Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday March 16 2018, @09:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the moar-faster-pixels dept.

Google and LG will show off an OLED display for virtual reality headsets that could have a resolution of around 5500×3000:

Google and LG are set to present an 18-megapixel 4.3-inch OLED headset display with 1443 ppi and a higher refresh rate of 120Hz during the Display Week 2018 trade show in late May. The display will have a wide field of view and high acuity. The advanced program for the expo was spotted by Android Police via OLED-Info.

Those specs make the forthcoming headset better than most of what's on the market. Screens like the new HTC Vive Pro and Oculus Rift only boast total resolutions of 2880 x 1600 and 2160 x 1200, respectively.

From the Display Week 2018 Symposium Program:

The world's highest resolution (18 megapixel, 1443 ppi) OLED-on-glass display was developed. White OLED with color filter structure was used for high-density pixelization, and an n-type LTPS backplane was chosen for higher electron mobility compared to mobile phone displays. A custom high bandwidth driver IC was fabricated. Foveated driving logic for VR and AR applications was implemented.

The competing "Pimax 8K" uses two 3840×2160 panels to hit 7680×2160 with a 200° field of view. Shipments of that headset have been delayed to April or later. A 2017 StarVR headset used two 2560×1440 panels for a 210° field of view. Two of the panels from Google and LG could add up to around 11000×3000 (based on The Verge's guess), 12000×3000 (36 megapixels), or 11314×3182 (36 megapixels, 32:9 aspect ratio).

Recall that AMD has envisioned VR resolution reaching 16K per eye (a grand total of 30720×8640, or over 265 megapixels).

List of common resolutions.

Also at UploadVR and Android Authority.

Related: Is Screen Resolution Good Enough Considering the Fovea Centralis of the Eye?
AU Optronics to Ship 8K Panels to TV Manufacturers in H1 2018


Original Submission

Related Stories

Is Screen Resolution Good Enough Considering the Fovea Centralis of the Eye? 66 comments

The top google hits say that there is little or no benefit to resolution above 4k. I recently bought a 40" 4k tv which I use as a monitor (2' viewing distance). While this is right at the threshold where I'm told no benefit can be gained from additional resolution, I can still easily discern individual pixels. I'm still able to see individual pixels until I get to about a 4' viewing distance (but I am nearsighted).

I did some research and according to Wikipedia the Fovea Centralis (center of the eye) has a resolution of 31.5 arc seconds. At this resolution, a 4k monitor would need to be only 16" at a 2' viewing distance, or my 40" would need a 5' viewing distance.

Now the Fovea Centralis comprises only the size of 2 thumbnails width at arms length (2° viewing angle) and the eye's resolution drops off quickly farther from the center. But this tiny portion of the eye is processed by 50% of the visual cortex of the brain.

So I ask, are there any soylentils with perfect vision and/or a super high resolution set up, and does this match where you can no longer discern individual pixels? Do you think retina resolution needs to match the Fovea Centralis or is a lesser value acceptable?

My 40" 4k at 2' fills my entire field of view. I really like it because I have so much screen real estate for multiple windows or large spreadsheets, or I can scoot back a little bit for gaming (so I don't have to turn my head to see everything) and enjoy the higher resolution. I find 4k on high graphics looks much nicer than 1080p on Ultra. I find the upgrade is well worth the $600 I spent for the tv and a graphics card that can run it. Have you upgraded to 4k and do you think it was worth it? I would one day like to have dual 32" 8k monitors (not 3D). What is your dream setup if technology and price weren't an issue?

Written from my work 1366 x 768 monitor.

Related discussions: First "8K" Video Appears on YouTube
LG to Demo an 8K Resolution TV at the Consumer Electronics Show
What is your Video / Monitor Setup?
Microsoft and Sony's Emerging 4K Pissing Contest


Original Submission

Pimax Launches Kickstarter for "8K" Virtual Reality Headset 15 comments

The China-based VR company Pimax has launched a Kickstarter for what they call "8K" and "5K" VR headsets. The cheapest version of the "8K" headset is listed at $500 and the company has more than quadrupled its funding goal. The Pimax 8K has a 3840×2160 resolution per eye for a total resolution of 7680×2160 and 32:9 aspect ratio (an actual 8K resolution would be 7680×4320). The field of view (FOV) for the headset is 200°, and is similar in design to the StarVR headset which has an FOV of 210°. By comparison, the latest HTC Vive and Oculus Rift headsets have a 110° FOV.

While the headsets have a listed refresh rate of 90 Hz, Pimax claims that its "Brainwarp" software technique can effectively double the perceived frame rate:

You may be asking yourself how a VR-ready gaming computer could possibly drive these sorts of graphically demanding resolutions. Pimax's answer is a software technique they call 'Brainwarp', which renders a 4K image only on a single display at time, doing it 150/180 times per second. Pimax says users "perceive a complete 8K at 150/180 Hz with high frame rate," and that it "boosts refresh rate, reduces latency and decreases GPU pressure for Pimax 8K."

Pimax showed off its headset prototypes at CES in January. The company is also developing modular accessories for its headsets.

Just 4.73 times more pixels to reach the "ideal" resolution.


Original Submission

AU Optronics to Ship 8K Panels to TV Manufacturers in H1 2018 21 comments

More 8K (4320p) TVs will be coming soon. AU Optronics has announced plans to ship 8K panels to TV manufacturers starting in the first half of 2018:

The lineup of panels featuring a 7680×4320 resolution will be aimed at ultra-high-end TVs and sizes will range from 65 to 85 inches, said Liao Wei-Lun, president of AUO's video products business group, at a press conference. The high-ranking executive did not disclose other specifications of the panels, such as luminance and contrast ratio, but given their positioning, it is logical to expect their characteristics to be comparable to 8K UHDTVs to be offered by LG and Samsung.

Multiple TV makers demonstrated various 8K UHDTVs at various trade shows in the recent years, but so far no one has started to sell them. Given the lack of content, it is hard to expect high demand for 8K televisions in the next couple of years, aside from the halo factor - nonetheless, AUO expects 8K panels to account for 10% of its '65-inch and above' panel shipments in 2020. The presumably high-cost of the panels would indicate that in terms of unit shipments this might still be a low-ish number. However, as with 4K displays, someone has to release 8K TVs to stimulate content providers to offer appropriate material. At this year's CES, Samsung demonstrated its Q9S, its first commercial 8K TV-set, but it did not announce its pricing or availability timeframe. LG and Sony also demonstrated their 8K TVs at CES 2018, but nothing is clear about their plans regarding these products.

[...] As for 8K displays for PCs, Dell is currently the only company to offer an 8K monitor (this one is based on a panel from LG, so the latter might introduce its own 8K display at some point). Philips last year promised to start shipments 328P8K monitor in 2018, so expect the product to hit the market in the coming months too.

Need something to watch on your 8K TV? How about the 2020 Olympics?

Also at DigiTimes.

Related: LG to Demo an 8K Resolution TV at the Consumer Electronics Show
Dell Announces First "Mass-Market" 8K Display
Philips Demos an 8K Monitor
Pimax Launches Kickstarter for "8K" Virtual Reality Headset
HDMI 2.1 Released
LG's 88-inch 8K OLED TV


Original Submission

LG Can't Meet Apple's Demand for iPhone OLED Displays 8 comments

LG Display reportedly can't meet Apple's demand for OLED screens due to manufacturing issues. This means that Apple will once again be reliant on its primary supplier and smartphone rival, Samsung:

Analysts have been warning for months that Apple is in "urgent" need of finding another iPhone OLED supplier besides Samsung. Apple currently uses Samsung's OLED displays for the company's iPhone X model. The reliance on a single supplier means Samsung controls pricing on the displays that Apple is buying — and there's no other alternative at the moment.

Also at WSJ and MacRumors.

Related: LG's 88-inch 8K OLED TV
Apple, Valve, and LG Invest in OLED Manufacturer eMagin
Google and LG to Show Off World's Highest Resolution OLED-on-Glass Display in May
Apple Building its Own MicroLED Displays for Eventual Use in Apple Watch and Other Products


Original Submission

Varjo VR-1 Headset Uses a Central, Fixed-Foveated Display 5 comments

A new, business-oriented VR headset uses a tiny, high resolution display panel within a larger panel in order to display very high quality imagery to users looking straight ahead:

The VR-1 calls its center panel a "Bionic Display." It's a 1920 x 1080 "micro-OLED" display with a resolution of 3,000 pixels per inch. (For context, last year's high-resolution prototype display from Google and LG had 1443 ppi.) Within that central strip, images are supposed to roughly match the resolution of the human eye. As Ars Technica, which checked out the headset, puts it, that section looks "every bit as detailed as real life." Outside that super crisp panel, there's a 1440 x 1600 display that produces images of more average quality.

The VR-1's total 87-degree field of view is smaller than that of the Oculus Rift or HTC Vive, let alone the 200 degrees offered by something like Pimax's more experimental VR headset. The Bionic Display only comprises a slice of it. Ars Technica describes great image quality while you're looking straight ahead, with a noticeable downgrade outside that. And rendering that high-resolution slice requires more processing power than you'd need for average VR headsets, which are already fairly demanding.

[...] The VR-1 uses standard SteamVR base stations for tracking, and it supports both the Unity and Unreal engines, so you could theoretically play games or use other consumer software. But the headset isn't priced for consumers. It costs $5,995 with an annual service fee of $995, and Varjo stresses that it's "only available for businesses and academic institutions." The company is already working with Airbus, Audi, Saab, Volkswagen, and Volvo, among others.

Human eye - Field of view.

Also at Road to VR.

Related: Virtual Reality Audiences Stare Straight Ahead 75% of the Time
Google Research Proposes New Foveated Rendering Techniques for VR
Google and LG to Show Off World's Highest Resolution OLED-on-Glass Display in May


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @11:03AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @11:03AM (#653510)

    A good moment to become blind.

    • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday March 16 2018, @12:14PM (1 child)

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday March 16 2018, @12:14PM (#653532) Homepage Journal

      Trust me, you won't go blind. And you won't grow hair on the palms of your hands.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @12:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @12:31PM (#653536)

        Will you grow hair on the top of your head?

  • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday March 16 2018, @12:16PM (8 children)

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Friday March 16 2018, @12:16PM (#653534)

    This could be very useful for people with low vision...

    one of the biggest drops in perception for patients, is that the brain is unable to track fragmented visual fields, preventing "eye lock".

    Of course, these devices could make awesome games ;-)

  • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Friday March 16 2018, @01:35PM (6 children)

    by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Friday March 16 2018, @01:35PM (#653582) Homepage Journal

    Now if there was a computer that could push 125FPS at that resolution with high graphics settings. (Out of my price range.)

    --
    jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0x663EB663D1E7F223
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 16 2018, @05:58PM (4 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 16 2018, @05:58PM (#653712) Journal

      The blurb mentions "Foveated driving logic for VR and AR applications was implemented." That means they are doing foveated rendering [theverge.com] to track your eyes and lower detail in areas of the screen that your eyes aren't looking at.

      That could have a substantial impact on the bandwidth and performance required. Here's an older article [roadtovr.com] that seems to be teasing this same display:

      Bavor went on to explain the performance challenges of 20 MP per eye at 90-120 fps, which works out at unreasonably high data rates of 50-100 Gb/sec. He briefly described how foveated rendering combined with eye tracking and other optical advancements will allow for more efficient use of such super high resolution VR displays.

      (Note that it sounds like they want to use two of the displays for a wide field of view.)

      Let's say that the foveated rendering technique can reduce the necessary bandwidth to 20%. Now you're down to 18 Gbps for two 18 megapixel displays at 120 FPS, which can be transmitted by the latest DisplayPort [wikipedia.org] or HDMI.

      Also note, eye tracking from SMI can track gaze direction at 250 Hz [roadtovr.com]. So you should be completely unable to "outrun the eye tracking" with your eyes, if it is implemented right. I'm not sure that you would notice if the foveated rendering failed to update for 8-16 ms anyway.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 16 2018, @11:07PM (3 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday March 16 2018, @11:07PM (#653840)

        I just hope that your VR headset comes with noise-cancelling speakers. The machine driving that many pixels isn't gonna let you hear the virtual floorboard creaks from the monster right behind you.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 16 2018, @11:59PM (2 children)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 16 2018, @11:59PM (#653855) Journal

          Is that a joke? Because I don't see your point.

          It seems to me that foveated rendering could easily decrease the required transmission bandwidth and possibly graphics (T)FLOPS by an order of magnitude. The effect can be clearly demonstrated even when I look at this ~740x493 image [theverge.com] on a laptop screen a couple feet away from me. If I was wearing a 200° field of view headset, there would be a much larger percentage of an image that I am not focusing on at any given moment. I think paracentral vision [wikipedia.org], where the most pixels would need to be rendered, is under 5% of the human FOV (plz fact check if you can).

          The bandwidth matters only if the graphics processing is done externally. A DisplayPort cable can move a lot of pixels per second, and if foveated rendering reduces that to 10-20%, you won't even need the unreleased DisplayPort 1.5 or whatever. But cables are kind of stupid. We would like to see WiGig/802.11ad [wikipedia.org] or something similar [wikipedia.org] to wirelessly connect the headset to a desktop.

          If less GPU performance is necessary with foveated rendering, that could be a boon for standalone headsets that use an internal SoC instead of an external GPU. For example, the Lenovo Mirage Solo [tomshardware.com] will use a Snapdragon 835 (rather than the faster Snapdragon 845 [anandtech.com]) with a 2560x1440 75Hz display. It does that without using eye tracking or foveated rendering, as far as I can tell. 11314×3182 @ 120 Hz is just under 16 times more pixels per second. With a few more years of advancement in mobile GPUs, combined with foveated rendering, maybe it will be possible to make a standalone headset capable of that. Any further GPU improvements can go directly into increasing the level of detail.

          For audio, some AMD GPUs include a TrueAudio [wikipedia.org] coprocessor, and the newest ones have switched to True Audio Next, which can use the GPU to "simulate audio physics". I take this to mean the effect of sounds "bouncing" off of virtual objects, walls, floors, etc. Real-time sound and speech synthesis may also become a standard feature in future games.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:08AM (1 child)

            by bob_super (1357) on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:08AM (#653861)

            A machine that computes this 20MP scene, runs the foveated algorithms, and outputs your 18G stream is, as of today, pretty f___ing loud, and not even liquid cooling is gonna make it silent. A headset receiving that much data and using it to drive a screen is also likely to need some active cooling.
            So your eyes may be in heaven, but your total immersion into your game/porn may be hindered by the noise of all the fans making it possible.

            Sure, in a few years, it will be better. For now,16x a few watts equals a lot of heat.

            • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:26AM

              by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:26AM (#653872) Journal

              It's a problem desktop gamers already face with certain big, hot GPUs. I don't think VR makes the problem that much worse. AMD and Nvidia will still put out hot and loud GPUs, and some gamers will buy them and put them in SLI.

              However, if we are able to go the 802.11ad/ay route, you would at least be able to sit or stand a few more meters away from the desktop (ie. the opposite end of a room). And you would also be more immersed due to lack of tether, could lay down, spin around, fall and hit your head on the coffee table, killing yourself in minutes, etc.

              --
              [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 16 2018, @06:01PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 16 2018, @06:01PM (#653715) Journal
      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday March 16 2018, @03:00PM (2 children)

    by VLM (445) on Friday March 16 2018, @03:00PM (#653618)

    The world's highest resolution (18 megapixel, 1443 ppi) OLED-on-glass display was developed.

    I wonder what the PPI limit is for displays. Probably something to do with brightness or heat.

    I find it interesting that display is silicon that squirts out light; if you're willing to talk about silicon that eats light and squirts out electrons, I am holding in my hands a canon 7d mk2 DSLR camera body, which was retail shipping level tech a couple years (as compared to trade show vaporware for the 1443 ppi display). If wikipedia is correct, the camera sensor at 5472 pixels across 22.4 mm would be the equivalent of 6204 pixels per inch for this camera sensor.

    So... admittedly this is apples to oranges given that one shipped years ago and the other is tradeshow vapor, but given two similar slabs of silicon, you can turn them into a light emitter or light eater, but the light eater will have sensors on the order of 1/4 the length of a light emitter.

    Initially I guessed it has something to do with optimizing heat vs quantum efficiency. You're lucky if the QE for a camera sensor is over 1/3. The 7D mk1 seems to have a QE around 35% according to some astrophotography references, I donno about the mk2 but its presumably similar and likely better. Solar cells can be higher because they don't have to provide nice color rendition or pixelized images, merely raw amps of current. Presumably the incident light power that doesn't turn into sensor electron output, turns into heat; where else would it go? Trying to figure out the equivalent spec for LED output of how much electricity turns into light vs heat, leads down many rabbit holes of "Luminous Efficacy" and similar, although it seems silicon light sources are not much more efficient than silicon light sensors WRT the fraction of heat generated. So that hypothesis turns out not to be the case. Sensors and displays are roughly like wire radio antennas, efficiency of transmission is roughly the same as efficiency of reception.

    Another guess was brightness. Superficially the DSLR can eat extremely bright light; however; the shutter speed can be extremely small fraction of total time. However, this camera is a decent, or at least usable, video recorder, so overheating is not an issue, it can eat light and dissipate heat continuously. So that hypothesis fails.

    So in summary I donno why the same process line that produced Canon DSLR sensors couldn't be very slightly modified to manufacture 6000 or so PPI displays other than the fairly obvious "nobody has bothered to try yet" or "nobody has bothered to fund the experiment yet"

    I suppose the only real use for a 6000 DPI display would be making little tiny VGA resolution screens to show pr0n videos to paramecium and amoebas and other microscopic protozoa. Whoa man, check out the cillia on that armophorea, she needs to shave because 70s protozoa pr0n doesn't sell to todays kinky tetrahymenas or vorticellas like it used to in the old days.

(1)