Forum Discussion

donkaradiablo's avatar
donkaradiablo
Explorer
10 years ago

150deg FOV 4K per eye high vol track VR HMD, is there demand

The original Oculus Rift Kickstarter campaign was targetted at getting this device built for around $250 each, for 1000 people, hence the $250,000 target (or something). That means they probably believed they could get 1000 units built, 1000 was the minimum number of production to get a HMD put together with off the shelf units. These numbers can be corrected by someone better in the know with manufacturing deals, they are not the point of the post. The point is, why can't the same thing be done for $1000 on the high end?

By using off the shelf components like Sharp displays with Carl Zeiss lenses, a small company or an experienced pro sim name looking to get into the VR gaming space, or really anyone, can promise to build THE SteamVR HMD using the Lighthouse tech that is open, with 4K per eye resolution, 150+ degree FOV and great color, and thanks to crowdfunding, they can do it without taking any risk.

If "powered by Oculus program" opens to third parties by the end of the year, the same device can have a version that is THE Oculus Platform compatible device to get for PC.

Let us start a petition, for people who want a $1000 high end VR set before the end of 2015, to commit to a future crowdfunding campaign, led by at least one in a small list of names.

The petition would say "I commit to signing up for $1000 to a crowfunding campaign to produce a low persistence VR HMD for PC with a refresh rate of no less than 90 hz, a weight of 1 lbs or less, with 4K per eye resolution, 150 degree FOV or more and good quality lenses that do not cause chromatic aberration, as long as I receive the product during the year 2015 and the product is LightHouse powered with the same specs as the HTC Vive or better for positional tracking, or Oculus Powered with a matching positional tracking volume and tracking speed or more, and the campaign is started by one or more of these names:..."

The demand should be there for a high end product. Heck, even if it was just developers and future developers signing up to get a custom built pro version of a SteamVR/Rift headset, to use it while working on their future projects, it could hit the $1,000,000 target. A Titan/Quadro type line to a Geforce type product provided by giants, using technologies they offer to make this kind of projects possible.

If the demand is not there, the petition would cause no pain, case closed. The names wouldn't have to be offered to lead the future crowdfunding campaign unless the poll was successful, so this poll wouldn't take anyone's time or require their commitment.

Names I can think of:
Carmack himself,
OculusVR,
id Software (How an interesting turn of events would that be?)
Valve,
VR Union, the makers of RiftUP/Claire,
IRIS VR, the makers of Technolust (imagine that information shared in the next demo of Technolust released),
Companies with experience in the pro sim market and a desire to enter the VR gaming market,
Samsung, LG, Sharp, Carl Zeiss, Sony, Nvidia, AMD, Asus, Dell, BenQ, Viewsonic, Falcon, Alienware...

You get the point.

Would you sign up for it?

PS: The $1000 price point is just to make a point, is not needed especially if this gets attention from Oculus.

If their mobileVR solution is a low cost addition for a 4K phone and a $300-350 product similar to dk2 can be built using that flagship phone display panel at higher refresh rates, a product using two of the same display, to reach exactly this fov and res shouldn't even cost that much if it was powered by Oculus thus not needing laser scanners and stations. Could end up costing around a HTC Vive price, which would make it an interesting product. All that needs to be there is a strong sign of enough demand for it.

18 Replies

  • PainfulByte's avatar
    PainfulByte
    Honored Guest
    10 years ago
    I beleive this is a futile request because there is no hardware that I know of that, currently or by the end of 2015, could drive 4K per eye @ 90fps. :shock:

    Running something 4K@90fps in something other than VR is currently easily doable with a hefty budget... but 4K per eye in VR? You'd need a friggin' powerhouse with quad titans... and I'm not convinced even that could have the required juice for such a headset...

    And If it were possible, the 1K$ VR headset you imagine would not be the expensive part of the setup needed to drive it...

    Also let's face it, I think a headset with 4K per eye would cost more than 1K$. Have you even thought of the pixel density that would implicate? Damn...

    Currently the DK2 is a 1080p split (960*1080). Now if you were to ask for a 4K split (1920*2160) that would be more technically & financially feasible @ 1K$ per headset. And it would still require a monster PC to drive it.

    Anyway, just my 2c.

    -PainfulByte
  • donkaradiablo's avatar
    donkaradiablo
    Explorer
    10 years ago
    This summer:
    http://wccftech.com/amd-launching-fiji-based-graphics-cards-june/

    The first graphics card to feature stacked HBM. The new JEDEC High Bandwidth Memory SPEC is based on 3D stacked memory dies connected via TSVs, Through Silicon Vias to form a memory cube. The new graphics memory offers up to 4.5X more bandwidth vs GDDR5 in its first generation and up to 9X more bandwidth than GDDR5 in its second generation.


    And a second card mentioned there is dual GPU, with async multi-gpu tech that Amd has, and low level access with Mantle/Vulkan/DX12, with Windows 10 also coming this summer.

    Does that not translate to a huge performance jump in theory? Something perhaps 4 Titan X can do, the way you put it. At least 2k per eye upscaled to displays with high density at 4K per eye, should be possible. And if a product like "Claire 22M" can exist, and target $400-600 price range, something like this should also be possible.

    I mean come on, a mobile SOC can drive 2560×1440 @60hz! But it will only make sense coming out of a face people know... So I've already given up on this thread. Just after I started this thread, Wearility announced their 150 degree fov lenses anyway. It must be just a matter of time before another Kickstarter project pops up and says if they get funded, they will bring the best VR headset possible with todays technology to the PC, instead of chasing the right price for the masses and the platform with a faster adoption rate. Limited edition kick ass VR, for the enthusiast, by the enthusiast. I just suggested we could be the ones to choose who would lead such campaign. A nice twist to crowdfunding.

    Yes, it's expensive and the PC required is a monster, that is even more expensive. That is kinda the point, the cutting edge for a very limited few... Today. Once the funds are raised and mass production becomes possible, that design and molds would be used tomorrow too, at half the price for the 4K per eye version and 1/3 the price for a 2K per eye version, using the same molds, same design and driven by nvidia's answer to AMD's fiji, Pascal, and it's cheaper derivatives.
  • MrMonkeybat's avatar
    MrMonkeybat
    Explorer
    10 years ago
    VR does not need all the bells and whistles of the latest open world AA game to be compelling. As long as it has 2 DP1.2 ports there is no such thing as a GFX card not powerful enough drive 4k VR @ 120hz only a game not optimized well enough. Bake in the lighting etc.
  • donkaradiablo's avatar
    donkaradiablo
    Explorer
    10 years ago
    Agreed.

    And just a note... I'm not after 4K per eye for games. I'm after 4K per eye for mainly Virtual Desktop, followed by captured panoramic content, followed by media displayed on a virtual plane. Now that Virtual Desktop supports custom environments, it is a combination of those anyway. You can have your desktop, floating on a beach, with great color reproduction, and if the sharpness was also there, not just getting rid of SDE with a blurry lenses, but actually having a sharp image, with text that is not tiring to look at, it would be great. Throw in a good DAC and headphone jack, add nature sounds to that beach, with a separate volume control in Virtual Desktop for environment sounds and that's what should come standard with a headset like the Rift.

    I don't want to work on my computer in a cubicle, in a messy room, in a crowded office... I have a VR headset for God's sake. I want to work on my computer on a beach, in space, in the middle of the desert, in a beautiful old building, surrounded by minions running around when I make a sale, or get a question right on my homework, or whatever...

    But another note, this time for games... As PC gamers we have long cursed, kicked and cried about PC ports of games designed mainly for consoles... You can bet that some games will be designed mainly for mobile VR and your PC would be able to handle them at 4K per eye, at high speed, with better overall filtering and better shading algorithms for animated characters. Made for PC games with high quality assets rendered at 1K or 2K per eye, displayed with upscaling handled by the headset or the GPU... Made for mobile games with cartoony assets rendered at 4K per eye, would be possible if the headset was there.
  • MrMonkeybat's avatar
    MrMonkeybat
    Explorer
    10 years ago
    "mrmonkeybat" wrote:
    VR does not need all the bells and whistles of the latest open world AA game to be compelling. As long as it has 2 DP1.2 ports there is no such thing as a GFX card not powerful enough drive 4k VR @ 120hz only a game not optimized well enough. Bake in the lighting etc.


    I dont think I read the "per eye" part of the title. At a per eye 4k that would have to be a big Infinite Eye style HMD with the 180degree fov to go with it other wise it would have quite a restricted vertical FOV. Even with a displayport per eye that would require either DP1.3 or chroma sub sampling which can have no loss on a pentile screen and give 90hz on 1.2

    Sony Morpheus demonstrated the 60hz timewarped to 120 works smoothly so another way past the bandwidth limit could be an on board GPU that dose the timewarp at twice or more the rate of the video feed. Could especially reduce the bandwidth with eye tracked foveated rendering.

    Another nice thing about higher resolutions is even if you have a lower render buffer resolution, the distortion can be done allot more smoothly and retain more detail.
  • Nucklear's avatar
    Nucklear
    Honored Guest
    10 years ago
    Always I read 4K screens I read someone compelling about GPU not powerful enough, but ¿what if we have 4K screens but just render 1080p images? The render performance is not affected and we get rid of the screendoor effect as we have much more pixel density.

    Am I right or are there any issue with this?
  • matskatsaba's avatar
    matskatsaba
    Adventurer
    10 years ago
    "donkaradiablo" wrote:

    PS: The $1000 price point is just to make a point, is not needed especially if this gets attention from Oculus.

    Thank god, because you forgot a zero from the end.
    While there is 9,6` display available that does the 4k res, it costs close to 10k usd - per eye, but this would be irrelevant since no matter the resolution, you cannot cover 140 degree with two flat screens.
    There are HMDs with 140-16o degree of FOV, had you regularly browse this forum you'd know, along with the fact that it costs zillions. It's made of multiple tiny oled displays, which can be replaced separately which is a must knowing those micro oled's fast pixel decay rate.

    So for once, the HMD would be around 30-150k usd given the specs you demand, and even if you spent that much on the HMD itself, you would likely need a cluster of half dozen powerful PCs to back it with computing power.

    So short answer:
    Your estimated price is not even close in range for the hardware you demand
    Your pc would be too crappy to run it at 90 FPS even if it was available.
  • MrMonkeybat's avatar
    MrMonkeybat
    Explorer
    10 years ago
    "matskatsaba" wrote:
    .
    While there is 9,6` display available that does the 4k res, it costs close to 10k usd - per eye, but this would be irrelevant since no matter the resolution, you cannot cover 140 degree with two flat screens.


    That is not true
    http://vrwiki.wikispaces.com/InfinitEye+V2
    http://uploadvr.com/wearality-180-degree-fov-lens-vr/
    Wearality have demonstrated 150 degrees with a single flat screen and over 200 degrees with two flat screens.

    Next year SHARP will start selling UHD 3840x2160 RGB 5.5inch cell phone screens. At VR refresh rates that would require two DP1.2 ports per screen or DP1.3
  • matskatsaba's avatar
    matskatsaba
    Adventurer
    10 years ago
    Neither of the projects you linked seem to use 4k panels.

    The idea of utilizing landscape panels in angle and using special lens is a logical demand but the 4k per eye is a bit unreasonable since the price of those panels right now is expensive. Somewhat below $10k each. The $150k version is a high-end example, but it does match the resolution you mentioned (or at least almost) and it is actually available. Well, it's manufactured on order to be accurate.

    About the flat panels for high FOV, quoting from the infiniteyes oculus forum topic:

    "
    According to the inventor it's currently not an issue, but he didn't know if that would hold true as screen resolution increases.

    At the moment, he says the largest issue with his HMD is eye strain. He believes the main reason for this is because the screens are flat and sitting on your face at two different angles. So, when you turn both eyes to look at something near the edge, one of your eyes will be looking at pixels that are physically closer to it than the other eye, which causes unusual ciliary muscle strain. One eye physically has to focus (accommodate) in a different way than the other eye, which is unnatural. This effect isn't as noticeable in the Rift because the Rift's screen is flat against your face, so, no matter how you rotate your eyes, both pupils are roughly always the same distance from the pixels that you're focusing on.

    The eye strain issue might be fixable with a curved screen. He's currently trying to get his project noticed by Samsung. Samsung is sponsoring projects that might benefit from flexible HD displays."
  • donkaradiablo's avatar
    donkaradiablo
    Explorer
    10 years ago
    fascinating stuff... we are looking at flat displays, aren't we? and here I was thinking that we were looking at curved lenses.


    Look, the idea was simple. Commiting to a sub $1000 price point for a high-end VR HMD by a trusted name/company to show that there was demand. That would make the big names like Oculus reconsider having a high-end line, akin to Geforce - Titan branding.

    1. Sony has built 0.7" 720p oled screens, making it 2,098 ppi, with great image quality, for a HMD that cost around $800... 3 years ago.
    2. Claire 22M, an upcoming 170° HMD with 5120 x 1440 OLED has the target price set at $400-600.
    3. A mobile SOC can drive 2560×1440 @60hz for VR if the app is optimized. Desktop GPUs coming in 2016 are revolutionary. They only have to be 6.75 times as fast as the mobile SOCs to drive 4K per eye at 90hz and you can bet they are. Talking about a single one of them, not 4 in SLI, not 8 in SLI as stated possible.
    4. Virtual desktop would look so beautiful.
    5. Movie/image viewing would benefit from it right away
    6. Games could have upscaling or mixed resolution, at the very least for text with layers.
    7. Cutting edge tech for gamers always required non-standard solutions, like dual link dvi to drive nvidia 3d vision at 60 per eye at 1080p. 2 displayports can easily be the solution to drive a high end hmd, nobody would mind.

    If people can buy 2 Titan X cards now, they can buy up to 8 Pascals with up to 32 GB of HBM2 memory each to run VR next year and it would drive upcoming games with the best visuals at 4K per eye at 90hz. Yes only a limited few can buy an expensive product like this and the PC required to drive it. That limited few would be enough to launch a high end, high prestige product. It's not aimed at billions, that's the point. Remember how Oculus was supposed to be fast, lean and mean because it was small, not clumsy like the giants? Well it's not that small anymore.

    Kids in the 90s bought Voodoo cards in SLI for a peek at the universes built by men led by Carmack. They bought cards with premium prices, derived from products aimed at the pro CAD/CAM market, to see the next big thing by the man in action. Those kids are grown ups with paychecks now, waiting to feel the rush they only dreamed about having, by getting in the next game led by the man, instead of staring at it. Those inner childs would drop their tax returns into a high-end VR product and the GPUs required to power it, if those came to the market around Q1 2016 too. I think that potential, that could drive high end VR, is overlooked.