14 ms·

Google and LG creates VR AMOLED 120 Hz at 5500 x 3000

247 points by methyl 9y ago

madengr 9y ago
That’s pretty impressive. The current generation of VR is too pixelated. Hopefully this will fix that. Now only the GPU needs to keep up. Note 60 GHz link on the Vive Pro.
- egeozcan 9y ago
  I'm afraid that we'd need to see the performance jump that came with the latest generation of nVidia cards many times to be able to get there. Even a single 2160p 144Hz monitor is hard to satisfy unless we are talking about an SLI configuration, which is extremely costly given the high demand caused by people after easy money.
zitterbewegung 9y ago
The specs sound impressive and would truely make VR much more complelling (I have an oculus rift and the resolution is noticable even on low spec games). On the other hand I would wait until actual units are out there but it doesn't seem that outlandish that Google and LG would be unable to pull this off. I assume this is targeted to the gaming market because at those specs unless you sell it at a loss the MSRP is going to be at least $500. I wonder if this signals Google entring into the VR arena as a publisher to compete with Oculus. I know that also VR is used for Advertisements and they have engagement for properly setup ads for VR as 5 minutes or more so maybe they will be pushing on that front. From what I have seen from Google their VR has mostly been focused on mobile so them focusing on the high end market is really interesting.
- ganoushoreilly 9y ago
  I would also add that the price of the panel is one thing, the price of the systems needed to drive those resolutions is another. I wonder how they'll pull off appropriate frame rates at that resolution per panel.
  - assblaster 9y ago
    All you need is a hardware upscaler in the display cable to take lower resolution up to native resolution of this display. Clarity isn't as important as getting rid of the screen door effect.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      This can't be overstated. You can achieve really convincing presence with nothing but flat shaded primitives, but the effect is greatly diminished if it appears there's something external in your field of view. The other bonus here is that with the huge resolution bump, other use cases become available. Reading text in VR is tricky with the shipping headsets right now, but with this, a virtual desktop could be realistic.
    - tgb 9y ago
      This seems like a dumb question, but why is it that SDE (screen door effect) is dependent upon resolution? It seems to me like extremely high resolutions would force SDE to be solved but that SDE could also be solved by making "fatter" pixels at the same PPI. The cheapest way to do that would presumably be some slightly diffusive layer on top of the screen that diffuses by about 1/2 the distance between pixels. This seems like such a simple solution that it would have been tried already though, so why is the focus on resolution?
      - assblaster 9y ago
        The diffuser will blur the image, the opposite of what you want. Higher resolution screen with upscaled input does not sacrifice clarity for blur/no SDE. Upscaled input won't have as high detail as a higher resolution input, but the performance gains of the upscaled input far outweigh the negatives.
        tgb 9y ago
        It seems like there should be a middle ground where you blur enough to remove SDE but not enough so that pixels overlap. The whole problem with SDE is that there is a perceptible gap between pixels - blur will spread the pixel over the gap but the gap is what ensures that the pixels do not become blurred ontop of each other. I assume this doesn't work in practice (since I don't think anyone is doing it), so I'd be interested in an argument for why it doesn't. Conceivably, a higher resolution display would have a worse SDE than a lower one. If the pixels became smaller, then the gaps between pixels could get worse even if there are more pixels per inch. For example, [1] shows a game of Tetris played on a building and the problem with it is not that the resolution is low, but that the pixels have too gaps between them. Doubling the resolution would only help a little but make each pixel a big square instead of a dot would help immensely. A diffusive screen over that building could help potentially quite a lot. This is obviously an absurdly exaggerated scenario. [1] https://mashable.com/2014/04/06/building-tetris-philadelphia/#4e4MG2w7tsqF https://mashable.com/2014/04/06/building-tetris-philadelphia...
- roymurdock 9y ago
  > their VR has mostly been focused on mobile so them focusing on the high end market is really interesting The one consistent thing about Google's VR/AR strategy so far is that it's extremely inconsistent. Different groups within Google are taking a lot of shots on different technologies and form factors with different partners. Some examples include Google Glass (built by Google X, now revived as Glass X for Enterprise) which was supposed to be picked up by Tony Fadell of Nest who then ended up leaving Google altogether, Google Cardboard (a side project by 2 smart Google France engineers for a conference), Google Dream w/ Daydream View, Google Tango (built by ATAP group and shut down after announcement of ARCore), and now ARCore w/ Asus and LG. There is no discernible Google VR/AR strategy other than - let's see what bubbles up from different dev groups and, when needed, react to market forces (ARCore was a direct reaction to Apple's ARKit). IMO until Google really "focuses" on VR/AR with a dedicated group and strategy this new tech will remain a sideshow without much traction.
  - OkGoDoIt 9y ago
    Of course that’s a problem with all of Google, not just VR. The last major top-down strategic direction they had was social, and that didn’t go very well.
  - zitterbewegung 9y ago
    Their inconsistency can be a result of them releasing products not to actually have a consumer goal but to just collect massive amounts of data and killing it when they are done.
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    >There is no discernible Google VR/AR strategy other than - let's see what bubbles up from different dev groups and, when needed, react to market forces. Clay Bavor's presentation at Google I/O[1] and SID Display Week[2] seems to outline their strategy concerning AR/VR pretty well. >Some examples include Google Glass Released in 2013 and pivoted to enterprise use. Now under the control of the Google hardware division. >Tony Fadell of Nest who then ended up leaving Google altogether Yes, he did leave Google, but only after being assigned to the roof. >Google Cardboard (a side project by 2 smart Google France engineers for a conference) A low cost VR solution developed in 2014 by two Googlers during their 20% innovation time off. I believe it's also the most widely used VR solution in the world. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tto90e-DfeM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tto90e-DfeM [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlADpD1fvuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlADpD1fvuA
notthemessiah 9y ago
At this point, I'd be more concerned with improving the optics: lenses that don't smudge and don't have the Fresnel lens flaring, or perhaps even with a wider field of view.
- tikumo 9y ago
  this has impact in lenses as well, because with high enough resolution you could emulate lenses on the screen.
  - cornellwright 9y ago
    You can't "emulate lenses on a screen" unless it's a lightfield display (which it's not). With higher resolution you could correct for more lens distortion, but you still need lenses, and you won't be able to fix lens flare on fresnel lenses.
  - Dude2023 9y ago
    Interesting, I wonder whether dynamically adjustable lenses can be used to treat vision problems.
  - simias 9y ago
    You'll have to give me more details about that, because that seems physically impossible to me (at least with the common definition of "screen").
  - ClassyJacket 9y ago
    I quite sure that's physically impossible with an oled display.
- reificator 9y ago
  Improving resolution allows for reading text smaller than a billboard. FOV and lens flare are bad, but text is a higher priority IMO.
nwah1 9y ago
Fantastic. I've heard that to truly remove the awkwardness of VR, the refresh rates need to go as high as possible. 240hz would be better, and I've heard it argued that 1024hz is optimal. Also, with high enough resolutions, you don't need anti-aliasing. This is pretty close to 8K, which is probably around the time that anti-aliasing stops mattering.
- simias 9y ago
  I've never found the framerate of my Rift to be a problem however I'd gladly trade it for something with better resolution and improved contrast and brigtness. That being said my high-end gaming PC (using a GTX1080) struggles to maintain native framerate in demanding games without reprojection on the Rift, I can't imagine what kind of futuristic computer you'll need to drive 5500x3000@120Hz in VR. Let's hope the cryptocurrency mining gold rush will have subdued by then.
  - Filligree 9y ago
    Foveated rendering should help a lot, but you'll still definitely need a powerful one.
  - psyc 9y ago
    Per-pixel operations in games have become extremely expensive in the quest for ever more impressive rendering. That gives lots of room to scale back, and still provide a very immersive experience, just with more modest rendering.
sexydefinesher 9y ago
Now we just need a decade or two until consumer computing power can actually power it.
- MajorSauce 9y ago
  Even with a lower rendered resolution, this would kill any spec of Screen Door Effect left on the current generation of VR headsets (talking about the Samsung Odyssey and the Vive Pro).
- vbezhenar 9y ago
  Isn't it a very scalable problem? Just put more processors to GPU.
  - sp332 9y ago
    Right but "consumer" implies a price point, which is not very scalable.
  - harrygeez 9y ago
    The impact on your wallet scales too.
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  Or foveated rendering. That'll probably be commonplace in far less than a decade.
Analemma_ 9y ago
Does anyone have the GPUs to drive this tech though? I've been thinking lately that the main reason why the 2015-2016 hype about VR completely flamed out is that, on top of the ~$500 headset, you needed a new ~$1500 gaming PC to do anything with it. As a result, not enough consumers got on board to kickstart the virtuous cycle of more consumers -> more spending dollars -> more content developers -> more attractive content -> more consumers. The kind of GPU you'll need to drive a 5500x3000 display at 120 Hz certainly isn't going to help with that.
- egeozcan 9y ago
  Quad 1080Ti cards... Oh wait, even if you were able to afford it, they don't support it anymore do they? It's simply not possible to drive those with the current tech, I guess?
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Nvidia doesn't support it, but they don't have to. Vulkan allows game developers to spread the load across all GPUs, if they wish to. You can do SLI with 8 1080Tis, an intel iGPU and an RX VEGA all together without issues
    - reificator 9y ago
      Without issues is probably stretching the truth a bit.
      - kuschku 9y ago
        Well, it’s entirely up to the developer – you won’t have any issues with the driver, or of similar nature. In contrast to SLI, where the driver frequently was the cause of issues.
        egeozcan 9y ago
        How's the reality situation? I mean, are there any games which run perfectly on a random GPU array?
Jyaif 9y ago
For the people worrying about GPU usage, it also says "Foveated driving logic for VR and AR applications was implemented".
- egeozcan 9y ago
  I had to google foveated driving logic: It means tracking the user’s eye movements and only rendering the most central area to the eye in high-definition. Source: https://www.roadtovr.com/google-shares-new-research-foveated-rendering-techniques/ https://www.roadtovr.com/google-shares-new-research-foveated...
  - kyrra 9y ago
    Real source: https://research.googleblog.com/2017/12/introducing-new-foveation-pipeline-for.html https://research.googleblog.com/2017/12/introducing-new-fove... (the one you linked came up first for me too when searching around, took a little more digging to find the original article).
  - boobsbr 9y ago
    That sounds really nice.
  - mistercow 9y ago
    Huh, I've been wondering for like a decade if we'd start doing this, but the eye-tracking latency must have to be insane.
  - mnx 9y ago
    Is this foveated as in Field-Of-View-ated?
    - gordo4 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis
      - 9y ago
VikingCoder 9y ago
To be clear, is this per-eye? It's got to be, right? A single 4.3 inch isn't big enough for VR, right?
- Tuna-Fish 9y ago
  The size of the screen isn't very relevant, because for proper use there needs to be a lot of lenses between the screen and your eyes, and they can use those lenses to magnify the screen to whatever field of view they want. Mostly a smaller screen just makes the headset smaller.
no1youknowz 9y ago
As a home user who has a passing interest in VR. I would throw down a bunch of cash to get something like a STAR VR setup for watching TV/movies. Something that can give immediate immersion when put on, scaled down, lightweight/comfortable, portable and can last around 5 hours would be a great first step. [0]: https://www.starvr.com https://www.starvr.com
xenostar 9y ago
I'm looking forward to the next generation of VR headsets immensly. A lot of people have been quick to jump on the "VR is already dead" train, but having picked one up during Christmas this year, it's obvious how much potential is there. There are a few things that need to be accomplished before widespread adoption: - Removal of wires. It restricts movement too much and removes immersion. The new HTC headset is a step toward this. - Higher resolution screens. VR AMOLEDs like this are a step in the right direction. - Prices for GPUs need to go down, and/or a few more years are needed for average computers to be able to render high frame-rates without breaking the bank. - Headsets need to be lighter and smaller. - Removal of sensor placement the room. This will be harder to do, but cameras/sensors built on the headsets themselves could potentially accomplish this. The way I see it, we're in the iPhone 1 stage of VR right now. Imagine the iPhone X version: lighter, smaller, higher resolution, more colors, higher frame-rate, less hassle. These are all inevitabilities, and at that point it will become much easier to adopt the technology. We're also missing a true "killer app" that will get people to purchase a headset JUST for that. I think it will take some sort of truly massive MMO the likes of WoW to accomplish that. The future is definitely exciting in this field. I hope hardware vendors don't give up and can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
- non_sequitur 9y ago
  I dont think we're even in iPhone 1 stage - more like Motorola Razr (the old one, back in 2004/05). The real cool stuff is barely even being thought of now, let alone built and sold. Also, in a perfect world this will all just be a transition step before we get full on holodecks.
  - robeastham 9y ago
    The other thing that needs to happen is that the skill, time and money required to create quality VR & AR content needs to be significantly reduced. This will come with time too. We're doing our own small part to try and make that happen with our automated 3D scanning platform (http://realityzero.one http://realityzero.one)
    - 9y ago
RubberShoes 9y ago
We've been working with Google to create content that can harness these new specs: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLL-lmlkrmJalNqp7Q_dLAzQNjBqZk2FA4 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLL-lmlkrmJalNqp7Q_dLA...
kalkut 9y ago
The specs are nice but I wonder if it can work well on games with current high end computers. If they really release it I will most likely buy it though. I think that this kind of headset is meaningful for both VR power users and developers but Google and Facebook should focus on non gaming content to attract a wider audience. Facebook is in the odd position where they could make a WebVR social killer app over night but they won't because they really badly want to become the Apple of VR with their Oculus Store. I think that they will regret this strategy in the future. That or they will have to cash billions out once more to acquire a company that found out what to do with this tech.
naoru 9y ago
Everyone says that a powerful GPU is needed to drive this thing, but I don't think that's a must. Careful art direction based on current hardware limitations can produce nice-looking virtual worlds — not photorealistic, but still immersive and fun. Nintendo pulls this thing consistently.
- bni 9y ago
  This is so true. Case in point: Brass Tactics uses cartoonish "game of thrones intro" graphics that is quite optimized. A current graphics card can even render the game world from a different overhead view on the monitor, with capacity to spare.
- phkahler 9y ago
  I would love to walk around in a VR world that looked like the old vector displays. Slightly glowing wire frames but with occlusion. This technically doesn't even need polygon rendering, though doing so with mostly black textures except the edges might be cool. At todays resolutions I think small cylinders along the edges of flat black surfaces might look better. And that's just one stylized world that doesn't require a mammoth GPU to handle.
- kalkut 9y ago
  I absolutely agree ! I do see the appeal of photorealism but lots of excellent 3D experiences are far from photorealism. A sensible art direction can go very far, and I'd even argue that a less than ideal graphical experience can be forgiven if the content is meaningful and engaging enough. I think we all have examples of this in mind
- bhouston 9y ago
  > Everyone says that a powerful GPU is needed to drive this thing, but I don't think that's a must. It is not a must, but it is a mostly. Most people want something approaching realism by default. Stylism is okay but it isn't the primary use case. The video game sales show this. Top selling games are mostly ultra realistic, Witcher, Call of Duty, Modern Warfare, Battlefront, etc. Yes there is Nintendo's low end strategy but most are ultra realistic.
- 9y ago
ksec 9y ago
Gaming today is big. So big I dont think anyone forsee this coming. And VR is going to push this into another level. I would have loved Apple to capture on this, as they stand to be the company that makes software and hardware well integrated. The problem is Apple has never gave a damn about gaming. They say they do, but they dont. And It isn't their priority, it isn't in their DNA. ( I bet none of the VPs are gamers of any sort ). Nintendo could be another fit. But they are always lacking in Hardware and VR is very much hardware limited.
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Think Google is going to need to develop some custom silicon to drive this level of resolution and not going to be easy.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  It would seem they've already developed it. A custom high bandwidth driver IC was fabricated. Foveated driving logic for VR and AR applications was implemented.
- amygdyl 9y ago
  This was the first thought I had, also, but from a optimistic point of view: If you are interested in modelling the behaviour of a modern fabric loom, which can be a four storey high proposition with thousands of spindles feeding air guided bobbins, where the weight of the threads in your weave design affects the entire process, the way your thread hangs requires a different tension, how it stretches affects the feed and speed with which the bobbin can fly through the weft (vertical line frame into which the pattern is woven) and the elasticity and friction tension the weft sometimes intentionally... I am willing to bet it would suit me if the visual rendering is put on ASICS or FPGAs, while the physical modelling for cloth behaviour might be a more general purpose solution.
jayd16 9y ago
Everyone is talking about gaming but these are the kinds of resolutions you need for monitor replacement and more business related tasks.
- amygdyl 9y ago
  Assuming that color management is seriously addressed. But depth is a multiplier that the hardware requirements discussion has possibly overlooked: I see most calculations above use 8 bits per channel, but 12 bits per channel is the range of professional video production, it 4:4:4 signal. Panasonic's little GH5-s just announced records in 4:2:2 for 64* the color information of consumer 8 bit cams. (Note the -s designation, the difference is all important. This video dedicated variant seems to have been launched without any leaks whatsoever, but garnered across the board coverage immediately. The importance of the camera has been list unfortunately to fresher news from Fujifilm and Sony, but the impact on the video formats (sensor size, lens mount,codec, workflow bandwidth) game may be significant. As a result the price of capturing a signal you can apply the same quality of 3D blue screen graphics to, has plummeted. I know that the Sony A7ii has comparable capability at only four times the price but the recording of the full signal is bored, shifting the cheapest option to be ten times the price of this sweet little thing. No skin in this game except it's made a project long in development, finally viable) We're much more susceptible to color information errors in terms of accepting new realities, once the other hurdles are overcome. This is because we're a part of the color information equation that leads to difficulty such as perceptual models, and equivalence elipses... 64 times the color information, anyhow is the fact that you deal with when matching your talent plus a blue screen background and CGI animated effects or infographics, which is the standard set-up in many studios. I'm no longer able to ask clarification personally from a friend but I believe that Sky News's anchor desk is virtual for some time now. The color 'depth" is vital to create convincing mattes for consumption and the difference is instantly recognisable by most people over normal broadcast television. We're that good at adjusting for color variations that we jank bad on inconsistencies. I can immediately think of the kind of application for which custom rendering hardware can get orders at the kind of tickets that might drive developments. High end fabric weaving is one. This can involve looms four stories high being fed by hundreds of bobbins. Threads are woven into the (vertical) by air suspension carried shuttles to create the complex wefts the industry is thriving on to meet with insatiable consumer demand for high value patterns in short quantity. Set-up and teardown costs are considerable. Color matching and selection, particularly in combination and in combination with varying reflectance and absorption spectra which interact including by means of elasticity which also governs shuttle speed and hence overall weaving rates is a scientific application of significant commercial value. I can imagine thread suppliers wanting to deliver hardware modeller boards for the color properties, and high end FPGAs would be entirely justifiable to protect decades of research investment. Being able to make interactive vr selections for new designs could make or break the most successful cloth manufacturers, all of whom need to capture the fast moving and ephemeral fashion orders. In printing for magazines as well, I know that press proofing is often a vital role in contract with new and existing print supply alike. The sheer cost of errors, which if as late as being found in the make ready for a run are highly hazardous to anyone who has thin margins, let alone the drama of stopping a scheduled run with a bigger customer running right behind you... this is the single least appreciated cost involved in magazine production and technology has been too long almost about to resolve the risks. Too long to save smaller print shops. Too long to keep many independant publishers afloat. And it's a primary tech barrier to trading advertising positions independently. I used a Symbolics xl1200 when new, and I disagree with the online inflation calculators, believing they are far too conservative. I would suggest that$120K in 1986 is more than $239,000 today. Twice that at least and maybe ten times. My hundred thousand dollars apartment went up sixteen fold in the same time. You can get a lot of hardware for the current market value of that lispM, today. If you accept my high end estimate of$1MM then I think people will build aggressive designs for the abilities this kind of display technology will encourage.
cov21 9y ago
I am wondering why all VR device is designed like a glass. Isn't it more comfortable to the user if we design it like a helmet?
- matte_black 9y ago
  No helmets are heavy and get hot and sweaty very fast.
walrus01 9y ago
From a GPU perspective this is going to require some powerful hardware to drive. If you look at the 3D game benchmarks for the geforce1080 vs the 1080ti (and slightly overclocked, more expensive versions of the 1080ti), the only video card that will actually deliver close to a consistent 60 Hz at 3840x2160 on a SINGLE DISPLAY is a 1080ti. Now multiply that by two screens, and a resolution per screen that is considerably higher than standard 4K.
lindskogen 9y ago
I want this so bad

247 points by methyl 9y ago

That’s pretty impressive. The current generation of VR is too pixelated. Hopefully this will fix that. Now only the GPU needs to keep up. Note 60 GHz link on the Vive Pro.

egeozcan 9y ago
I'm afraid that we'd need to see the performance jump that came with the latest generation of nVidia cards many times to be able to get there. Even a single 2160p 144Hz monitor is hard to satisfy unless we are talking about an SLI configuration, which is extremely costly given the high demand caused by people after easy money.

zitterbewegung 9y ago

The specs sound impressive and would truely make VR much more complelling (I have an oculus rift and the resolution is noticable even on low spec games). On the other hand I would wait until actual units are out there but it doesn't seem that outlandish that Google and LG would be unable to pull this off. I assume this is targeted to the gaming market because at those specs unless you sell it at a loss the MSRP is going to be at least $500. I wonder if this signals Google entring into the VR arena as a publisher to compete with Oculus. I know that also VR is used for Advertisements and they have engagement for properly setup ads for VR as 5 minutes or more so maybe they will be pushing on that front. From what I have seen from Google their VR has mostly been focused on mobile so them focusing on the high end market is really interesting.

ganoushoreilly 9y ago
I would also add that the price of the panel is one thing, the price of the systems needed to drive those resolutions is another. I wonder how they'll pull off appropriate frame rates at that resolution per panel.
- assblaster 9y ago
  All you need is a hardware upscaler in the display cable to take lower resolution up to native resolution of this display. Clarity isn't as important as getting rid of the screen door effect.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    This can't be overstated. You can achieve really convincing presence with nothing but flat shaded primitives, but the effect is greatly diminished if it appears there's something external in your field of view. The other bonus here is that with the huge resolution bump, other use cases become available. Reading text in VR is tricky with the shipping headsets right now, but with this, a virtual desktop could be realistic.
  - tgb 9y ago
    This seems like a dumb question, but why is it that SDE (screen door effect) is dependent upon resolution? It seems to me like extremely high resolutions would force SDE to be solved but that SDE could also be solved by making "fatter" pixels at the same PPI. The cheapest way to do that would presumably be some slightly diffusive layer on top of the screen that diffuses by about 1/2 the distance between pixels. This seems like such a simple solution that it would have been tried already though, so why is the focus on resolution?
    - assblaster 9y ago
      The diffuser will blur the image, the opposite of what you want. Higher resolution screen with upscaled input does not sacrifice clarity for blur/no SDE. Upscaled input won't have as high detail as a higher resolution input, but the performance gains of the upscaled input far outweigh the negatives.
      - tgb 9y ago
        It seems like there should be a middle ground where you blur enough to remove SDE but not enough so that pixels overlap. The whole problem with SDE is that there is a perceptible gap between pixels - blur will spread the pixel over the gap but the gap is what ensures that the pixels do not become blurred ontop of each other. I assume this doesn't work in practice (since I don't think anyone is doing it), so I'd be interested in an argument for why it doesn't. Conceivably, a higher resolution display would have a worse SDE than a lower one. If the pixels became smaller, then the gaps between pixels could get worse even if there are more pixels per inch. For example, [1] shows a game of Tetris played on a building and the problem with it is not that the resolution is low, but that the pixels have too gaps between them. Doubling the resolution would only help a little but make each pixel a big square instead of a dot would help immensely. A diffusive screen over that building could help potentially quite a lot. This is obviously an absurdly exaggerated scenario. [1] https://mashable.com/2014/04/06/building-tetris-philadelphia/#4e4MG2w7tsqF https://mashable.com/2014/04/06/building-tetris-philadelphia...
roymurdock 9y ago
> their VR has mostly been focused on mobile so them focusing on the high end market is really interesting The one consistent thing about Google's VR/AR strategy so far is that it's extremely inconsistent. Different groups within Google are taking a lot of shots on different technologies and form factors with different partners. Some examples include Google Glass (built by Google X, now revived as Glass X for Enterprise) which was supposed to be picked up by Tony Fadell of Nest who then ended up leaving Google altogether, Google Cardboard (a side project by 2 smart Google France engineers for a conference), Google Dream w/ Daydream View, Google Tango (built by ATAP group and shut down after announcement of ARCore), and now ARCore w/ Asus and LG. There is no discernible Google VR/AR strategy other than - let's see what bubbles up from different dev groups and, when needed, react to market forces (ARCore was a direct reaction to Apple's ARKit). IMO until Google really "focuses" on VR/AR with a dedicated group and strategy this new tech will remain a sideshow without much traction.
- OkGoDoIt 9y ago
  Of course that’s a problem with all of Google, not just VR. The last major top-down strategic direction they had was social, and that didn’t go very well.
- zitterbewegung 9y ago
  Their inconsistency can be a result of them releasing products not to actually have a consumer goal but to just collect massive amounts of data and killing it when they are done.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  >There is no discernible Google VR/AR strategy other than - let's see what bubbles up from different dev groups and, when needed, react to market forces. Clay Bavor's presentation at Google I/O[1] and SID Display Week[2] seems to outline their strategy concerning AR/VR pretty well. >Some examples include Google Glass Released in 2013 and pivoted to enterprise use. Now under the control of the Google hardware division. >Tony Fadell of Nest who then ended up leaving Google altogether Yes, he did leave Google, but only after being assigned to the roof. >Google Cardboard (a side project by 2 smart Google France engineers for a conference) A low cost VR solution developed in 2014 by two Googlers during their 20% innovation time off. I believe it's also the most widely used VR solution in the world. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tto90e-DfeM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tto90e-DfeM [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlADpD1fvuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlADpD1fvuA

notthemessiah 9y ago

At this point, I'd be more concerned with improving the optics: lenses that don't smudge and don't have the Fresnel lens flaring, or perhaps even with a wider field of view.

tikumo 9y ago
this has impact in lenses as well, because with high enough resolution you could emulate lenses on the screen.
- cornellwright 9y ago
  You can't "emulate lenses on a screen" unless it's a lightfield display (which it's not). With higher resolution you could correct for more lens distortion, but you still need lenses, and you won't be able to fix lens flare on fresnel lenses.
- Dude2023 9y ago
  Interesting, I wonder whether dynamically adjustable lenses can be used to treat vision problems.
- simias 9y ago
  You'll have to give me more details about that, because that seems physically impossible to me (at least with the common definition of "screen").
- ClassyJacket 9y ago
  I quite sure that's physically impossible with an oled display.
reificator 9y ago
Improving resolution allows for reading text smaller than a billboard. FOV and lens flare are bad, but text is a higher priority IMO.

nwah1 9y ago

Fantastic. I've heard that to truly remove the awkwardness of VR, the refresh rates need to go as high as possible. 240hz would be better, and I've heard it argued that 1024hz is optimal. Also, with high enough resolutions, you don't need anti-aliasing. This is pretty close to 8K, which is probably around the time that anti-aliasing stops mattering.

simias 9y ago
I've never found the framerate of my Rift to be a problem however I'd gladly trade it for something with better resolution and improved contrast and brigtness. That being said my high-end gaming PC (using a GTX1080) struggles to maintain native framerate in demanding games without reprojection on the Rift, I can't imagine what kind of futuristic computer you'll need to drive 5500x3000@120Hz in VR. Let's hope the cryptocurrency mining gold rush will have subdued by then.
- Filligree 9y ago
  Foveated rendering should help a lot, but you'll still definitely need a powerful one.
- psyc 9y ago
  Per-pixel operations in games have become extremely expensive in the quest for ever more impressive rendering. That gives lots of room to scale back, and still provide a very immersive experience, just with more modest rendering.

sexydefinesher 9y ago

Now we just need a decade or two until consumer computing power can actually power it.

MajorSauce 9y ago
Even with a lower rendered resolution, this would kill any spec of Screen Door Effect left on the current generation of VR headsets (talking about the Samsung Odyssey and the Vive Pro).
vbezhenar 9y ago
Isn't it a very scalable problem? Just put more processors to GPU.
- sp332 9y ago
  Right but "consumer" implies a price point, which is not very scalable.
- harrygeez 9y ago
  The impact on your wallet scales too.
Ajedi32 9y ago
Or foveated rendering. That'll probably be commonplace in far less than a decade.

Analemma_ 9y ago

Does anyone have the GPUs to drive this tech though? I've been thinking lately that the main reason why the 2015-2016 hype about VR completely flamed out is that, on top of the ~$500 headset, you needed a new ~$1500 gaming PC to do anything with it. As a result, not enough consumers got on board to kickstart the virtuous cycle of more consumers -> more spending dollars -> more content developers -> more attractive content -> more consumers. The kind of GPU you'll need to drive a 5500x3000 display at 120 Hz certainly isn't going to help with that.

egeozcan 9y ago
Quad 1080Ti cards... Oh wait, even if you were able to afford it, they don't support it anymore do they? It's simply not possible to drive those with the current tech, I guess?
- kuschku 9y ago
  Nvidia doesn't support it, but they don't have to. Vulkan allows game developers to spread the load across all GPUs, if they wish to. You can do SLI with 8 1080Tis, an intel iGPU and an RX VEGA all together without issues
  - reificator 9y ago
    Without issues is probably stretching the truth a bit.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Well, it’s entirely up to the developer – you won’t have any issues with the driver, or of similar nature. In contrast to SLI, where the driver frequently was the cause of issues.
      - egeozcan 9y ago
        How's the reality situation? I mean, are there any games which run perfectly on a random GPU array?

Jyaif 9y ago

For the people worrying about GPU usage, it also says "Foveated driving logic for VR and AR applications was implemented".

egeozcan 9y ago
I had to google foveated driving logic: It means tracking the user’s eye movements and only rendering the most central area to the eye in high-definition. Source: https://www.roadtovr.com/google-shares-new-research-foveated-rendering-techniques/ https://www.roadtovr.com/google-shares-new-research-foveated...
- kyrra 9y ago
  Real source: https://research.googleblog.com/2017/12/introducing-new-foveation-pipeline-for.html https://research.googleblog.com/2017/12/introducing-new-fove... (the one you linked came up first for me too when searching around, took a little more digging to find the original article).
- boobsbr 9y ago
  That sounds really nice.
- mistercow 9y ago
  Huh, I've been wondering for like a decade if we'd start doing this, but the eye-tracking latency must have to be insane.
- mnx 9y ago
  Is this foveated as in Field-Of-View-ated?
  - gordo4 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis
    - 9y ago

VikingCoder 9y ago

To be clear, is this per-eye? It's got to be, right? A single 4.3 inch isn't big enough for VR, right?

Tuna-Fish 9y ago
The size of the screen isn't very relevant, because for proper use there needs to be a lot of lenses between the screen and your eyes, and they can use those lenses to magnify the screen to whatever field of view they want. Mostly a smaller screen just makes the headset smaller.

no1youknowz 9y ago

As a home user who has a passing interest in VR. I would throw down a bunch of cash to get something like a STAR VR setup for watching TV/movies. Something that can give immediate immersion when put on, scaled down, lightweight/comfortable, portable and can last around 5 hours would be a great first step. [0]: https://www.starvr.com https://www.starvr.com

xenostar 9y ago

I'm looking forward to the next generation of VR headsets immensly. A lot of people have been quick to jump on the "VR is already dead" train, but having picked one up during Christmas this year, it's obvious how much potential is there. There are a few things that need to be accomplished before widespread adoption: - Removal of wires. It restricts movement too much and removes immersion. The new HTC headset is a step toward this. - Higher resolution screens. VR AMOLEDs like this are a step in the right direction. - Prices for GPUs need to go down, and/or a few more years are needed for average computers to be able to render high frame-rates without breaking the bank. - Headsets need to be lighter and smaller. - Removal of sensor placement the room. This will be harder to do, but cameras/sensors built on the headsets themselves could potentially accomplish this. The way I see it, we're in the iPhone 1 stage of VR right now. Imagine the iPhone X version: lighter, smaller, higher resolution, more colors, higher frame-rate, less hassle. These are all inevitabilities, and at that point it will become much easier to adopt the technology. We're also missing a true "killer app" that will get people to purchase a headset JUST for that. I think it will take some sort of truly massive MMO the likes of WoW to accomplish that. The future is definitely exciting in this field. I hope hardware vendors don't give up and can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

non_sequitur 9y ago
I dont think we're even in iPhone 1 stage - more like Motorola Razr (the old one, back in 2004/05). The real cool stuff is barely even being thought of now, let alone built and sold. Also, in a perfect world this will all just be a transition step before we get full on holodecks.
- robeastham 9y ago
  The other thing that needs to happen is that the skill, time and money required to create quality VR & AR content needs to be significantly reduced. This will come with time too. We're doing our own small part to try and make that happen with our automated 3D scanning platform (http://realityzero.one http://realityzero.one)
  - 9y ago

RubberShoes 9y ago

We've been working with Google to create content that can harness these new specs: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLL-lmlkrmJalNqp7Q_dLAzQNjBqZk2FA4 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLL-lmlkrmJalNqp7Q_dLA...

kalkut 9y ago

The specs are nice but I wonder if it can work well on games with current high end computers. If they really release it I will most likely buy it though. I think that this kind of headset is meaningful for both VR power users and developers but Google and Facebook should focus on non gaming content to attract a wider audience. Facebook is in the odd position where they could make a WebVR social killer app over night but they won't because they really badly want to become the Apple of VR with their Oculus Store. I think that they will regret this strategy in the future. That or they will have to cash billions out once more to acquire a company that found out what to do with this tech.

naoru 9y ago

Everyone says that a powerful GPU is needed to drive this thing, but I don't think that's a must. Careful art direction based on current hardware limitations can produce nice-looking virtual worlds — not photorealistic, but still immersive and fun. Nintendo pulls this thing consistently.

bni 9y ago
This is so true. Case in point: Brass Tactics uses cartoonish "game of thrones intro" graphics that is quite optimized. A current graphics card can even render the game world from a different overhead view on the monitor, with capacity to spare.
phkahler 9y ago
I would love to walk around in a VR world that looked like the old vector displays. Slightly glowing wire frames but with occlusion. This technically doesn't even need polygon rendering, though doing so with mostly black textures except the edges might be cool. At todays resolutions I think small cylinders along the edges of flat black surfaces might look better. And that's just one stylized world that doesn't require a mammoth GPU to handle.
kalkut 9y ago
I absolutely agree ! I do see the appeal of photorealism but lots of excellent 3D experiences are far from photorealism. A sensible art direction can go very far, and I'd even argue that a less than ideal graphical experience can be forgiven if the content is meaningful and engaging enough. I think we all have examples of this in mind
bhouston 9y ago
> Everyone says that a powerful GPU is needed to drive this thing, but I don't think that's a must. It is not a must, but it is a mostly. Most people want something approaching realism by default. Stylism is okay but it isn't the primary use case. The video game sales show this. Top selling games are mostly ultra realistic, Witcher, Call of Duty, Modern Warfare, Battlefront, etc. Yes there is Nintendo's low end strategy but most are ultra realistic.
9y ago

ksec 9y ago

Gaming today is big. So big I dont think anyone forsee this coming. And VR is going to push this into another level. I would have loved Apple to capture on this, as they stand to be the company that makes software and hardware well integrated. The problem is Apple has never gave a damn about gaming. They say they do, but they dont. And It isn't their priority, it isn't in their DNA. ( I bet none of the VPs are gamers of any sort ). Nintendo could be another fit. But they are always lacking in Hardware and VR is very much hardware limited.

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Think Google is going to need to develop some custom silicon to drive this level of resolution and not going to be easy.

bitmapbrother 9y ago
It would seem they've already developed it. A custom high bandwidth driver IC was fabricated. Foveated driving logic for VR and AR applications was implemented.
amygdyl 9y ago
This was the first thought I had, also, but from a optimistic point of view: If you are interested in modelling the behaviour of a modern fabric loom, which can be a four storey high proposition with thousands of spindles feeding air guided bobbins, where the weight of the threads in your weave design affects the entire process, the way your thread hangs requires a different tension, how it stretches affects the feed and speed with which the bobbin can fly through the weft (vertical line frame into which the pattern is woven) and the elasticity and friction tension the weft sometimes intentionally... I am willing to bet it would suit me if the visual rendering is put on ASICS or FPGAs, while the physical modelling for cloth behaviour might be a more general purpose solution.

jayd16 9y ago

Everyone is talking about gaming but these are the kinds of resolutions you need for monitor replacement and more business related tasks.

amygdyl 9y ago
Assuming that color management is seriously addressed. But depth is a multiplier that the hardware requirements discussion has possibly overlooked: I see most calculations above use 8 bits per channel, but 12 bits per channel is the range of professional video production, it 4:4:4 signal. Panasonic's little GH5-s just announced records in 4:2:2 for 64* the color information of consumer 8 bit cams. (Note the -s designation, the difference is all important. This video dedicated variant seems to have been launched without any leaks whatsoever, but garnered across the board coverage immediately. The importance of the camera has been list unfortunately to fresher news from Fujifilm and Sony, but the impact on the video formats (sensor size, lens mount,codec, workflow bandwidth) game may be significant. As a result the price of capturing a signal you can apply the same quality of 3D blue screen graphics to, has plummeted. I know that the Sony A7ii has comparable capability at only four times the price but the recording of the full signal is bored, shifting the cheapest option to be ten times the price of this sweet little thing. No skin in this game except it's made a project long in development, finally viable) We're much more susceptible to color information errors in terms of accepting new realities, once the other hurdles are overcome. This is because we're a part of the color information equation that leads to difficulty such as perceptual models, and equivalence elipses... 64 times the color information, anyhow is the fact that you deal with when matching your talent plus a blue screen background and CGI animated effects or infographics, which is the standard set-up in many studios. I'm no longer able to ask clarification personally from a friend but I believe that Sky News's anchor desk is virtual for some time now. The color 'depth" is vital to create convincing mattes for consumption and the difference is instantly recognisable by most people over normal broadcast television. We're that good at adjusting for color variations that we jank bad on inconsistencies. I can immediately think of the kind of application for which custom rendering hardware can get orders at the kind of tickets that might drive developments. High end fabric weaving is one. This can involve looms four stories high being fed by hundreds of bobbins. Threads are woven into the (vertical) by air suspension carried shuttles to create the complex wefts the industry is thriving on to meet with insatiable consumer demand for high value patterns in short quantity. Set-up and teardown costs are considerable. Color matching and selection, particularly in combination and in combination with varying reflectance and absorption spectra which interact including by means of elasticity which also governs shuttle speed and hence overall weaving rates is a scientific application of significant commercial value. I can imagine thread suppliers wanting to deliver hardware modeller boards for the color properties, and high end FPGAs would be entirely justifiable to protect decades of research investment. Being able to make interactive vr selections for new designs could make or break the most successful cloth manufacturers, all of whom need to capture the fast moving and ephemeral fashion orders. In printing for magazines as well, I know that press proofing is often a vital role in contract with new and existing print supply alike. The sheer cost of errors, which if as late as being found in the make ready for a run are highly hazardous to anyone who has thin margins, let alone the drama of stopping a scheduled run with a bigger customer running right behind you... this is the single least appreciated cost involved in magazine production and technology has been too long almost about to resolve the risks. Too long to save smaller print shops. Too long to keep many independant publishers afloat. And it's a primary tech barrier to trading advertising positions independently. I used a Symbolics xl1200 when new, and I disagree with the online inflation calculators, believing they are far too conservative. I would suggest that$120K in 1986 is more than $239,000 today. Twice that at least and maybe ten times. My hundred thousand dollars apartment went up sixteen fold in the same time. You can get a lot of hardware for the current market value of that lispM, today. If you accept my high end estimate of$1MM then I think people will build aggressive designs for the abilities this kind of display technology will encourage.

cov21 9y ago

I am wondering why all VR device is designed like a glass. Isn't it more comfortable to the user if we design it like a helmet?

matte_black 9y ago
No helmets are heavy and get hot and sweaty very fast.

walrus01 9y ago

From a GPU perspective this is going to require some powerful hardware to drive. If you look at the 3D game benchmarks for the geforce1080 vs the 1080ti (and slightly overclocked, more expensive versions of the 1080ti), the only video card that will actually deliver close to a consistent 60 Hz at 3840x2160 on a SINGLE DISPLAY is a 1080ti. Now multiply that by two screens, and a resolution per screen that is considerably higher than standard 4K.

lindskogen 9y ago

I want this so bad