7 ms·

Monitor resolution and frame rate inflation seem to have endpoints at 4K or 8K and 144Hz. Scene detail still has some way to go before diminishing returns and s

by TwoBit 6y ago

Monitor resolution and frame rate inflation seem to have endpoints at 4K or 8K and 144Hz. Scene detail still has some way to go before diminishing returns and so that will consume years of hardware evolution. I agree with you in principle but I don't think we're within a decade of that yet.

modeless 6y ago
VR/AR will continue past 8K to 16K and beyond. 240+ Hz will be desirable there too. We're going to need to keep squeezing the hardware for all it's worth for the foreseeable future. I doubt there will be "sufficiently powerful" hardware to drive that kind of workload without heroic optimization work within my lifetime.
- extropy 6y ago
  Nah, the human eye has only ~5 MPix worth of sensors, most of them grayscale at that. We just need inexpensive eye tracking and foveated rendering. https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human...
  - carlhjerpe 6y ago
    But our eyes can move, so while we might not need to render and update XXk@xxxHz we still need the display to have that resolution wherever we look right?
    - joefourier 6y ago
      No, because you don’t need to render at full resolution where you’re not looking. That’s the appeal of foveated rendering, you just render say, a tiny 1080p region where you’re currently looking, and render the rest also at 1080p but stretched out over your entire FOV, and with fast enough frame rate and eye tracking, plus a decent blending algorithm, it will be unnoticeable.
      - carlhjerpe 6y ago
        I'm sorry if I wasn't explicit enough. What i meant is that we still need the display to have "the 16k" amount of pixels so that we can have the superhigh ppi wherever we choose to look. We indeed would only need to render high quality in a small percentage around where the eye is looking.
        joefourier 6y ago
        My bad, I see what you mean. You're quite right, although there is some research in using MEMS to move the projected foveated region physically, which would remove the need for ultra-high density displays.
    - leetrout 6y ago
      Which headsets have you used? I’ve found I don’t move my eyes as much in the oculus quest but it could just be I’m conditioned at this point. In earlier headsets it was more narrow field of view and maybe that made it feel more obvious when my eyes were moving.
      - carlhjerpe 6y ago
        I've used the Quest 2 and i did move my eyes when playing games with it. I don't know of screens with different pixel density in different areas either if we were to assume people always look straight ahead.
  - hyperpallium2 6y ago
    Our retina and occipital cortex undo a lot of rendering (e.g. line detection), therefore, a theory: It will take such a long time to get realistic VR, that we will have direct neural interfaces that are much simpler because they can skip the encoding/decoding. \tanget And perhaps at higher semantic neurons, so we can just invoke the concept of "cool graphics" without actually having to simulate it...
- TwoBit 6y ago
  I disagee about 240Hz for VR. Who is saying that? Oculus hasn't said it and they know more about practical VR than anybody.
Ygg2 6y ago
I think after 144Hz, you hit a point of really diminishing returns. Like is it possible in blind test to feel 240Hz vs 144Hz? It might give you in game like 1% advantage for +100% the costs.
- dmytroi 6y ago
  FWIW tried testufo [0] with Samsung G7, 240Hz vs 144Hz was very noticeable on image and text scrolling tests. I guess for a person who never seen 240Hz it would be hard to identify it in a blind test, but after you've seen how the images/text looks like in scrolling, it's trivially identifiable. - [0] testufo.com
  - codetrotter 6y ago
    240 is not evenly divisible by 144. Curious to know if 240 vs 120 Hz is more or less noticeable on a 240 Hz monitor than 240 vs 144 Hz on a 240 Hz monitor.
    - doikor 6y ago
      With games as long as you have good enough hardware to run the game at a steady frame rate you want it being divisible by some magic number does not matter. Also the old "standard" Hz for games is 60hz so going to 120 and then to 240 is the "natural" steps. The old 144hz goal was/is nice if you want to display 24fps (movies) content but games don't work like that. They display correctly without any judder/pulldown at whatever frame rate you want (as long as you have the hardware to run it at that rate)
    - q-big 6y ago
      > 240 is not evenly divisible by 144. Sounds like the beginning of a sales pitch for a 720 Hz display. :-)
  - Ygg2 6y ago
    But that's the point. If in a blind test you can't tell the difference, then there is very little to no perceptible difference. If testufo was randomized with multiple repeating patterns and random offsets, it could be a much better test. Here you can accidentally bias yourself.
the8472 6y ago
> Monitor resolution and frame rate inflation seem to have endpoints at 4K or 8K and 144Hz. laughs in light fields

by TwoBit 6y ago

modeless 6y ago

VR/AR will continue past 8K to 16K and beyond. 240+ Hz will be desirable there too. We're going to need to keep squeezing the hardware for all it's worth for the foreseeable future. I doubt there will be "sufficiently powerful" hardware to drive that kind of workload without heroic optimization work within my lifetime.

extropy 6y ago
Nah, the human eye has only ~5 MPix worth of sensors, most of them grayscale at that. We just need inexpensive eye tracking and foveated rendering. https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human...
- carlhjerpe 6y ago
  But our eyes can move, so while we might not need to render and update XXk@xxxHz we still need the display to have that resolution wherever we look right?
  - joefourier 6y ago
    No, because you don’t need to render at full resolution where you’re not looking. That’s the appeal of foveated rendering, you just render say, a tiny 1080p region where you’re currently looking, and render the rest also at 1080p but stretched out over your entire FOV, and with fast enough frame rate and eye tracking, plus a decent blending algorithm, it will be unnoticeable.
    - carlhjerpe 6y ago
      I'm sorry if I wasn't explicit enough. What i meant is that we still need the display to have "the 16k" amount of pixels so that we can have the superhigh ppi wherever we choose to look. We indeed would only need to render high quality in a small percentage around where the eye is looking.
      - joefourier 6y ago
        My bad, I see what you mean. You're quite right, although there is some research in using MEMS to move the projected foveated region physically, which would remove the need for ultra-high density displays.
  - leetrout 6y ago
    Which headsets have you used? I’ve found I don’t move my eyes as much in the oculus quest but it could just be I’m conditioned at this point. In earlier headsets it was more narrow field of view and maybe that made it feel more obvious when my eyes were moving.
    - carlhjerpe 6y ago
      I've used the Quest 2 and i did move my eyes when playing games with it. I don't know of screens with different pixel density in different areas either if we were to assume people always look straight ahead.
- hyperpallium2 6y ago
  Our retina and occipital cortex undo a lot of rendering (e.g. line detection), therefore, a theory: It will take such a long time to get realistic VR, that we will have direct neural interfaces that are much simpler because they can skip the encoding/decoding. \tanget And perhaps at higher semantic neurons, so we can just invoke the concept of "cool graphics" without actually having to simulate it...
TwoBit 6y ago
I disagee about 240Hz for VR. Who is saying that? Oculus hasn't said it and they know more about practical VR than anybody.

Ygg2 6y ago

I think after 144Hz, you hit a point of really diminishing returns. Like is it possible in blind test to feel 240Hz vs 144Hz? It might give you in game like 1% advantage for +100% the costs.

dmytroi 6y ago
FWIW tried testufo [0] with Samsung G7, 240Hz vs 144Hz was very noticeable on image and text scrolling tests. I guess for a person who never seen 240Hz it would be hard to identify it in a blind test, but after you've seen how the images/text looks like in scrolling, it's trivially identifiable. - [0] testufo.com
- codetrotter 6y ago
  240 is not evenly divisible by 144. Curious to know if 240 vs 120 Hz is more or less noticeable on a 240 Hz monitor than 240 vs 144 Hz on a 240 Hz monitor.
  - doikor 6y ago
    With games as long as you have good enough hardware to run the game at a steady frame rate you want it being divisible by some magic number does not matter. Also the old "standard" Hz for games is 60hz so going to 120 and then to 240 is the "natural" steps. The old 144hz goal was/is nice if you want to display 24fps (movies) content but games don't work like that. They display correctly without any judder/pulldown at whatever frame rate you want (as long as you have the hardware to run it at that rate)
  - q-big 6y ago
    > 240 is not evenly divisible by 144. Sounds like the beginning of a sales pitch for a 720 Hz display. :-)
- Ygg2 6y ago
  But that's the point. If in a blind test you can't tell the difference, then there is very little to no perceptible difference. If testufo was randomized with multiple repeating patterns and random offsets, it could be a much better test. Here you can accidentally bias yourself.

the8472 6y ago

> Monitor resolution and frame rate inflation seem to have endpoints at 4K or 8K and 144Hz. laughs in light fields