Odds of a 1440p display?

[Jossos]

So dk2 is out, which has pretty impressive specs. and apparently since consumer version will be a step above that, what are the odds for a 1440p display? I'm sure people are willing to drop the graphic settings for clearer vision. I got a 780 so it doesn't bother me. also whats the max hz for a 1440 screen? I hear it's like 83.33 or something. I use a dvi coord so idk if that makes a difference.

[Zackarios]

"NegativeCamber" wrote:

"Zackarios" wrote:


There's no way it would be 4k for CV1, unless CV1 is massively delayed. That really would be pointless. (no one could run it, and it would increase the price).

Upscaling? A 4K screen even if not all the pixels are different would lower the screendoor effect.

I guess so, but honestly I don't even think it's an option at the moment. I doubt they could get the tech ready for CV1. And even if they could it would greatly drive the cost up. It's really not going to happen for CV1.

[KBK]

If CV1 is moved up to CV2, that probably means two panels and possibly functional positional. Maybe a CV1.5.

Making the positional work is a bit of a bear. One would have to start at scratch and come back in again, like the Spanish Inquisition. All the existing burrows have been dug in, all the current known paths and walls have reached their limits, so it requires a new method of coming to the playing field of the idea itself.

This is illustrated in the axiom I sometimes try to get people to understand, which is: ' the more difficult the problem is to solve, the more fundamental the error in the formulation of the question'.

Meaning: clean sheet of paper, stand in a different country with your brain turned inside out, so you're not even the same person observing the same question.... as the error - is that kind of fundamental. Ie, you don't need one leap to connect, you need at least two. The answer is multiple steps in making connection, in most cases, or fundamentally different than it was considered to be.

[Halopend]

"shonferg" wrote:
Was thinking about this recently after seeing the round OLED on the new Moto 360 watch...

If they now have the resources to create truly custom hardware, then I wonder if they could ever create an OLED screen that has a non-uniform pixel density? Basically bake the distortion pattern directly into the layout of the pixels, instead of using a post-process distortion shader that adds blur and reduces performance. The pixels around the edge of the screen would be smaller, and the ones in the center would be larger, so there would be a 1:1 correspondence between what the GPU renders and what you see.

I'm honestly not sure how feasible that would be, but as far as I've been able to find out, OLEDs pixels are laid out by shining light through a pattern. So why does the pattern have to be a regular grid?

If it could be done, it would solve a lot of the blurriness problems without requiring a higher resolution or a more powerful GPU.

What do you think? Fantasy?

User IPD affects the distortion so you'd still have to apply a distortion filter anyway, besides the issue of extra complexity and most likely astronomical price.

There should be a way to render in zones like seen with foveated rendering HERE so only the centre gets the extra resolution it needs due to the lens distortion.

[shonferg]

"halopend" wrote:
User IPD affects the distortion so you'd still have to apply a distortion filter anyway, besides the issue of extra complexity and most likely astronomical price.

Yeah, if the required distortion pattern varies between for different people then that would be a deal breaker. If it's distance between the eyes, though, could it be solved by having two independent screens that could be physically moved closer and further apart? I think the Virtual Boy had an adjustment like this.

Are there any other user-specific factors that go into the distortion?

[Anonymous]

I hope it is at least 1440p and hopefully 90hz supported. 4K could be too much to ask for CV1 but i would take it for sure. Poor fill factors is one thing that could be improved with money. I think there is no "need" for high fill with mobile phone displays so this could be one thing that can be improved with FB's money so screendoor with lower resolutions is not so apparent. And there is no need to run game with Rifts native resolution but benefits from lower screendoor is for everyone!

[raidho36]

Actually, the technology explicitly makes IPD irrelevant. But other parameters pay role, yes, such as screen to lens distance and distance between lens centres, and lens distortion factors.

Higher resolution is not about less screendor - it's actually pretty much the LAST possible benefit, you can even eliminate SDE with DK1 using simple privacy screen.

High resolution is about picture clarity - how small (or how far) objects you can see. The most obvious example is text - with DK1 the resolution is so low that you have to make every readable text with huge font, like if there's a text 3' in front of you every character must be at least 1" in size.

[Halopend]

"shonferg" wrote:
Are there any other user-specific factors that go into the distortion?

Distance from eye-lens, distance from lens to screen also affect the distortion (though not as much).

The more I think about it the less sense what your suggesting makes though. You want to even out the "visualized PPI" to be uniform after being viewed through the lens but that means either decreasing the resolution at the centre or increasing it at the peripheral which is the exact opposite of what you want! You're talking about eliminating the 1 thing that's good about barrel distortion!!

[Anonymous]

"raidho36" wrote:

Higher resolution is not about less screendor - it's actually pretty much the LAST possible benefit, you can even eliminate SDE with DK1 using simple privacy screen.

Higher resolution is not about less screendoor WHEN it is high enough that there is no screendoor :). I have not seen good SDE reducion filters yet. Maybe it is possible but i take 4K without those and feed 1080p to it.

[shonferg]

"halopend" wrote:

"shonferg" wrote:
Are there any other user-specific factors that go into the distortion?

Distance from eye-lens, distance from lens to screen also affect the distortion (though not as much).

The more I think about it the less sense what your suggesting makes though. You want to even out the "visualized PPI" to be uniform after being viewed through the lens but that means either decreasing the resolution at the centre or increasing it at the peripheral which is the exact opposite of what you want! You're talking about eliminating the 1 thing that's good about barrel distortion!!

Your point about barrel distortion is definitely a good one, but I'm not sure whether it would really make a functional difference if the game is being rendered at the resolution of the panel. If the game is being rendered internally at 1080p, and the screen is 1080p, then there's no way that a distortion filter could add detail. You're right that extra resolution near the edges seems wasted, but pixels that are never used at the corners of the screen are also a waste. The benefit, though, is that all the pixels are exactly lined up with the output of the video card, so there is no interpolation and everything is crisper.

Now if you're questioning whether the final result of doing this would be better than the final result of just increasing the resolution everywhere, then you're probably right that it wouldn't. The only thing that makes that difficult is the capability of GPUs to output enough pixels to make that level of detail feasible, so I was trying to think of a different way to make things more clear without further taxing GPUs.

Perhaps enough resolution would make a significant different in the sharpness of the output without even needed to increase the actual resolution that the game renders at. Basically draw the game at 1080p, but write the distortion filter into a much bigger target. Or maybe rendering the center of the view separately from the periphery and merging the results could work.

[Alci]

also I would ask how you want to connect this. HDMI 1.4b cannot transfer that kind of data. Not sure if HDMI 2.0 can. And not many GPU can handle that today. And I don't believe they want CV1 to have a GTX8xx as minīmal requirement.