SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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).
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
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday March 16 2018, @03:00PM (2 children)
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @04:05PM
Eh, understandable... if that body is the limit of your potency your age allows, I hope you are still satisfied with that little you still can
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 16 2018, @06:23PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/GearVR/comments/493zwm/optimum_ppi_for_vr/d0p9lhq/ [reddit.com]
It's not over until we have 8 gigapixels across two VR displays (at least not according to that rando's estimate).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]