a tiny bit more (from when you're looking sideways).
So overall, a VR pixels is going to look several times bigger than the pixels on the TV screen.
- Depends on which part of your field of view.
They eye's retina and brain's visual cortex (and Convolution Neural Net which are inspired by it) works by comparing neighboring signal.
So the distance between neighboring receptors will decide how fine the details you can see.
Receptor density varies a lot across the region of the eye.
Some region have very closely packed photoreceptor (fovea in the middle), so you can distinguish very fine pixels.
Worst region have receptors very wide appart, such as the blind spot (a hole in the retina where the optical nerves exits the eyeball). There you can miss giant swaths of visual space if the details fall inside the blind spot, in between photo receptors.
- Depends on the geometry of the VR optics.
Unlike older VR headset (say eMagine's 3D Visor. Or the old school VFX1 of old time), modern VR headset don't use over complicated optics to make perfect projection of the screen, but just the simplest possible stuff to keep the image in focus (and compensate in software - shader software on the GPU).
The image end up distorted. But in a pillow shape that actually compensate the above.
In the middle of the VR image (i.e.: where the high resolution eye's fovea will be looking most of the time), a lots of pixels are compressed into the image, you get a better resolution.
In the side of the VR image, the image is heavily distorted and fewer pixels are stretched over a wider field. By luck, peripheral vision, with its lower spatial resolution, would be looking there most of the time.
So whenever you're looking straight ahead, the optical properties of the VR headset compensate a bit for the variable resolution of the retina.
Basically, due to point 3, the way the pixels are stretched according to point 1 is partially compensating point 2.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Why do I need a laptop with one of these , a bluetooth keyboard/trackpad, and my existing cell phone's CPU? Sure, big battery, but my travel bag is about to get much lighter.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This is not false, but it is not quite true either.
How often do you look as far left as possible? Rarely. We only actively look around directly within about 30-50% of our full view capability, except in the rare cases when we're trying to look at something without others knowing (ie, side-eye). So only the central visual field needs this level of pixel density to be nearly indistinguishable from real life's resolution. The visual fidelity could drop to 1/2 or even 1/4 outside this and you'd barely notice.
Which is exactly what ends up happening on modern VR headset (everything since the Occulus) which tend to use as simple as possible optics just to keep the image in focus (as opposed to older VR headset which used more complex optics to give perfect rectangular picture floating distorsion free in front) and use software compensation (shaders on the GPU to pre-distort the image in the opposite direction).
Due to this pillow-shape distortion, more pixels are used in the middle of the image (where the eye looks most of the time) than the side of the image (where the peripheral vision is looking most of the time).
In addition, we can render even fewer pixels with eye tracking. This has already been successfully tested on current equipment with eye tracking and foveated rendering... rendering the center at full resolution, but increasingly fewer pixels per inch as you go away from the center of vision. And it already workes very well, quartering the rendering power needed. With a massive full-vision FOV, it would reduce rendering by needs by 20-40 times.
As proven by all the research done in VR since Occulus : the main drawback would be rendering speed/feedback loop.
Will this eyesight tracking work fast enough so the image rendering doesn't lag too much behind the eye motion ? (Other wise you'd be seeing blurred image when ever you're looking around fast, as the eye motion overshoots the region that was rendered at high resolution by the fovea tracking you're advocating).
Avoiding lags and blurs seems to be key to keeping the immersion realistic, and reducing risks of motion sickness.
Adding a eye-tracking/resolution feedback loops risks increasing these lags and blurs.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
on the other hand, stereo images is really one of the best situations for multi GPU rendering.
Once the geometry is processed (which can be somewhat balanced accross multi GPUs),
the rest of the rendering is different between both eyes (that's the whole point of parallax) with little inter-dependency.
You can simply subdivide the VR image into "two eyes, one eye per GPU"
(Though for objects far from eyes, the tesselation and rendering should be very similar / almost identical. Again that's due to the parallax).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Remember when slashdot used to be news for nerds? Damn those were the days, where I'd scroll down to the comment section and see intelligent discourse and be like damn, I'm gonna think twice before I comment and invade upon these intellectual's space.
Now you all talk retarded and your shits fucked up
What we really need for VR is 8000x4000 pixel screens, so the user can't see the pixels. The pixels per inch is irrelevant, since there is a lens between the screen and the eye anyway.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Cool, call me when they spin off Gregarious Simulation Systems and finally release the Oasis!
The eye only has a high resolution right at the center. Everything else is blurry shit and a few smoke-and-mirrors algorithms that work by 'shopping in what we had already seen previously.
Due to the Nyquist frequency.
Otherwise you will still get ugly aliasing.
what machine will power this? if you see the specs for the current best vr headsets, which don't come close to this, it's already a very powerful and expensive build.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Already solved... nearly two years ago. It hasn't been used yet because no mainstream headset has installed the eye tracking sensors needed.
According to the source you cite : the system works at 250Hz to avoid the fovea out-running the the rendering.
That is way much higher thant the 90 FPS target of Occulus Rift (designed so the *head-motion* doesn't out run display. Intertia, etc.).
It will take some time until : ...while keeping in mind that the above (throwing GPU power at high FPS) is in competition with other targets (throwing GPU power at more scene detail and more pixels).
- VR hardware catches up and makes screen that accept framerates beyond 250 FPS
- The GPU rendering hardware is powerful enough so that, once factoring the foveated rendering speed gains, the over all system can stay above 250 FPS, as close to 100% of time as possible.
But could still be implemented half-way (not perfect foveated rendering, but slightly reducing resolution of parts of the image that are so much far away that there isn't much risk of over shooting even at lower FPS).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]