120hz or 1080p ++?

Just remember it's pointless to have even 4k screens now. With regular monitor you'd need 4 titans to run new games with best graphics at 60fps.

I think 1920x1200 with some kind of filter to reduce screen-door is enough. And 120Hz is definetly better than 60Hz, but 60Hz is not a problem with a precise head-tracking.

Well with my 3years old computer i'm able to play 3D surround
(3 full screen, in 1080p + 3D, so 6 full 1080p images calculated)
its the same power needed than 360hz.

So no, 120hz isn't "too much".

I'd go with Carmack's talk about getting the displays to 90 or 120hz, I could do without the blur.

"huntinator7" wrote:
I saw a video from CES in January demoing a 6.1" Sharp WQXGA 2560x1600 smartphone screen, and immediately thought of this. The size is right, resolution is off the charts, PPI is over 500, and sounds like the perfect fit for Oculus. No clue if its PenTile or not, and the only thing that I could see causing issues is that it is 16:10, versus the 16:9 of the FHD Oculus at E3. I could so see this being the consumer Oculus screen.

It's an LCD, so it's a regular RGB pixel arrangement, not PenTile.
This is the resolution i think is what the Oculus team wants (well, they want more, but it's i think the one they think they can get) for the first consumer version.
But they what they probably want even more, is a 120hz display. But as far as i know, there are 0 screens with 120hz support for smartphones.
But at least we know that the 2560x1600 screens already exist, so having a higher resolution than 1080p looks more realistic than 120hz, at any resolution. (unless of course, the Oculus team knows of a screen that we don't)
I've read that for 2014 the 2560x1600 screens should be mass produced for smartphones, i hope it's true.

This is the problem with relying in the smartphone industry for screens. They just don't see 120hz as a priority.
For the rift, i think even a TN panel would sufice; since the viewing angles wouldn't be as important as they are on smartphones, because we'd always be on the sweetspot.
Modern desktop TN panels are the only LCD panels capable of those refresh rates. And with technologies like lightboost enabled, it would look just as smooth as a CRT.

I've heard Camrack mention that he'd rather have 120hz over higher resolution than 1080p, but it's not as if the two were mutually exclusive. The fact is they rely on smartphone screens, and smartphones manufacturers wouldn't trade off the benefits of an IPS panel (wider viewing angles) over a higher refresh rate by using a TN panel. I don't even know if there are any 1080p LCD TN panels at the sizes we would need.

"Ananas" wrote:
Just remember it's pointless to have even 4k screens now. With regular monitor you'd need 4 titans to run new games with best graphics at 60fps.

I've read this many times before on this forum, and this is simply not ture. I guess it's the fault of the benchmarks that are popping up all over the internet.

Those benchmarks you see on the web right now, are all using the highest possible settings, including ridiculous amounts of AA. In many cases the video cards don't even have the memory to deal with 4k at those settings to begin with.

The fact is, if they used more down to earth settings (that would look almost every bit as good as the max settings) even a 2-3 year old card wouldn't have problems with 4k at all on some games. (if the video card supported 4k output of course)

Just think about it: Most of those games are made with an xbox 360 as the baseline. And we've been running xbox 360 quality games at 1080p with full AA, AF and other bells and whistles for years now.
Just because PC monitor manufacturers haven't improved resolution at all for like the past 5 years, it doesn't mean video cards have stopped improving.
24" LCD monitors are still 1080p after all these years, even though my Sony 24" CRT monitor could do 2304 x 1440 @ 80hz when it came out more than a DECADE ago. I got mine years after that though, refurbished. But even 5 years or so ago, i could run games like warcraft 3 at it's maximum resolution.

4k is not that big of a deal for the midrange graphics cards of today, provided they have enough memory and you don't go overboard with the quality settings. And it will be even less of a challenge by the time the consumer version ships.

TL;DR = 4K isn't as challenging as people think. Specially if developers focus know the resolution they want to target for their game from the start.

Actually I dont know if they will go with

2560*1600 LCD screen :

Good resolution
poor refresh rate / reactivity
poor black



Or with OLED display :

1080p resolution
High reactivity (120hz is very possible on oled i think)
black are black...


If samsung can make a more than 1080p oled display hmmm

"Tgaud" wrote:
Actually I dont know if they will go with

2560*1600 LCD screen :

Good resolution
poor refresh rate / reactivity
poor black



Or with OLED display :

1080p resolution
High reactivity (120hz is very possible on oled i think)
black are black...


If samsung can make a more than 1080p oled display hmmm

With OLED, it is technically possible to get 120hz... BUT, from what I've been reading, they are having the exact same issue of "sample and hold" that LCD panels suffer. And at least with LCD technology this is a problem that has been fixed with TN panels by pulsing the LED backlight on and off to match the refresh rate. This is something that i don't know if you'd be able to do with OLED (i imagine you could, by doing black frame insertion maybe? not sure if it would work that way)

But anyway, here is the problem i see:

Unless Oculus has found a screen that is mass produced that we don't know about, all of the screens in the market only do 60hz right now, OLED or LCD. And as far as i know, all of the full HD (and beyond) LCD panels in the market are all IPS panels, which are great for mobile phones, but simply aren't fast enough for 120hz; like say, the 120hz TN gaming panels that are in the desktop market right now.
So the real challenge for 120hz LCD panels is that:

1.- I just don't think they even exist. As far as i know, all of the panels in the market are only 60hz.
2.- All of the really good LCD panels are high quality IPS panels with great viewing angles, but for 120hz i'm almost sure we would need a high resolution mobile TN panel, that i just don't think exists (and even if it did, it probably wouldn't support 120hz anyway)

OLED also has the same pixel retention problem from what I've read. (regardless of how fast the display can refresh)

Now i'm going a bit off topic:
I've actually learned a lot in the last few weeks about why my very old CRT monitors looked smoother at 60hz than my 120hz LCD monitor. I had always wondered why my monitor looked smoother when running 3D games at 60hz (per eye) than 2D games at 120hz...
And it turns out it was because of what i now know is called "sample and hold".

The reason why it looks much smoother in 3D is because the 3d glasses would block (basically introduce a black frame) the image that my monitor would hold, and looking at the blur busters website, i pretty much confirmed that having the shutter glasses on, did indeed make it look just as smooth as a CRT.

My monitor doesn't support "lightboost", which is a technology that i assume got implemented to try to minimize crosstalk for 3D games, but it turned out to be just as useful for making the image silky smooth by getting rid of the "sample and hold" phenomenon.

Back on topic:

Assuming Oculus does go for an LCD panel, it's very likely that they would implement this technology to make the LCD look much smoother, or introduce black frame insertion if they go the OLED route (i'm assuming this would be just as effective, but i may be wrong)

by pixel retention you mean the time a pixel take to change his color ?
well nothing is more fast than OLED from what I know.

And effectively, they did some "fix" with LCD to force a black image beetween two normal image (its why LCD TV has gone from announcing "100hz" to "200hz"). Just to force the reinitialisation of the pixel.
They even did some calculus to change to next color pixel according to his precedent value

(for example we are showing a yellow value, the next color we want must be green, so we modify the next pixel from
green to blue so : Blue+ yellow retention of the previous color, = the green we want.

its the main idea.

But its totally possible with OLED too.
there is no difference, except that in OLED the "backlight" is the pixel itself.

There is a company who says they have created a 210 degree FOV.http://www.roadtovr.com/2013/08/14/infiniteye-210-degree-hmd-prototype-contest-vote-7508

If these guys can do it, I wonder if the Oculus Team is working on a larger FOV. That would be an area of improvement.
1. HD
2. Higher FOV
3. Better Latency

"geekmaster" wrote:
I want 1KHz 8K displays (and a backtop computer to drive them)... :o

we're closer than you think, with baseline scaling algorithms encoded (hardware level) into display drivers, which is the next step with 4k monitors, in order to drive 1080p to existing 4k monitors.

right now, it is done via outboard chips, as you can see with the $800 (599 in the US) 39' seiki sears deal. it can only run that at 30hz and it is working via the outboard chips, but th next generation wil head toward lower power scaling as integrated with the panel driver directly. MIPI design is forcing it to that direction. LVDS can already do 1080p at 240-720hz panel driving, but high heat and high power.

Now comes the latest chip designs, with low power. Manufacturers will begin to adopt the low power & high density architecture and designs that Intel and the like sell off to them.

Then we can drive the 4k OLED 4-5-6-7 ....10 inch displays for portable devices. Displays which will begin to be here in the next two years.

I give it...4 years and it will be on the threshold of that.

I mean, 1080p smartphones will be 'so last year' in about 6 months.