SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Graphics cards manufacturers like Nvidia and AMD have gone to great pains recently to point out that to experience Virtual Reality with a VR headset properly, you need a GPU capable of pushing at least a steady 90 FPS per eye, or a total of at least 180 FPS for both eyes, and at high resolutions to boot. This of course requires the purchase of the latest, greatest high-end GPUs made by these manufacturers, alongside the money you are already plonking down for your new VR headset and a good, fast gaming-class PC.
This raises an interesting question: virtually every LCD/LED TV manufactured in the last 5 — 6 years has a "Realtime Motion Compensation" feature built in. This is the not-so-new-at-all technique of taking, say, a football match broadcast live at 30 FPS or Hz, and algorithmically generating extra in-between frames in realtime, thus giving you a hypersmooth 200 — 400 FPS/Hz image on the TV set, with no visible stutter or strobing whatsoever. This technology is not new. It is cheap enough to include in virtually every TV set at every price level (thus the hardware that performs the realtime motion compensating cannot cost more than a few dollars in total). And the technique should, in theory, work just fine with the output of a GPU trying to drive a VR headset.
Now suppose you have a entry level or mid-range GPU capable of pushing only 40 — 60 FPS in a VR application (or a measly 20 — 30 FPS per eye, making for a truly terrible VR experience). You could, in theory add some cheap Motion Compensation circuitry to that GPU and get 100 — 200 FPS or more per eye. Heck, you might even be able to program a few GPU cores to run the motion compensating as a realtime GPU shader as the rest of the GPU is rendering a game or VR experience.
So my question: Why don't GPUs for VR use Realtime Motion Compensation techniques to increase the FPS pushed into the VR headset? Would this not make far more financial sense for the average VR user than having to buy a monstrously powerful GPU to experience VR at all?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Noldir on Thursday July 14 2016, @05:20PM
http://www.slashdot.org/story/313655 [slashdot.org]
Still, not lagging far behind!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Thursday July 14 2016, @05:31PM
How would we know? - most of us don't visit the other site anymore. We created this so that we didn't have to go to /.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Thursday July 14 2016, @07:13PM
Right?
I went there recently, the generic bulk comments were worse than the troll comments we get here! Also, the interspersed ads just make me ill. Hint to marketers: if you have to try and force users to see your ads, then you're doing it wrong!
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday July 14 2016, @09:15PM
How would we know? - most of us don't visit the other site anymore.
I never got asked to participate in that survey :(
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday July 14 2016, @08:59PM
Still, not lagging far behind!
That's because we motion compensate our stories for smoothness.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Thursday July 21 2016, @12:06AM
If anyone's interested, 2 years ago I did a highly unscientific survey comparing the two sites.
https://soylentnews.org/~TheRaven/journal/232#comment_sub_22004 [soylentnews.org]
(I started a thread on this user's journal entry and subsequently posted 13 additional comments to it.)
My final comment [soylentnews.org] contained this summary: "So out of all the stories posted on both sites, Slashdot probably gets about 55-60% of them first, and Soylent probably gets about 40-45% of them first - that'd be my guess."