Sony rumoured to be developing VR headset for PS4 *spawn

[DieH@rd]

What are the chances of Sony using two of those those small OLED screens from HMZ-T1-3?

Small lens in front of 720p 0.7" OLED to expand the image onto the big lens that is in front of users eye [big lens in front of eye = big FOV]. Design is simple, but distortion could be problematic [Rift is focusing more pixels in the centre of the users vision].

Can anyone calculate distortion and needed distances between elements? Is 2 x 3-4" screen better/easier choice?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

They already do. The HMZ range is built around dual OLED 720p displays.

 

[Entropy]

What's going to drive screen progress though? If the LG screen has no perceivable benefit but costs more and consumes more energy, why bother going with higher resolution screens? Okay, 1280x1220 is a possibility for Oculus Rift instead of 960x1080 (although the price won't be $300, I'm sure), but that's surely the limit.

1280x1440, for each eye mind you increasing subjective resolution.
It is hard to tell how much higher resolution needs to go, if at all. If this is enough to (mostly) get rid of gaps between pixels, then the challenge shifts away from that parameter to the image processing necessary to feed the 4 megapixels at high enough, and steady, frame rates. And of course increase per pixel quality, as per usual.

Exciting times.

 

[V3]

Did you managed to stay 12 hours with the headset on, without going even to pee or drink something? My 4 hours were without taking them off at all. The longest gaming session with T2 was aroung 9 hours, but with small breaks for body service...

Yep, it was an all night session. From ~8 to ~9 in the morning. It was a beta and I didn't have time to play it other than that hours.

I am really happy with my T2 for now, will not get the T3. I will wait for the 1080p VR variant.
I will keep my T2 for th PS3 and play the PSVR on PS4.

Yeah that's a disappointing aspect of T3, still using 720p. But it's still a trade off I'm willing to make for the overall experience.

The PSVR should be much less expensive than the T2-T3, since they will probably mass produce it. T2 was not even launched in USA, I doubt it was produced in more than 10000units.
The costs will be far less if they manage to produce 5-10 mil units.

I am pretty sure the BOM for HMZ T1-T3 is lower than OR. PSVR will probably have higher BOM than the HMZs but it shouldn't be much more.

The thing that OR has going is its form factor, Though I find HMZ comfortable, there are many people that HMZ don't fit too well. If you're going to produce 5-10 mil units, your product better able to fit a wider variety of people. The OR form factor has better chance of that compare to HMZ IMO.

And I think comfort is pretty damn high on the list of requirement if VR gonna succeed or not.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If this is enough to (mostly) get rid of gaps between pixels

You don't just have to get rid of the gaps, but eliminate sense of pixelation, no? The advent of 4k screens for large FOVs shows a need for far higher resolutions to get realistic quality.

then the challenge shifts away from that parameter to the image processing necessary to feed the 4 megapixels at high enough, and steady, frame rates.

That is of course very true. With PS4 targeting 1080p, dual 720p screens is certainly attainable. There's little point in Sony going for a higher resolution display when the console can't drive more pixels, except I suppose upscaled 720p > 1080p will be better quality than pure 720p in a headset. OR can go with whatever screens they want and leave the gamers to buy suitable hardware to power them.

 

[DieH@rd]

They already do. The HMZ range is built around dual OLED 720p displays.

Im talking about using them in this new VR headset.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If they do, I imagine it won't be cheap. They can certainly change the FOV of the existing HMZ to be more like OR via optics, but that will also add to cost I expect.

 

[ERP]

What are the chances of Sony using two of those those small OLED screens from HMZ-T1-3?

Small lens in front of 720p 0.7" OLED to expand the image onto the big lens that is in front of users eye [big lens in front of eye = big FOV]. Design is simple, but distortion could be problematic [Rift is focusing more pixels in the centre of the users vision].

Doesn't work optically, you end up with an incredibly small exit pupil for any decent FOV.
To get the sort of FOV the OR is pushing with a reasonable exit pupil you need a largish screen, it's one of the reasons that large FOV HMD's vanished from the consumer space 15 years ago, with conventional optics they have to be fairly bulky.

 

[baten]

The thing that OR has going is its form factor, Though I find HMZ comfortable, there are many people that HMZ don't fit too well. If you're going to produce 5-10 mil units, your product better able to fit a wider variety of people. The OR form factor has better chance of that compare to HMZ IMO.

And I think comfort is pretty damn high on the list of requirement if VR gonna succeed or not.

You absolutly nailed it. I am one of those guys that has a "peculiar" head and I wear glasses too (will never go for contacts either, too messy for my taste).

For me the T2 is problematic to use, the discomfort I encounter will put off 80-90% of users. But - it's never going to stop me, I am absolutly mesmerised when I use it and I now hardly use the TV for gaming, I simply cannot play on TV anymore.

Then again I am sure that all the problems with comfort will be solved in time. Look at the first mouse and then look at one of the MadCats top of the line mouse. Look at the first Atari controller and then again look at DS4 or XBox controllers.

VR is the next step imo and is here to stay. The OR form factor is by far better than the HMZ, I'm pretty sure that is what Shuhei ment when he said he loves the OR!
What I would do is a form factor similar to OR, but with two small (maybe 3-4cm) curved OLED screen that can be focused perfectly by a lens system that is not very expensive and offer a 120deg. FOV.

 

[hesido]

I'd wish the move controllers had analogue buttons on them. We'd be able to control both hands in the VR system and move arbitrarily using analogue input (instead of on rails or move forwards..)

 

[ShadowRunner]

I love my hmz-t1, but i did modify it so its attached to a welding mask harness, may have felt a bit differently about it had i not.

Whatever they do it will be significantly different from their current hmd's. The fov difference will require entirely new displays and optics, and head tracking will mean they need a new form factor and way of keeping it fixed in position comfortably while moving.

Id be surprised if they cant come up with something great, they already have the groundwork done by the OR just need to build on that foundation, with their talent and large r&d budget its gona take a big misstep not to end up with something compelling.

 

[axehandle]

I am pretty sure the BOM for HMZ T1-T3 is lower than OR. PSVR will probably have higher BOM than the HMZs but it shouldn't be much more.

The thing that OR has going is its form factor, Though I find HMZ comfortable, there are many people that HMZ don't fit too well. If you're going to produce 5-10 mil units, your product better able to fit a wider variety of people. The OR form factor has better chance of that compare to HMZ IMO.

And I think comfort is pretty damn high on the list of requirement if VR gonna succeed or not.

The BOM for the Rift is significantly lower than the HMZ t3, thats why the Rift is $300 and the HMZ is over $1000. The Rift uses a single cheap display and inexpensive fisheye-ish lenses and the HMZ uses 2 OLED microdisplays and 2 complicated optics blocks.

And the thing that the Rift has going for it over the HMZ is its immersive FOV and fast, precise headtracking.

 

[DieH@rd]

There is no way that BOM for TMZ T1-T3 is small. Sony is producing very small amount of headsets, and those OLED screens are most likely EXTREMLY expensive. Their PPI is over 2000!

As far as I know, the only other product they are using these small OLEDs is in their digital binoculars [even smaller market].

 

[baten]

There is no way that BOM for TMZ T1-T3 is small. Sony is producing very small amount of headsets, and those OLED screens are most likely EXTREMLY expensive. Their PPI is over 2000!

As far as I know, the only other product they are using these small OLEDs is in their digital binoculars [even smaller market].

If OR and PSVR will be produced in the millions their BOM would probably be in the same pricerange.

In it's final/consumer iteration OR will have to use some more expensive screens and parts, whereas PSVR will benefit from scale price reduction.

Both will sell for 400-500$ imo...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There is no way that BOM for TMZ T1-T3 is small. Sony is producing very small amount of headsets, and those OLED screens are most likely EXTREMLY expensive. Their PPI is over 2000!

As far as I know, the only other product they are using these small OLEDs is in their digital binoculars [even smaller market].

[strike]And their digital viewfinder for their NEX camera range.[/strike]

Edit: I'm wrong there. The viewfinders use a 0.5" lower XGA resolution display. HMZ uses a 0.7" 720p display.

These go for £200 retail. A VR headset is, at a minimum, two of these optical viewfinders duck-taped together, so £400. Throw in the rest of the headset and you have £500+ excluding desired large mark-up to justify investment. I can't see the micro display route being viable unless this is a niche, high end idea. The only tenable solution is OR's big screen. That'll be 1080p in a 5" screen. OR and Sony's solution will surely go head to head in resolution and specs.

Unless, of course, Sony have found a way to mass produce these displays at much reduced cost. That'll benefit my camera!

 

[Love_In_Rio]

And their digital viewfinder for their NEX camera range. These go for £200 retail. A VR headset is, at a minimum, two of these optical viewfinders duck-taped together, so £400. Throw in the rest of the headset and you have £500+ excluding desired large mark-up to justify investment. I can't see the micro display route being viable unless this is a niche, high end idea. The only tenable solution is OR's big screen. That'll be 1080p in a 5" screen. OR and Sony's solution will surely go head to head in resolution and specs.

Unless, of course, Sony have found a way to mass produce these displays at much reduced cost. That'll benefit my camera!

What about the OR patents?.

One doubt, does Sony itself make the OG Vita Oled display?. Could the replacement of the screen for a conventional LCD in the new Vita version be due to using that facility capacity to make VR screens?.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What about the OR patents?.

That's something I wonder about too. I dunno what they cover and how much prior art and whatnot exists. VR isn't a new field, and it's been over 25 years for some techs like "TV hung over one's face" which means they are technically public domain technologies. Given the way the law works, it's basically impossible for us to factor that side into considerations of viable solutions. We can only discuss the technical engineering solutions, and leave the lawyers to decide if they're allowed or not.

One doubt, does Sony itself make the OG Vita Oled display?

Samsung. The switch of panel could be to use a Sony (whatever they Japanese Display Consortium is called) made LCD. Sony's OLED focus seems to be high-end going by product availability. They produce OLED video monitors, for example, but not TVs. They are teaming up with Panasonic for that.

 

[Cyan]

Mass Effect is third person though, so you have one item (the character) as a constant point of reference on screen.

Most other games demoed with Oculus Rift don't have that. Speed can also cause problems, like in games like DOOM 3 they used to demo also I think.

Dizziness of this type results from mismatch of visual input with vestibular input from the inner ear. It is similar in pathogenesis to car sickness or sea sickness.

OR has proposed a few solutions to this problem I think, trying to get some constant point of reference for players.

Personally, I doubt that everyone can adapt well to the vertigo sensation. I'm sure people can gain tolerance for it, but they shouldn't depend on people "just getting used to it." They should find better ways to make the VR system comfortable for as many users as possibly as fast as possible during use.

I have personally not heard any lag complaints from Oculus Rift tech demos, but I admit I haven't been following it terribly closely.

If there is lag in Oculus I suspect it's mostly software interface problems, rather than hardware. And if it is hardware I expect OR would be able to rapidly correct the issue in new iterations.

I suffered from motion sickness while playing some regular games but that's the only thing that actually bothers me about Oculus and a future PS4 VR headset. I haven't tried them though so..., sadly, certain aspects of these things are lost on me... Unlike Move, I think most core gamers would support this direction and it can be a success if Sony creates something unique.

Additionally, just the use of a VR headset for looking around in a game would be pretty cool. I am hoping this new VR headset turns out to be more than just a plan and it actually becomes a tangible cool piece of tech. Should be pretty interesting.

 

[Cyan]

The new glasses Sony have shown at CES 2014 are the VR thingy they were allegedly working on? If so, those glasses seem to be seriously lagging behind the Occulus Rift, from the little I've seen/know about them.

 

[DieH@rd]

No, that is just a small tweak of their old HMZ line of "portable cinemas". They introduced it ~3 years ago with praises of being one of the first headmounted display setups that was actually OK, with prices $800 and up. Latest model [HMZ-T3] was sold for 1000 pounds in UK, and this CES tweak ads some vague form of headtracking that will be supported only for Sony action cam videos [I think that is the case, no gaming applications].

Its not intended to be used for VR, its more like seeing big cinema screen in front of you that can be 2D or 3D. It has only 45 degree FOV, with two 0.7" 720p full OLED screens giving image to each eye. Totally different approach than Oculus Rift, but it has one major advantage - it can playback any video content [PC/consoles/phones with hdmi], without the need of software fish-eye correction.

For PS4, Sony is preparing something that is much more simmilar to Rifts design.