Forum Discussion

donkaradiablo's avatar
donkaradiablo
Explorer
11 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

Show More
  • donkaradiablo's avatar
    donkaradiablo
    Explorer
    11 years ago
    More than the product itself, the idea here was to create a fresh approach to crowdfunding. Instead of being sold stuff, with videos, how about we demand stuff, with videos?

    A "kickstartthis" website where hypothetical products with a video explaining what the product is, get committed to, to show that there is demand, and if it hits a predetermined target and gets committed to by one of the predetermined candidates for manufacturing, it goes through the crowfunding process at one of the established crowdfunding websites.

    This is a quick example:



    1. This goes live on a hypothetical website made for this goal, like crowdfundthis.com, a website that connects to your crowdfunding website accounts.
    2. It says "I commit to a price point under this limit, for this product, if it's manufactured by one of these people/companies in this list of names"
    3. If it reaches the target, showing the demand is there and the funding is there, the names on that list are contacted to see if they are interested, and to get the best price.
    4. If one of them commits to it, the project goes live and reaches it's target instantly on a crowdfunding website.

    So not only we the consumer, choose what projects get funding, but we become the ones imagining the projects as well.
  • MrMonkeybat's avatar
    MrMonkeybat
    Explorer
    11 years ago
    As the Vive gets the tracking data from the HMD it would be slightly easier to hook up to a if they follow through on there promise of making the system open, hopefully small manufacturers like Claire VR will be able to make use of it, right now they have none.
    "matskatsaba" wrote:
    Neither of the projects you linked seem to use 4k panels.

    So what the PPI/res of the screen is a completely diferent issue to the FOV of the optics the point was they do something you calimed was impossible, high FOVs from flat panels.
    "matskatsaba" wrote:

    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.

    But within a year 5.5inch 4k cell phone screens will be available. Which is what I thought this thread was about building such an HMD in the near future.
    "matskatsaba" wrote:

    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."

    Wearality claim there lenses provide a uniform infinite focal distance across the entire screen, with a wide eyebox. They also say they want to sell there lenses to other HMD manufacturers.
  • matskatsaba's avatar
    matskatsaba
    Adventurer
    11 years ago
    It's fresnel lens. No matter what you do, you WILL see the concentric circles, and it WILL give you headache, the higher the resolution the more distorted the image will be. No matter which company produces it, fresnel lens will act the same.

    It doesn't matter what WILL be available later on, you can write as many petitions as you want, oculus cannot design a HMD thats display "will come out in a year" and the lens "will be available next year". You cannot order hardware that's not manufactured yet.

    "So what the PPI/res of the screen is a completely diferent issue to the FOV of the optics the point was they do something you calimed was impossible, high FOVs from flat panels."

    Dude try to understand the things as a whole. Yeah you can hack 150deg FOV with angled flat panels, but its coming with extra eye strain, so it's not usable as a commercial product. In short, not possible.
    Two 4k panels Right Now are way more than 1000$. You can be as smart about it as you wish, but you can't build something from unavailable components.

    Just out of curiosity, what kind of rig do you have that you dream about double rendering at 4k with tracking @75Hz+?
    What's the point in getting a hardware you can't utilize?


    I get your point but you're expecting a hardware made of to-be-sold components and prove your theories with claims from two kickstarter projects, but you gently ignore the problems they ran into and take a future promise as a given fact.

    What's next? a comparsion between CV1 and VR-Head? come on.
  • MrMonkeybat's avatar
    MrMonkeybat
    Explorer
    11 years ago
    "matskatsaba" wrote:
    It's fresnel lens. No matter what you do, you WILL see the concentric circles, and it WILL give you headache, the higher the resolution the more distorted the image will be. No matter which company produces it, fresnel lens will act the same.

    Like it it or not your are going to get fresnel lenses. Both HTC and Oculus are using them now. Fortunately most of those who have tried them say they are not noticeable when you are wearing them, like wise with the wearality lenses. There is a big difference between fresnel lenses that have been computer modeled for HMD use and those cut out of a pocket magnifier.

    "matskatsaba" wrote:

    "So what the PPI/res of the screen is a completely diferent issue to the FOV of the optics the point was they do something you calimed was impossible, high FOVs from flat panels."

    Dude try to understand the things as a whole. Yeah you can hack 150deg FOV with angled flat panels, but its coming with extra eye strain, so it's not usable as a commercial product. In short, not possible.

    Unless you have some measurements proving focal problems in David Smiths prototypes I will believe him and his 30 Lockheed Martin patents in optics over your neigh saying.


    "matskatsaba" wrote:

    Just out of curiosity, what kind of rig do you have that you dream about double rendering at 4k with tracking @75Hz+?
    What's the point in getting a hardware you can't utilize?

    would need another card in crossfire to run something like this if only go from 2 to 4 display ports for the required bandwidth. I will delay any upgrades to my current system till next HMDs are out as GPUs get cheaper with time. I always maintain that in VR fewer polies at higher resolution are better than more polies at lower res. If the render buffer does need to be reduced in size the distortion still be done alot better on a higher res screen.

    "matskatsaba" wrote:

    Two 4k panels Right Now are way more than 1000$. You can be as smart about it as you wish, but you can't build something from unavailable components.

    It doesn't matter what WILL be available later on, you can write as many petitions as you want, oculus cannot design a HMD thats display "will come out in a year" and the lens "will be available next year". You cannot order hardware that's not manufactured yet.
    I get your point but you're expecting a hardware made of to-be-sold components and prove your theories with claims from two kickstarter projects, but you gently ignore the problems they ran into and take a future promise as a given fact.

    What's next? a comparsion between CV1 and VR-Head? come on.


    Was someone saying dual 4k hmd could be built next Tuesday? I was saying it could be built next year. When something like a cell phone is manufactured they do need to build up some stockpile before release date but the screen manufacturer does not need to build up stockpile in turn as the cell phone assembly plant cant use them all at once, so things like cell phones are often put into mass production only a short time after its screen goes into mass production. New products are often designed to use components that have not gone into mass production and scheduled for assembly only a short time after the components are scheduled for mass production. A more niche product sold over the internet through pre orders can be shipped as soon as it is made rather than stored in a warehouse till it a mass release date.

    Yes all kickstarters like Oculus fail. I would not compare a respectable researcher like David Smith to 3d Head.
  • Sammael7's avatar
    Sammael7
    Honored Guest
    10 years ago
    I just heard about the wearality lenses and they look promising. Eager to try them out.

    To those harping on issues trying to drive 4k displays or higher while using something like these sorts of lenses, not everything is about gaming. The ideal use of the wider format in my view would be to create a more realistic IMAX type theater display that fills more of your vision. Video playback with some limited ability to look around a theater room is not the same thing as trying to run a space flight sim in real time at ultra high framerates.
  • obzen's avatar
    obzen
    Expert Protege
    10 years ago
    One day, there will be. Right now, I suspect the interest is rather low. Oculus, Vive and Morpheus are targeting consumer entertainment. That means, affordable everything.

    Once VR takes off, I'm sure we'll see a burgeoning of high-spec premium headsets, for more professional environments. Some consumers won't even care dropping a couple of $K just for the headset either. These people already have SLI TitanX, and what not.
  • brantlew's avatar
    brantlew
    Adventurer
    10 years ago
    "matskatsaba" wrote:

    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.


    Mmm...close, but not quite. Canted displays and lenses cause your eyes to look through different parts of the lens. So for example, if you look to the left your left eye might be looking straight through the optical center of the left lens while your right eye is looking at an angle through the right lens. Depending on the lens characteristics this can be difficult for your eyes to fuse properly. One thing (which you alluded to above) is focal length. If the focal length varies significantly across the lens then yes, one eye may need to focus (accomodate) at 3 meters while the other eye is focusing at 15 meters. Another problem is distortion which will be now be asymmetrical between the eyes. Even with distortion correction there will be some difference and depending on the how much and how it manifests, your eyes may have a hard time stereo fusing the images at all. And even if the images fuse it can cause bizarre warping artifacts (ie. saddle shapes for example) in the image. Similar problems with asymmetric sharpness and chromatic aberration can also occur. Curved screens wouldn't necessarily solve this. Very special optics would also need to be matched to the display to minimize these problems.