Sony VR Headset/Project Morpheus/PlayStation VR

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...ppi-displays-880-ppi-in-2015-foldable-in-2016

 

WTF is this 2K screen supposed to be? the same as 2560X1440? 2K is actually in reality less than that.

edit: The link eastmen gave talks about a 4K display coming next year, but there have been some "news" about a 2K screen like this:

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/127876-lg-g3-to-fulfill-our-2k-screen-desires-at-last

Seems like the standards are confusing a lot of people.

 

was a typo meant 4k or 3840x2160

 

Yeah I edited my post. There actually has been few reports about a 2K screen and it being mentioned to be 2560X1440...

 

The OPPO 7 has just been announced with a 5.5" screen and 2560*1440 resolution.
I'd be very surprised if Samsung's Note 4 doesn't bring a similar resolution, even if they do use RGBG PenTile for an OLED screen.

And let's be honest: at ~540 dpi who the hell cares about RGBG Pentile?

 

In relation to this thread and VR purposes, it could still be an issue. Of course I haven't seen that in person

 

Why did Sony present this at GDC...with basically no buzz generated?

Why not use it at a big Sony press conference like E3 or Gamescom?

 

Because it is not a product yet?

 

Well... Surely one of the masterminds on this forum would be able to calculate what 540dpi seen 5cm from your eyes is equivalent to on a TV seen from, say, 3m away? No?
Edit: what I mean is actually what dpi would a 1080p TV need to match the detail we can see on a 540dpi screen held so close to our eyes.....

 

As Tuna says, it's not a product and it's not due until next year. This was revealing to developers what options they have to target. If I was a dev there, I may well be suddenly interested in creating a launch title for this thing.

Next year we'll get the public release with promotional videos and stage demos and trial kiosks etc.

 

I doubt they're behind, they've probably had stuff in R&D for a long time. Heck the Fortaleza glasses thing was from 2009?

And I doubt it takes huge sums of cash either if the likes of a kickstarter can produce a superior product to Sony's (Oculus), and relatively broke Sony can do it...

I'm not sure but Kinect would probably be perfect for this as well as it can do all the motion tracking, head tracking, without the need for cumbersome Move and the like, and it's already in every Xbox rather than requiring additional purchases and expense.

Yea I did notice that. The GAF thread for Project Morph was 116K views or something, not the 1 million or so you'd want for something to explode on GAF (not that's any guarantee as huge threads there dont necessarily translate to popular products). Overall there is decent hype but it doesn't just seem crazy.

But I'm not somehow writing off VR because of that.

 

I'm not sure that it'd be possible, you'd need to either go crosseyed to view and have some complex lens / skewed images, or a very complex set of mirrors within the headsets which would make them too large.

 

^ gaf thread would be much larger if this unveil was not this much developer focused. But as of now Sony needs just that. Developers and little hype.






Damn, this is so well made.

 

How is it superior? We can't judge either product until they're both released and have a price and build quality and real-world performance.

I'm sure they struggled with searches down the back of the sofa to find the funds to put this thing together.

It's funny how you have to put negative adjectives in front of anything Sony (funny in a 'should this guy get banned for being a perpetual troll' way). Move is far from cumbersome. It provides very accurate tracking and very valuable button inputs, that have considerable benefit in some game designs. A trigger pull to grab rather than a hand-tracked, player grab is not going to be as accurate, intuitive, nor immersive, but it's far from cumbersome and can be utilised in other ways. eg. In tennis, Kinect is unlikely to be able to track wrist orientation for accurate racquet alignment. Move would be a much better solution with lower latency and higher accuracy in all degrees of freedom.

I could be equally disingenuous regards Kinect and talk about VR avatar spazzing outs giving players epileptic seizures, but I'm not so juvenile. I respect both product lines.

 

It's also worth adding that there's nothing stopping Sony from swapping out the current 1080p panel with a different one when this thing launches. If it's economically viable for OVR to do this with OR, it'll be (possible more) economical for Sony to do likewise. If Morpheus releases next year, I'd even expect an upgrade. It may not be OLED or whatever OR launches with as Sony may chase a different price bracket and/or profit margin, but there's no technical reason why Sony can't go toe-to-toe with OR on display features. they are both using commodity parts from the mobile industry. One would have to do something special like commission a custom curved or super-wide screen to prevent the other copying.

 

Does Sony manufacture their own OLED or LCD screens these days? Or is it the usual Samsung/Sharp deal everyone else has?

 

The only problem I see in that, is that either they'll have to render at 1440p, or upscale the image.
Depending on the game, and taking into account that a steady 60 fps is essential, it might be hard for the PS4 to render some titles at 1440p.
My guess though, is that most games written exclusively for VR, won't be as hardware taxing as the rest.

 

The PS4 OmniViewer was rumored to be a pair of AR glasses overlaying stuff over the big screen TV.

Looks like VR won in the context of gaming ?

 

1440p at 60fps on the PS4 really would be looking at PS3 level graphics at best. You'd be pushing 8x the pixels of a 720p 30fps PS3 game and 4x the geometry even with the same graphics.

 

I think that, if VR turns to be popular, we'll see graphics taking a step back, especially on consoles.
After all VR is not about graphical fidelity (although that helps) it's more about immersion.