3 ms·
Depends on the field of view angle you want to achive, but 8K is unlikely to be enough. Back in 2015 Michael Abrash said: In order for it to have retinal reso
by Strom 6y ago
Depends on the field of view angle you want to achive, but 8K is unlikely to be enough.
Back in 2015 Michael Abrash said:
In order for it to have retinal resolution across a field of view of 180 degrees it would have to have something on the order of 16K by 16K resolution [per eye]. [1]
--
[1] https://youtu.be/UDu-cnXI8E8?t=4232 https://youtu.be/UDu-cnXI8E8?t=4232
- bostonsre 6y ago> Apple will liberally use an already-known VR technique that involves using eye-tracking to render objects in the user's periphery at a lower fidelity than what the user is focusing on. Should be enough if they don't have to render that full view, but only what the retina is focusing on I would think.
- jacquesm 6y agoWhich suggest and interesting solution: a very small high res display surrounded by much lower res areas that can move around in such a way that it always sits right where the eye is looking.
- spaethnl 6y agoI think it would be easier, more reliable, and more energy efficient to wait for microled displays, which seem to be right around the corner. I get the impression that they might be available by the end of the year or next year, and might be something Apple has access to?
- xsmasher 6y agothat solves the gpu problem of high-resolution rendering and the bandwidth issue, but is the density of pixels in the display enough to fool the eye?