4 ms·

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

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...
        robocat 9y ago
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

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...
      - robocat 9y ago

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