Rift, Vive, and Virtual Reality

London-boy said:
Two 5" screens would be a very, very weird look for a VR headset!
Click to expand...

Nah, it looks totally cool. :D
valve-vr-hmd-sdd.jpg

Valve-Virtual-Reality-Headset.jpg


[Abrash's first prototype headset that achieved "presence" when he worked at Valve]

MrFox said:
One would think you guys would like to talk about PSVR in the PSVR thread... but noooooooooo.... :runaway:
Click to expand...

ALL IS WELL! We are comparing PSVR screen to competition. :) Yeah... we are totally doing that. :)
 
London-boy said:
Two 5" screens would be a very, very weird look for a VR headset!

You'd have a huge 10" strapped on your forehead, which some people might like but I'm sure most wouldn't.
Click to expand...

he is saying they would flip them so instead of landscape mode they are portrait mode. So it be 5 inches going from your forhead to your mouth.

But 5 inches that way would be way to long. from the press images the rift would fit with some of your nose poking out and some of your forhead exposed. Which would be way less than 5 inches and of course that 5 inches is just the screen you'd then need the outer casing to be larger than 5 inches
 
London-boy said:
Two 5" screens would be a very, very weird look for a VR headset!

You'd have a huge 10" strapped on your forehead, which some people might like but I'm sure most wouldn't.
Click to expand...

no, two 5inch screens, in portrait, next to each other would create a 6.5 inch screen, as per pythagoras (only 4 screens could create a 10 inch diagonal)

the math is right; the screens should be 2.45 width * (about) 2.8 inch height for both the Pre as well as the Rift screens, and they turned out to be custom screens in the end. My apologies, my info on this is/was about a year old at this point. they were planning for the Pre and Rift to be 33% taller I guess :-0
 
Egmon83 said:
my info on this is/was about a year old at this point. they were planning for the Pre and Rift to be 33% taller I guess :-0
Click to expand...

I doubt they were ever planning on that outside of the hacked together prototypes we saw Valve producing from parts they sourced off ebay. We saw the Crescent Bay display assembly using similar panels to what the consumer HMDs are now using, and that design would have been hashed out as far back as summer of 2014 considering they were demoing it publicly in October of that year.
 
Egmon83 said:
I made this as an illustration, the original image has the same dimensions as a 5inch S4 screen
eZ0u2Ae.png
Click to expand...
Looking at that Vive prototype and this illustration I think what you're saying sounds quite believable to me.

I'm still not sure why two screens were considered better than one higher resolution one? Perhaps because the hz is lower on early generation displays?
 
ThePissartist said:
Looking at that Vive prototype and this illustration I think what you're saying sounds quite believable to me.

I'm still not sure why two screens were considered better than one higher resolution one? Perhaps because the hz is lower on early generation displays?
Click to expand...

Hardware IPD adjustment is pretty important if you're wanting to maintain a correct sense of scale across all of your users, not risking damage to the eyes, and streamlining the configuration/setup. Dual displays allows the lens and display assembly to move as one, so you're not running into an issue of sacrificing FOV or screen real estate by having the rendered image shift away from the center line of each panel segment. Even with the DK2's software adjustment I find that content can be hit or miss when it comes to having objects scaled correctly, specifically things like your avatar torso and limbs mapping properly to your body where you can easily juggle the HMD off/on to compare. This scale disparity vanishes when you close one eye so it's obviously a stereo separation / IPD issue. With the GearVR's lack of any IPD adjustment at all, the scale is always off by a huge margin and that's likely due to the fixed IPD being on the extreme narrow side in order to avoid cases where people with narrow IPDs have their eyes diverging (very bad for the eyes).

The reason dual displays were originally used by Valve's early prototypes was probably out of necessity. These were made soon after the GS4 was released, which AFAIK was the first suitable 1080p OLED of that size, and they leveraged the subset of the portrait layout in order to boost the effective refresh rate of the display (by not having to scan-out to the unused portions of the display.)
 
Yes but that doesn't explain why they'd be shipping with 3 year old panels in 2016. From what I can find Samsung doesn't even make that old type of pentile anymore its been replaced at least 2 times since then.

It would make the most sense to start with a panel designed for the rift itself. If they produce them they can do hundreds of them per sheet and they could use the highest panels avalible instead of old panels.
 
Last edited:
Whether they're shipping 2013 derivative panels in 2016 or brand new ones that have the same PPI and dimensions as a 2013 panel is kinda six of one, half a dozen of the other. As soon as it was made known that the Crescent Bay was not some 1440p Note4 derivative display and that Oculus were suddenly very shy about disclosing raw specs, I think the writing was on the wall that gen1 consumer VR would more or less be a polished version of the best VR experiences that 2014 had provided, not something wholly different. Where the panels are *actually* sourced from will get answered probably by this time next month as we start seeing tear downs of the consumer hardware. Thinking about it now I'm kind of hoping it is a GS4 derivative because the internet reaction to that would be wonderful.
 
hughJ said:
Whether they're shipping 2013 derivative panels in 2016 or brand new ones that have the same PPI and dimensions as a 2013 panel is kinda six of one, half a dozen of the other. As soon as it was made known that the Crescent Bay was not some 1440p Note4 derivative display and that Oculus were suddenly very shy about disclosing raw specs, I think the writing was on the wall that gen1 consumer VR would more or less be a polished version of the best VR experiences that 2014 had provided, not something wholly different. Where the panels are *actually* sourced from will get answered probably by this time next month as we start seeing tear downs of the consumer hardware. Thinking about it now I'm kind of hoping it is a GS4 derivative because the internet reaction to that would be wonderful.
Click to expand...
still wouldn't make sense because the s5 had the better pentile display

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sams...crets-of-the-brightest-AMOLED-display_id54772

Its brighter , they use diamond shape for all sub pixels where as the s4 had diamond for the blue and red and oval for the green and the blue sub pixel is now the same size as the red one instead of being the largest

upload_2016-3-7_21-58-28.png

S5 vs S4
 
"The evolution of pentile"
but PSVR use RGB arrangement.

"Pixel arrangements of OLED"
But it was not a problem in a phone, only in VR

"The dynamics of OLED pixel arrangements and its effect for VR"
its a mouthful
 
Well how often will they iterate?

If it's every year, not a big deal, in a couple of years, they'll source something better.

If it's meant to be one every 3 years or more, they better have a good product for the prices they're asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Batman Quest 3 is a graphical showpiece and a great game
Replies
2
Views
387
mavox01
M
S
Augmented Reality or Mixed Reality User Experience Survey
Replies
1
Views
280
Albuquerque
Albuquerque
mr.necturus
Project Elanda free download
Replies
5
Views
492
mr.necturus
mr.necturus
M
DirectSR is disappointingly unambitious
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
MfA
M
I
I want some VR outside of VR. A real evolution of headset-free motion control.
Replies
12
Views
1K
orangpelupa
orangpelupa
Back
Top