2160×1200 Everyone is fine with that?

[sarfios]

Hey folks,

Is everyone fine with the final resolution of 2160x1200? I've heard a lot of blahblah, how resolution is not everything in VR, but as owning DK2 right now and having 1920x1080

These 90 hz are the biggest improvement? worth to even consider getting it?

I know a lot of people will start saying how shallow I should be for care for that only but... really not even 1440p? We've waited 3 years for almost for that?

It's clear that in order to adopt the VR from the masses and become a thing in the future it should be more accessible and stuff... but ffs we had 1440p from a mobile PHONE VR back in 2014, but in 2016 we will get less than 1440p for DESKTOP?

WAW

I guess VR won't be ready in the next 2-3 years, when 10/14nm CPU/GPU start popping up and having 4/5k phone displays available.

[view3d]

this is total degradation and fail, oculus was always just most cheap display on the strape, and they need so many years to announce make final product and its same retarded, what a problem get normal display and you need 5 years to understand vr need 2 displays? idea to warp image to lenses distortion is very stupid and cuts 50% of resolution how many years you need to get that?

[lmaceleighton]

Lets be real now everyone. Do you want the software to actually keep up with the hardware? I feel we need to take things a bit slow, for lots of good reasons. One chief reason, as we have seen at the start of this, software needs to stay in line with hardware capabilities. YES, we CAN put better resolution in the HMD, but we shouldn't. VR just got on its feet and isn't ready to "Run", walk perhaps, but we just got done crawling, please be patient. Before you know it, well be off to college and you'll all be weeping.

~B :ugeek:

[kojack]

"willste" wrote:
If you are able to perfectly hide the gap between pixels you will remove the screen door effect without adding any blur to the image.

Screen door isn't just the gap between pixels. It's also the gap between sub pixels of the same colour. A red object will have the green and blue subpixels turned off, leaving giant black gaps between the red pixels (far bigger than the pixel gap).
Plus in displays like the DK1 there was almost zero column gap between pixels and a large row gap, but to our eyes it looked like equal gaps. That's because our eyes are better at seeing brightness than colour, so the red/blue subpixels together were small enough to blend with the green to look like white but too big to appear as bright as the green (our eyes are more sensitive to green brightness).

[donkaradiablo]

I have a feeling that if OVR brings in a better resolution product than the competition one day, people who talk about how sde is not just about resolution, how resolution is not everything and how high resolution means greater hardware requirements will be yelling "F... YEAH!", followed by talks of how better it looks and how you don't need better hardware to back it up, how you can always upsample and it would still look better, how some parts of rendering could be higher resolution and composited upon upsampled layers to look better without losing that much performance etc.

It's okay to say "I have waited a long time for this, I'll be fine with what I get", no need to back it with nonsense really.

We have a phone based VR device today with higher resolution than PC VR devices that will run on tomorrows hardware, how pathetic is that?

[Warren989]

"donkaradiablo" wrote:
I have a feeling that if OVR brings in a better resolution product than the competition one day, people who talk about how sde is not just about resolution, how resolution is not everything and how high resolution means greater hardware requirements will be yelling "F... YEAH!", followed by talks of how better it looks and how you don't need better hardware to back it up, how you can always upsample and it would still look better, how some parts of rendering could be higher resolution and composited upon upsampled layers to look better without losing that much performance etc.

It's okay to say "I have waited a long time for this, I'll be fine with what I get", no need to back it with nonsense really.

We have a phone based VR device today with higher resolution than PC VR devices that will run on tomorrows hardware, how pathetic is that?

Sums it up well. I remember years ago when 1080P was just coming out, people that bought 720P always made weak excuses as to why there was only a small difference over 1080P. Lines like "But if you're more than 3 feet away, it doesn't even matter!" or "But very few computers can even run 1080P games" etc. Even now with 4K vs 1080P, you can go read articles as to why once again there's not a big difference over 1080P :roll:

What amuses me is when said people finally do upgrade, they cannot stop talking about how much clearer the picture is.
I guess words like PPI and aliasing don't mean a thing.

As always, resolution is not an absolute metric when determining clarity/overall quality. But why a significant amount of people seem to be pretending resolution is not the single biggest overall factor (disregarding pentile screens) is rather silly. Yes, there are ways to reduce SDE and improve perceived clarity without increasing the resolution (Lens, messing with sub-pixel brightness/contrast etc.) but any attempts would just be beating around the bush.

I would even be fine with a sub 1440P screen (For now) if I knew it had full chroma and luma resolution (4:4:4)

[saviornt]

I am not fine with the resolution, however, I am also not fine with spending a few grand followed by some 0's for a gaming HMD..

Compromises suck, I know :evil:

[Warren989]

"saviornt" wrote:
I am not fine with the resolution, however, I am also not fine with spending a few grand followed by some 0's for a gaming HMD..

Compromises suck, I know :evil:

Why would it cost that much more? Small LED/OLED panels are very cheap to manufacture.

I can only guess, but I would guess based off how much other similar OLED cell screens cost that the panels in the CV1 would cost no more than 40-50ish per screen for Oculus.

It's not like any R&D would need to be done. Clearly 90hz is viable on these panels, so simply using a more advanced fab to cram more pixels in the same physical space should require zero effort. Cramming more pixels in a small panel is dirt cheap. I would bet that's why Oculus decided to use 2 screens over 1. It's much cheaper with almost no hits to quality.

I find it very unlikely a panel running at 1440P/90hz is not possible now. I think a more plausible scenario is Oculus simply took a good deal from Samsung for a bulk order of 1080x1200 screens a long time ago.

The only good thing about these screens over the DK2 is they will be OLED. So yes, the CV1 will look a billion times better than the DK2! Also, due to the more accurate and vibrant colors/contrast ratios your eyes will perceive the screen to be significantly more clear than the DK2. It will also blow the GearVR away since I'm not aware of any modern RGB OLED cell screen. But that's still no excuse!


The only valid reason I could see in using non 1440P+ screens, is that high res RGB OLED is still fairly new. It's why you still cannot find any OLED 4K TV's for less then 5K right now (10K last year). It's possible Oculus decided OLED's benefits even with a lower res were still higher than simply using 1440P LED. I can only speculate.

[kojack]

"Warren989" wrote:
The only good thing about these screens over the DK2 is they will be OLED. So yes, the CV1 will look a billion times better than the DK2! Also, due to the more accurate and vibrant colors/contrast ratios your eyes will perceive the screen to be significantly more clear than the DK2.

The DK2 is already using OLED.

[Warren989]

"kojack" wrote:

The DK2 is already using OLED.

Technically speaking it does use OLED. However, It uses a Note 3 OLED pentile panel. When I said OLED I meant more like an LG RGB S-Stripe OLED panel, not a phone OLED pentile display. The CV1 *should* be using OLED with RGB in stripes, which will be a night and day difference compared to the DK2.

Very basic examples as to why pentile is pretty much garbage. Not a bad read if you wanna learn a little about panel tech. If not, just scroll down till you reach the pics.

http://forums.androidcentral.com/displays/167679-slcd-samoled-pentile-rgb-does-matter.html#post17117...


Needless to say, pentile washes out colors and makes the perceived resolution much lower than it is. So even though the DK2 might technically be 1080P, in reality, once under heavy magnification from the lens, you would perceive it to be 720P at best.

[kojack]

"Warren989" wrote:
Technically speaking it does use OLED. However, It uses a Note 3 OLED pentile panel. When I said OLED I meant more like an LG RGB S-Stripe OLED panel, not a phone OLED pentile display. The CV1 *should* be using OLED with RGB in stripes, which will be a night and day difference compared to the DK2.

Watch here: https://youtu.be/PynqcAHXpg0?t=4190
They say the CV1 had hexagonal pixels. So unlikely to be rgb stripe or s-stripe.
No official word that I've seen has confirmed the subpixel arrangement of the panel.