Tackling The High-Res Display Needs Of VR: Kopin's Lightning OLED Microdisplay

[scolaner]

Kopin believes that LCD displays are inferior to OLED, that the resolutions of VR displays are too low, that the refresh rates are mostly too slow, that the power requirements of displays are too high, and that their physical sizes are too large.


Tackling The High-Res Display Needs Of VR: Kopin's Lightning OLED Microdisplay : Read more

 

[Valantar]

This looks good in terms of bringing VR hardware forward, but the square form factor is rather baffling. The human field of vision, even per eye, is nowhere close to square. 2:1 would be more accurate. As such, you'd either be limiting horizontal field of view severely (which hurts immersion and realism) or wasting processing power on invisible vertical pixels.

Also, I'd argue that neither hardware nor content are the biggest hurdles facing VR. Rather, I would say interaction is by far the biggest hurdle - while motion controllers with accurate tracking allow for a certain level of realistic interaction, they're clunky and odd, today require external trackers, and we are still nowhere near actually achieving any kind of passable movement in VR. Without (non-vomit inducing) movement, you'll never have more immersive content than the "experiences" of today, and requiring huge empty spaces or some sort of treadmill for this is simply not realistic in terms of adoption.

So, what do we need for great VR? Small goggles? Sure. Why not. Good content? Absolutely. But the former won't help unless you have something to do, and the latter won't happen until we can actually meaningfully interact with the content. Inside-out 6dof tracking is a start, but ultimately we need controller-less walking controls without actually walking physically, while avoiding nausea. Otherwise, VR will never live up to its potential.

 

[Hellcatm]

Valantar I disagree. Shape of the lenses won't matter because your eyes after a while won't notice it.

Also movement in VR I disagree will be an issue. Look at most of the books and movies that have to do with VR. Ready Player One people are sitting and not walking around in real space. I think the big hurdle is the controls. Using joysticks or pads in your hands will be the issue. We need something tactile like VR gloves that will have some tactile feel when picking up and manipulating things but I think those are many, many years off. You have to trick the brain into thinking your touching everything from rough, to smooth, to jelly like, and many other feelings and sensations.

AR that's where you want to be able to move around because in AR you're working with the world around you. For instance AR could be for real world, hands on training while VR would be for virtual training. AR you can work on your car with someone helping, VR you can learn to fly, or be in class or work without leaving your home. For gaming AR would be the technology you'd use when running around, and shooting zombies while VR you'd use to fly around or drive. Sure there would be zombie games but you'd set down or you'd be in a contraption to move in place. Since you can't see the word around you in VR I don't think people are going to care about walking or running around while AR you'd want this.

 

[caustin582]

This looks good in terms of bringing VR hardware forward, but the square form factor is rather baffling. The human field of vision, even per eye, is nowhere close to square. 2:1 would be more accurate. As such, you'd either be limiting horizontal field of view severely (which hurts immersion and realism) or wasting processing power on invisible vertical pixels.

Light enters your eye through the pupil, which is circular. If we can only use a rectangular screen, a square 1:1 ratio for each eye would be the most appropriate shape. And no, your eye lids don't have much of an effect on your vertical field of view unless you're squinting.

 

[mrmez]

I think every VR company would agree.

The problem is not making the best screen with, but POWERING them.

Not everyone has 2x1080's in addition to what will probably be a $1,500 HMD.

 

[Mildewman]

I returned my psvr because of the low horizontal resolution, so this tech is just what im looking for - full 1080p in each eye.

 

[bit_user]

This looks good in terms of bringing VR hardware forward, but the square form factor is rather baffling. The human field of vision, even per eye, is nowhere close to square. 2:1 would be more accurate. As such, you'd either be limiting horizontal field of view severely (which hurts immersion and realism) or wasting processing power on invisible vertical pixels.

Light enters your eye through the pupil, which is circular. If we can only use a rectangular screen, a square 1:1 ratio for each eye would be the most appropriate shape.

Unless this thing is in some sort of VR contact lens, then you need to take into account eye movement. I can't quite tell, but it seems like my left/right movement might be greater than top/bottom.

Anyway, you should be able to use an anamorphic lens, if the aspect ratio of the display panel is a problem. But, they probably knew what they were doing, when they decided to make it square. This should be an improvement over most VR HMDs, which have more vertical resolution than horizontal.

I returned my psvr because of the low horizontal resolution, so this tech is just what im looking for - full 1080p in each eye.

*sigh* PSVR is 1080p, in each eye. This is 2k x 2k, in each eye.

 

[redeye]

Quote :
MILDEWMAN Feb 17, 2017, 10:31 PM
I returned my psvr because of the low horizontal resolution, so this tech is just what im looking for - full 1080p in each eye.

how did you return it ?...
for example, Walmart will not except returns on the playstation VR...
hygiene concerns, just like some stores won't except headphone returns...

Though I suppose you could get headlice from it, due the lice surviving 1 to 2 days off of a human head...

 

[Valantar]

Valantar I disagree. Shape of the lenses won't matter because your eyes after a while won't notice it.

Also movement in VR I disagree will be an issue. Look at most of the books and movies that have to do with VR. Ready Player One people are sitting and not walking around in real space. I think the big hurdle is the controls. Using joysticks or pads in your hands will be the issue. We need something tactile like VR gloves that will have some tactile feel when picking up and manipulating things but I think those are many, many years off. You have to trick the brain into thinking your touching everything from rough, to smooth, to jelly like, and many other feelings and sensations.

AR that's where you want to be able to move around because in AR you're working with the world around you. For instance AR could be for real world, hands on training while VR would be for virtual training. AR you can work on your car with someone helping, VR you can learn to fly, or be in class or work without leaving your home. For gaming AR would be the technology you'd use when running around, and shooting zombies while VR you'd use to fly around or drive. Sure there would be zombie games but you'd set down or you'd be in a contraption to move in place. Since you can't see the word around you in VR I don't think people are going to care about walking or running around while AR you'd want this.

Either you didn't read my post, or you didn't understand it. Your first paragraph is exactly what I'm talking about - making "sit-down" VR feasible without puking (due to the impracticality of actual physical movement). Reread my post, then we can talk.

This looks good in terms of bringing VR hardware forward, but the square form factor is rather baffling. The human field of vision, even per eye, is nowhere close to square. 2:1 would be more accurate. As such, you'd either be limiting horizontal field of view severely (which hurts immersion and realism) or wasting processing power on invisible vertical pixels.

Light enters your eye through the pupil, which is circular. If we can only use a rectangular screen, a square 1:1 ratio for each eye would be the most appropriate shape. And no, your eye lids don't have much of an effect on your vertical field of view unless you're squinting.

Sure, the pupil is round. Your eye, however, isn't. It's oblong, and can move around 2x as much horizontally than vertically, not to mention that vertical visibility is blocked by your brow and cheekbones. Humans have a horizontal field of view of 180-200 degrees (including eye movement). Each eye sees roughly 160 degrees vertically, with the majority of the fields overlapping. Our vertical field of view is far less than that, especially since it doesn't have any overlap or the advantage of eyes tilted to each side.. In VR goggles, you need portions of the displayed images to overlap (aka binocular overlap) to avoid issues with depth perception and the like. Using two square displays means the non-overlapping part (i.e. peripheral vision) has to be prioritized away (again, to avoid people puking or other unforeseen issues), which again limits our field of view, and thus limits immersion.

This looks good in terms of bringing VR hardware forward, but the square form factor is rather baffling. The human field of vision, even per eye, is nowhere close to square. 2:1 would be more accurate. As such, you'd either be limiting horizontal field of view severely (which hurts immersion and realism) or wasting processing power on invisible vertical pixels.

Light enters your eye through the pupil, which is circular. If we can only use a rectangular screen, a square 1:1 ratio for each eye would be the most appropriate shape.

Unless this thing is in some sort of VR contact lens, then you need to take into account eye movement. I can't quite tell, but it seems like my left/right movement might be greater than top/bottom.

Anyway, you should be able to use an anamorphic lens, if the aspect ratio of the display panel is a problem. But, they probably knew what they were doing, when they decided to make it square. This should be an improvement over most VR HMDs, which have more vertical resolution than horizontal.

So you're saying they shound compensate for using a dumb aspect ratio by stretching it, effectively lowering resolution (and introducing all kinds of colour shift and artifacts)? Yeah, that sounds brilliant.

 

[bit_user]

This looks good in terms of bringing VR hardware forward, but the square form factor is rather baffling. The human field of vision, even per eye, is nowhere close to square. 2:1 would be more accurate. As such, you'd either be limiting horizontal field of view severely (which hurts immersion and realism) or wasting processing power on invisible vertical pixels.

Light enters your eye through the pupil, which is circular. If we can only use a rectangular screen, a square 1:1 ratio for each eye would be the most appropriate shape.

Unless this thing is in some sort of VR contact lens, then you need to take into account eye movement. I can't quite tell, but it seems like my left/right movement might be greater than top/bottom.

Anyway, you should be able to use an anamorphic lens, if the aspect ratio of the display panel is a problem. But, they probably knew what they were doing, when they decided to make it square. This should be an improvement over most VR HMDs, which have more vertical resolution than horizontal.

So you're saying they shound compensate for using a dumb aspect ratio by stretching it, effectively lowering resolution (and introducing all kinds of colour shift and artifacts)? Yeah, that sounds brilliant.

I'm agreeing with you more than anyone else, so far. I don't know exactly why they went with square, but you ignored my point that all the other big VR HMDs on the market are rectangular in the opposite direction as you're saying.

I wouldn't get too exercised about this point. It sounds like promising tech, and seems like a big step in the right direction.

I don't see why you consider yourself more expert on the subject than the people building the displays. As the article says, they've been in this industry for a long time, and they're surely talking to all their potential customers. None of whom are exactly stupid. And when you invest the millions it takes to make such a product, you do your homework and try to make sure it's right for the market.

So, when you see something that doesn't make sense to you, why is your default assumption that the industry is filled with bumbling idiots who don't know what they're doing? Why not try to get Seth to reach out and ask why they went with that particular aspect ratio? You might learn something.

BTW, anamorphic lenses have a long history, in the film industry. And Prismatic separation can be digitally compensated, and can happen with normal lenses. If it's an issue, then perhaps existing HMDs are already doing that? I know digital cameras have been doing it for ages.