More resolution = more revolution

Going from 720P to 1080P is actually doubling the resolution in terms of the number of pixels.

"Sebbi" wrote:
The Rift kit arrived today and boy are the pixels obvious. I don't think 1080p can fix this ... pixel density has to at least double, especially for objects not right next to yourself.

So let's hope for those 7" 2560x1600 displays being available soonish ;-)

A 5.5" 1080 panel would be 400 ppi, so if the consumer rift has a similar size and resolution it would be acceptable.

While yes, the Rift's resolution definitely needs improved as probably the #1 point of feedback, I do think it will be better if Oculus always ensures everyone is on a standardized Rift generation, instead of always offering various different models/quality simultaneously. In otherwords, just like Apple does it with iPhone.

The reason is it helps developers know for-sure that their audience can see what they intend for them to see, guaranteeing better quality and reducing development overhead. Beyond just art direction, this helps functionally in VR design. An example is UI, writing on a virtual notebook prop on a desk, seeing actor facial expressions, ensuring readability of things at a certain distance, etc...

Apple didn't offer the Retina iPhone and the lower res iPhone both, keeping that going in parallel. That was very smart. (I think the iPad Mini was a Post-Jobs / Tim Cook mistake, fragmenting their own utopian platform). For Rift and VR, the market is very nicely focused / non-fragmented right now, which (for peripheral development as a platform) is a dream. As a developer, you usually always have to develop for the lowest common denominator, assuming people have the worst spec generally available. That sucks.

So if Oculus improves the display, there should only be one model of the Rift available to consumers: the best one. It's up to Oculus to figure out how to hit an adequet price point, but given the surging interest in the Rift and VR now, I would imagine offering a Rift with a Retina-like resolution (4K+ perhaps) would draw more customers in, as the VR experience is more 1:1 with reality. The less Oculus has to force customers to "pretend" they're in another reality via the Rift by ignoring giant obvious pixels and difficult-to-discern image fidelity/clarity, the more obvious a purchase decision this should be for mass consumers, especially at a volume-style price point.

As far as a higher-res display, very much looking forward to it.

I'd tend to disagree. If that logic was really followed all PCs would have one level of video card, and it would probably be too expensive for a lot of users and not nearly as powerful as the price-insensitive hardcore would want. A poor match for everyone except those at the very middle.

Sure, it is nice for developers who can target just one platform to not have to worry about how to scale their experience across several devices, but we know that's not how markets are in reality. Even if apple only actively sells one iPhone at a time, the market is far from moving in absolute lockstep with every single new revision. (And even if that did somehow happen, it ignores developers reaching their full potential audience by going cross-platform.)

I think it would be more effective to think about how to generalize the way VR applications are developed and have flexible frameworks, so targeting multiple platforms is as painless as possible. Except for a very narrow window of time right at the very first consumer launch from the first vendor, multiple platforms existing at the same time in the market is all but guaranteed.

"xanderdavis" wrote:
Apple didn't offer the Retina iPhone and the lower res iPhone both, keeping that going in parallel. That was very smart. (I think the iPad Mini was a Post-Jobs / Tim Cook mistake, fragmenting their own utopian platform). For Rift and VR, the market is very nicely focused / non-fragmented right now, which (for peripheral development as a platform) is a dream. As a developer, you usually always have to develop for the lowest common denominator, assuming people have the worst spec generally available. That sucks.

The non-retina iPhone 3GS was still available until after the iPhone 4S came out.

Although i don't think they will, but Oculus having a Rift "pro" with higher resolution display wouldn't be a bad thing. As long as the software is correct, games could just see which rift is plugged in and use the appropriate parameters to display the scene correctly.

As an Android developer, supporting many screen sizes and types isn't a big deal - as long as you design for it in the beginning. Offering only a single type of Rift, or not making the screen replaceable/changeable would be a big mistake imo.

"cybereality" wrote:
Going from 720P to 1080P is actually doubling the resolution in terms of the number of pixels.

Doubling the resolution, yes ... doubling the pixel density, no ;-)

I hope the mobile phone/tablet industry will provide us with even more cheap pixels in the years to come. Shouldn't be a problem to render simple worlds in 2560x1600 ... i mean an Android tablet can do it and iPads could probably do it if they had such a display. :)

A lot more than just the resolution and pixel density goes into selecting a screen for the rift. Other things like pixel switching and pixel fill factor need to be considered.
The new flexible screens Samsung and LG are working on look promising and could potential help the Rift with peripheral view, weight and size. Hopefully they aren't going to be to expensive. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Flexible-OLED-YOUM-Plastic-4Q13,22258.html

:geek:

What about applying some holographic diffusers (depixelation filters) for Rift LCD?
I guess it is possible as retrofit even with current Devkit.

There are some we could purchase out there, but would be good to know what tech specs do we need not to make image blurry, but just to fill in the black gaps between pixels.

Old low-res HMD's from nineties (especially expensive ones) usually had such filters installed, which dramatically improved image quality, and removed screen-door effect.

"Sebbi" wrote:

"cybereality" wrote:
Going from 720P to 1080P is actually doubling the resolution in terms of the number of pixels.

Doubling the resolution, yes ... doubling the pixel density, no ;-)

I hope the mobile phone/tablet industry will provide us with even more cheap pixels in the years to come. Shouldn't be a problem to render simple worlds in 2560x1600 ... i mean an Android tablet can do it and iPads could probably do it if they had such a display. :)

Okay your comment about going from 1280x720 to 1920x1080 only doubling resolution and not pixel density doesn't make sense to me. If you have a 7" screen with a 720p resolution (1024000 pixels) and then on the same size 7" screen go to 1080p (2073600 pixels) how are you "not" doubling the pixel density? Same size screen+double the pixels=double the pixel density. Is that not correct? If I am incorrect, where is the flaw in my logic. Please explain. :|