Discussion in 'Forum 47' started by Spiicyice, Jun 5, 2013.
Pretty sure it's 1200x800, 600x400 for each eye.
No it's 1280x800
But even 1920x 1080 would have screen door and look low res that close up and magnified. You would need a much higher resolution and pixel density.
*600x800 for each eye. Only splitting one of them dimensions
Interesting, I hope they will have a higher resolution screen as well. By the looks of it now, they probably won't. Maybe they could have a different kit later on that will cost more, and include maybe a 2560×1600 screen. That would be pretty darn expensive though...
The most recent plan I was aware of was to get up to 1080 for the consumer version, but it really depends on what's available.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I have a 3.5" screen that is 640x480 and putting it right up to my eyes, I am not able to discern individual pixels at all and it looks very high resolution. It makes old school systems have the illusion of HD in my opinion.
So a 1920x1080 on a 5 or 6" screen would probably not look low res at all. Unless I am missing something here...?
Oh, the magnification. Well, once I get my rift, I'll do some tinkering and play around with the lenses a bit. Does the magnification really make pixels more noticeable?
Yes you are missing something. I worked with DIY projectors for years so I have a lot of experience with these things.
When you magnify a lcd you see all the individual pixels. When you magnify it you will see the space between the pixels. That's because pixels are round and cant sit right next to each other. Now the higher the resolution on the smaller of a screen the less space you have between the pixels because you are shoving them closer together in the same area. But you have to either have a much smaller screen with this high resolution or a lot more pixels on a larger screen.
That's why with an Lcd projector when you magnify it and blow it up to 140" it starts to look worse and worse.
This is the inherent problem with magnifying lcd's. It's why a lot of projectors are DLP. They don't have this problem.
Now with the Oculus, they use magnifying lenses and put the screen close to your face. The screen door effect is very pronounced because of this, making it appear like a much lower resolution screen. You're doing the same thing as a projector, just much closer to your face. Normally a 1280 x 800 7" screen looks terrific. In fact at 3' away it looks downright magnificent. But magnified it does not.
Ah I see. What resolution do you think would be acceptable in the rift to handle the magnification?
That depends on how much you care about resolution to begin with.
I would like to see it with an 8k screen, but I don't consider that reality. Yet.
4k would be good 1080p would *work* the 720p is a good proof of concept.
Your viewpoints may vary, though.
Hail: how is the screen door? Is it like... Rope... Yarn... Thread?
Also, back to omnishoes...
I don't think it really is going to be as cool as the rift. Mostly because you can't just whip it out and go.
I think the ability to leave the rift on the desk next to ya is going to be what keeps it being used.
This is big and bulky and doesn't have that going for it.
Well the 1920x1080 4.6" HTC screen with a PPI of 468 would have a lot less screen door and might look reasonable good. The smaller the PPI the less screen door effect.
But it might take more resolution to make it realistically immersive. Like 2500x 2080 or close to that in a 5" screen.
The screen door is exactly what it sounds like. It's like looking through a screen door at the image. On the rift to my eye it makes the image appear to be around a Psone screen level resolution. So it appears to be about 640 x 480. So it would need to be quadrupled to get it to appear to be 1080p.
Bear in mind this is all just my opinion. But most reviews have seen a similar problem with the screenshot and resolution .
I was going for perceived thickness of the screen fibers... But ok.
It's not quite like that. You don't really "see" strands in between the pixels . It's just more like you see the individual pixels. That makes the image appear to be a very low resolution. When you pack those pixels closer by adding a lot more of them into the same screen size then it gets harder to notice those pixels.
Right now on the Oculus the pixels are very noticeable and distracting.
Hmm, I didn't feel like it was distracting when I tested it out about 5 months ago. But maybe when mine ships out and I get more time to test out some demos with it, I'll start to notice what you're talking about.
the best way I can describe it is literally looking through a screen door. it's pretty noticeable when you first put it on, but I've found with extended use that you kinda get used to it and don't pay attention to it that much and it kinda "goes away".
I remember reading some books, or a paper or something about immersion in VR. It said something about regardless of the stupidity of the controls, the brain would adapt after a certain amount of time. Something about mapping flailing your legs around to make a lobster move, and people being immersed by it, or something.
Regardless, I don't think the future of VR involves movement, I think it's going to rely more on a brain-computer interface. Laying on a bed, or just sitting in a chair will be more likely to break you out of your body in comparison to flailing around in a slippery parabolic dish.
I didn't want one until I read this.
Definitely agree, and you are right that 1080p won't come close to solving the problem, at least not with traditional LCD tech. Luckily, there are other games in town!
CONFIRMED! NEXT ACH-U-LUST PRODUCT USES BRAIN IMAGE PROJETON!
Damnit, Palmer... Now I'm wondering what half-baked scheme is coming next.
I also find myself wanting to figure out *what* kind of pixel density would be required to actually match human perception.
If you already know this, could you do me a favor and save me the math?
Guys, I know the solution! Sand the lenses with a really fine grit sand-paper to diffuse the light just a little bit to make the pixel-edges a bit more fuzzy rather than sharp screen-door-like.
I'm a genius.
According to Michael Abrash, roughly 16k resolution.
Separate names with a comma.