Slashdot Mirror
Google and LG Unveil World's Highest-Resolution OLED On-Glass VR Display (androidauthority.com)
A couple months ago, Road to VR reported that Google and LG were planning to reveal the "world's highest-resolution OLED on-glass display" for virtual-reality headsets on May 22nd. Well, that day has arrived and the two companies unveiled that very display. Android Authority reports: As expected, the 4.3-inch OLED 18MP display has a resolution of 4,800 x 3,840. The display has a pixel density of 1,443PPI and a 120Hz refresh rate. Google and LG referred to it as the "world's highest-resolution OLED on-glass display." For comparison's sake, the HTC Vive has two 3.6-inch displays with resolutions of 1,200 x 1,080. The higher-end HTC Vive Pro has two 3.5-inch displays with resolutions of 1,600 x 1,440. The Vive Pro maxes out at 615PPI, making this new LG panel about 57% better than HTC's best offering. However, there's already one display that's better than anything on offer, and that's your own vision. A person with great vision sees in an estimated resolution of 9,600 x 9,000 with a PPI density of 2,183. In other words, this new display from Google and LG is about half as good as our own eyes. Unfortunately, there are no plans to use them in any consumer products yet. Google rep Carlin Verri told 9to5Google that the companies started this project to push the industry forward.
And at the other end of the spectrum I can get a 55" OLED TV.
But if I want something somewhere in the middle, I'm SOL.
Er, not a phone. On a VR headset. My bad.
Imagine all the advertisements that would fit in that!
about 57% better [...] about half as good
A screen is two-dimensional, not 1-dimensional. Why make comparisons on 1 dimension only? The new screen has 8x more pixels than the 'best offering' making that number 800%. And even in 1 dimension, measured as PPI, this 57% is wrong, 1443:615 is not `57% better`, but way more.
Next sentence it reads 'half as good as your own eyes' where it should read 'a quarter as good', since good eyes apparently see 4x more pixels as this new screen provides.
I don't like inflating numbers at all, but credits are where credits are due.
Er, not a phone. On a VR headset. My bad.
There are several OLED phones available. Also, tablets, laptops, etc.
They have brighter colors, and darker blacks. They are also thinner and lighter. The main drawback is shorter lifetime.
The human eye might have a PPI density of 2,183 at the center of vision, but it goes down by well over a factor of 20 off center. Also, our rod *(Black/White contrast) spatial resolution is higher by a factor of 120:1 to our color spatial resolution, but that doesn't fit what displays are optimized for.
That said, I'd love a VR headset that makes virtual pages of text readable at a virtual arms length. Coupled with high quality prescription lenses, this opens up VR for real productivity and truly immersive applications, not just first person gaming and nausea inducing rollercoaster demos.
Stating the PPI of the display itself is pointless. So what's the PPI that the user actually perceives?
I.e. how big the screen and at what distance does it appears when I put it on? If the 4800 horizontal pixels is going to look like 10ft wide and appear 6ft away from me, then the resolution would be crap compared to a real 4ft wide 4K TV at the same distance.
The first three links all go to the same slashdot story - even the headline, despite being labelled as androidauthority.
I guess I should have been explicit. I want a 32" OLED TV.
That's an amazing pixel count and density but what is going to be the method of generating those 3-D images and passing them from the computer into the headset?
4,800 x 3840 x 120 x 32bits/pixel = 64 Gbps.
I guess for practical operation, this would be a fibre optic connection but, as I understand it, current single mode fibre optic tops out at 10 Gbps which is a fraction of the speed required.
So propeller heads and prognosticators, how will these VR headsets be connected to their controllers?
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Link.
Karma whoring like I just don't care.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I guess I should have been explicit. I want a 32" OLED TV.
You could buy a 65" and cover half the screen with black duct tape.
Not to mention our entire visual system is ANALOG. So trying to fit digital terms to it will not work.
Hillary Hahn is not interested in politics.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
You could buy a 65" and cover half the screen with black duct tape.
Or use a magic marker to obscure every other pixel.
Or wear an eye patch.
Or tune it to "Fox" and leave it there. Half the IQ; half the truth; twice the number of ambulance chasing lawyer commercials.
Ok. Enough wise-assities. I have to agree and say I want a 40-ish inch OLED. They say facebook nudes look really nice on OLED.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Tech reporting has really, really gone downhill. And Slashdot editors chose to quote it?
57% better than [615ppi]
Let's see. That would be 615 * (1 + 0.57) = 966 ppi, not 1443 ppi.
1443 ppi is (1443 / 615) - 1 = 135% better than 615 ppi. Apparently this author thinks that because 615 is about 43% of 1443 that the 1443 ppi display is 57% better. Wow. Percentages are taught in 5th grade math.
there's already one display that's better than anything on offer, and that's your own vision
WTF? The human eye is a display? Does the author maybe think that some people really can read other people's eyes? Like you look in there and there is a tiny little screen?
As Google says, a headset using this is expected to have a smaller field of view than the eyes have, so acuity will be 40 ppd vs. 60 ppd for the eyes (just 50% for the eyes). Also, the eyes don't have the same acuity over the entire range of angles.
In short, this is close enough to what's needed.
Actually, due to the Nyquisz frequency, probably twice that is needed!
I've verified it myself. You can too, with your recular screen, by backing up, away from it, until you can't distinguist two parallel lines white of one pixel on black ground with at native resolution, for example. (Or whatever ability you want to measure.)
Then you can take your distance, the screen's true DPI, and the angles of your field of view, and calculate your eye's best resolution from it.
We can't see that well over the entire eye, but we can look everywhere in ouf FOV. So unless you attach it directly to the eye, that's what's needed.
For me, that turned out to be the above mentioned 36k*24k (Or was it 28? I forgot the angle.)
Ergo I'm waiting out for the 72k screen with 3,456 gigapixels. ;)
> However, there's already one display that's better than anything on offer, and that's your own vision.
Since when is our vision a display?
> A person with great vision sees in an estimated resolution of 9,600 x 9,000 with a PPI density of 2,183
It's not measured this way. First of all I assume we talk about display resolution - which then gets focused onto the retina - rather than density of rods and cones on the retina which is way denser in the fovea. Second, the spatial, temporal and color resolution of human sight is hugely dependent on the part of the retina, so a matching display must either match (probably by a multiple of 2 at least) the foveal resolution, or foveated rendering must be implemented. Then let's not get started on color spectrum, temporal resolution and how all these depend on the actual input, eg. the eye can detect I believe a few photons in otherwise complete darkness, but isn't as sensitive when flooded with light.
I want a 32â OLED phone!!!
What good does this do for porn, in the sense of "all the best skin is wrinkled", if all pictures are computer bot airbrushed to the texture of a balloon?
Porn can no longer lead the bleeding edge!
And now, to hit the anonymous check and submit...
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Facebook nudes? What's that? I thought Facebook didn't allow nudes. Twitter on the other hand...
We will be required on pain of imprisonment to watch Hillary (or her successor) win the "20/20" election on any display, glasses, screen, projector or display!
Updated with the more likely scenario should that extremist regime come back to power.
I think you meant to say cover 3/4 of the screen.
J