3 ms·
> Better Way to See Pixels I'm not sure if the poster has actually used VR. Pixel density is still substandard, for two reasons: * It's easy to forget that yo
by zamalek 5y ago
> Better Way to See Pixels
I'm not sure if the poster has actually used VR. Pixel density is still substandard, for two reasons:
* It's easy to forget that you have to drive two displays. Double the resolution, half the framerate, double the nausea. If you choose lower pixel density, then your users will enjoy pixel grid. Keep in mind that the pixel grid was a big issue for the Vive (the last HMD that I owned), at 2K per-eye.
* Manufacturing processes: we have to be able to make smaller pixels in the first place.
We need way more graphical power in more efficient cores. Apple will need to seriously push the GPU envelope on their next chip if this is to become a reality.
- whazor 5y agoWith eye tracking you could potentially only perform a high definition render to where you are looking. This is perfect for small text and necessary if you want to reach very high frame rates.
- mlajtos 5y agoYes, this technique is called foveated rendering. You can further speed up ray tracing by reducing noise in renders that are produced by tracing a low number of rays per pixel. Another technique is realtime super sampling via machine learning.
- caslon 5y agoTo be fair, the Vive was six years ago. Wow, that feels sad to say. Vive: 1080×1200 per eye Index: 1440×1600 per eye Quest 2: 1832 x 1920 per eye (pushing 120hz at native resolution on a phone without it hitting thermal limits) Focus 3: 2448 × 2448 per eye Pimax 8k X: 3840 x 2160 per eye, but with a wider FOV
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mlajtos 5y agoPixel resolution of HMD without stating FOV is useless. Much better unit of comparison is pixels per 1 degree (PPD). Original HTC Vive (2016), which was basically the first gen VR product, was 9.81 PPD, current Vive 2 Pro (2021) is 20.4 PPD. Oculus Quest 2 (2020) is 20.58 and currently the best is Varjo VR-3 (2021) with 70 PPD for central display and 30 PPD for peripheral display. Pimax 8K is 22.58 PPD.
- caslon 5y agoI know, and I was thinking about being more explicit, but Zamalek's comment was on resolution per-eye, so to keep it clear I decided to use resolution, too. Thank you for expanding on the comment!
- formerly_proven 5y agoThe Varjo VR-3 is a variable rate display but the zones are fixed, correct? So the locus of fidelity is always in the same spot relative to your eyes? I'm wondering whether VR display technology would benefit from the scan flexibility that some modern image sensors have. E.g. imagine a 12K display where you can select on a frame-by-frame basis which area you want to scan at full resolution, which at half, quarter, ... etc. -- be quick enough about it, and it'll always look like a 12K display but with a fraction of the bandwidth and compute cost.
- mlajtos 5y agoYes, the high resolution display is always fixed in the center, it doesn't move according to your gaze. I can't really comment on the other thing you are proposing...
- shantara 5y ago> It's easy to forget that you have to drive two displays. Double the resolution, half the framerate, double the nausea nVidia had rendering pipeline optimizations for multi-view VR for years: https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/turing-multi-view-rendering-vrworks/ https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/turing-multi-view-renderin... It's safe to assume that a future VR-focused product from Apple will support similar features