Replacement LCD for Rift (1080p)?

[sellars]

Hi,

Like probably everyone else on the forum, I'm looking forward to the Rift (and tinkering around with the hardware setup) - but although Toshiba have the amazing 2560 resolution prototype which isn't available, I was wondering if anyone knew of a roughly 6 inch 1080p (or 1200p) panel? Looking to try out tinkering with higher resolution panels independently (and maybe eye tracking).

EDIT: I was hoping that the Galaxy Note 2 would be a higher res panel, then we'd see mass availability, but although it's a Super AMOLED, it seems the resolution is only 1280x720 at 5.3 inches, according to a leaked benchmark

Thanks!

[brantlew]

It's not just a matter of finding the right panel. It also has to have the electronics and firmware to drive it using HDMI/DVI/VGA. The cell phone panels are meant to be part of an integrated package with custom board-level interfaces and software - not a generic PC interface.

[sellars]

I assume you mean SoC's like the Exynos 5 Dual (for the case of phone displays)?

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/08/ ... d-tablets/

Do we actually know of any 1080p small non-propietary displays that can be driven by available hardware (like this from Ebay):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-6-LCD-720p-WX ... 500wt_1376

Thanks

[ElecTriX]

Don't know how it's driven but how about this? It was the only 1920x1080p screen with a size lower than 9"

http://www.panelook.com/COM48T4Mxxxxx_O ... 15895.html

Edit: Unfortunetly I can't seem to find a supplier for it..

[JMX]

Palmer seems to be on top of what's available from suppliers, I think he mentions some panels that will be available later in some of his posts in the kickstarter thread. The Rift seems to be the cutting edge of what's physically possible right now, for *any* price. I think Palmer said something like as soon as better screens start going into production then the consumer version of the Rift will be released ASAP. That was a few weeks ago though, and things are happening fast!

[sellars]

Don't know how it's driven but how about this? It was the only 1920x1080p screen with a size lower than 9"

http://www.panelook.com/COM48T4Mxxxxx_O ... 15895.html

Edit: Unfortunetly I can't seem to find a supplier for it..

That panel looks really nice! (aside from its' size) - think Palmer or someone else on another thread (sorry, don't have the link to hand) said that (paraphrasing) you need the larger panel size along with the lenses to get the right FOV. I suppose you could up the magnification, but that'd also up the distortion and other effects.

Palmer seems to be on top of what's available from suppliers, I think he mentions some panels that will be available later in some of his posts in the kickstarter thread. The Rift seems to be the cutting edge of what's physically possible right now, for *any* price. I think Palmer said something like as soon as better screens start going into production then the consumer version of the Rift will be released ASAP. That was a few weeks ago though, and things are happening fast!

Damn - was hoping to grab some engineering samples in the meantime even at higher cost to see just how things work out at 960 x 1080 per eye (particularly the UI in games, which is often at the edges of the screen), since text is going to most susceptible to the resolution issue - the actual in game experience looks like it'll be good at any resolution from the various hands-on reviews I've seen.

[Fredz]

There is also this one (5" 1920x1080 AH-IPS) from LG that should be available this year for the mobile phone market :
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/lg-d ... e-display/

Next candidates are the ones from Toshiba and Sharp at 6.1" 2560x1600 both, but it's not clear if they'll be mass produced in a near future.

[anlumo]

Palmer seems to be on top of what's available from suppliers, I think he mentions some panels that will be available later in some of his posts in the kickstarter thread. The Rift seems to be the cutting edge of what's physically possible right now, for *any* price.

I'm not so sure, I remember Carmack mentioning in one of his interviews that the panel used is from 2008… I'm pretty sure that some development has happened in the meantime, though Palmer hasn't stated exactly why the newer panels aren't suitable.
One of the problems is that you don't want to use a touch panel in an HMD, but most of these high resolution displays are for iPhone-style mobile phones.

I personally suspect that the suppliers can't ship in the right volumes, or something like that, but only Palmer could explain with authority.

[bobv5]

The problem is that 1080 really isn't enough of an improvement to be worth the huge extra expense. At the time he was designing the Rift, the panel in it now was the best available for a sane price. I think it is still the case that a few higher res panels have been made, but they don't come with suitable driver boards. For a big scale comercial project, like the consumer version of Rift, it might be worth paying to have one designed, but back when the Rift was the PRx, it was a completly non-viable idea.

[Fredz]

I'm not so sure, I remember Carmack mentioning in one of his interviews that the panel used is from 2008… I'm pretty sure that some development has happened in the meantime, though Palmer hasn't stated exactly why the newer panels aren't suitable.

This panel was used in UMPCs when it was all the rage some years ago, but the market has shifted to tablets and 5.6" high res screens are seldom used now. Mobile phones tend to go towards higher panels (5" for the LG I talked about) but it's probably not big enough.

IIRC Palmer said that panels around 6" would be perfect, but I don't see what kind of products could use those. The 6.1" from Sharp and Toshiba are only prototypes and don't seem to have been created for a particular market in mind.

EDIT : I created a Google Doc to reference the small displays I found some time ago, you can find it here :
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub ... utput=html

[sellars]

I'm not so sure, I remember Carmack mentioning in one of his interviews that the panel used is from 2008… I'm pretty sure that some development has happened in the meantime, though Palmer hasn't stated exactly why the newer panels aren't suitable.

This panel was used in UMPCs when it was all the rage some years ago, but the market has shifted to tablets and 5.6" high res screens are seldom used now. Mobile phones tend to go towards higher panels (5" for the LG I talked about) but it's probably not big enough.

IIRC Palmer said that panels around 6" would be perfect, but I don't see what kind of products could use those. The 6.1" from Sharp and Toshiba are only prototypes and don't seem to have been created for a particular market in mind.

EDIT : I created a Google Doc to reference the small displays I found some time ago, you can find it here :
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub ... utput=html

That's a great list, thanks! So... we definitely want those 2560 6.1" displays then Sadly, there's probably only one of each in existence

[EdZ]

Finding high pixel density screens isn't really the issue: it's driving them via DVI (or anything else your average PC can output). These panels are designed to be built into phones and tablets, so they interface directly with the SoC via relatively proprietary interfaces that can differ wildly between panels. Building a driver IC from scratch for them is not a cheap proposition until you are getting into order quantities of several hundred thousand at a time (+ development cost).

[Haemato]

You probably wouldn't want to design an ASIC to drive the panel due to cost but an Artix-7 FPGA could probably be used. Also, forget DVI/HDMI .... move to DisplayPort 1.2 so that you'd have enough bandwidth for 2560x1600@120Hz. The panel may not actually be able to run at 120Hz but with an FPGA solution you could find the max frequency that would work and it'll be higher than 60Hz.

[Krenzo]

You probably wouldn't want to design an ASIC to drive the panel due to cost but an Artix-7 FPGA could probably be used. Also, forget DVI/HDMI .... move to DisplayPort 1.2 so that you'd have enough bandwidth for 2560x1600@120Hz. The panel may not actually be able to run at 120Hz but with an FPGA solution you could find the max frequency that would work and it'll be higher than 60Hz.

I wouldn't bet on using an Artix-7 anytime soon. It will probably be another year before they're actually available. You can't even find Kintex-7 chips that were launched 6 months ago. However, you can use a Cyclone III to do 1080p which is cheap and available now, but I doubt you could get much framerate out of it.

[Haemato]

I wouldn't bet on using an Artix-7 anytime soon. It will probably be another year before they're actually available. You can't even find Kintex-7 chips that were launched 6 months ago. However, you can use a Cyclone III to do 1080p which is cheap and available now, but I doubt you could get much framerate out of it.

I wouldn't bet on using the Toshiba 6.1" screen any time soon either. It turns out that the availability of those 2 items might line up pretty well.

I think Kintex devel boards are available. The Xilinx site lists a 2 week lead time for them. All of the HDL development could be done on the Kintex board and then just port it to an Artix when they're available for power/cost/size reasons.

[Krenzo]

I wouldn't bet on using the Toshiba 6.1" screen any time soon either. It turns out that the availability of those 2 items might line up pretty well.

I think Kintex devel boards are available. The Xilinx site lists a 2 week lead time for them. All of the HDL development could be done on the Kintex board and then just port it to an Artix when they're available for power/cost/size reasons.

Yes, there are Kintex boards available for thousands of dollars. Have you worked with the Spartan 6 LXT? The gigabit transceivers can do 1080p60 and beyond. There are also external chips that only do the gigabit serialization at a fraction of the cost of moving up to an FPGA with built-in GTPs.

I'm wondering if Palmer already has plans in place for supporting 1080p.

[Dycus]

1080p for each eye? Or 1080p total?

Either way, the current problem with that is the 1080p standard only supports 24hz, when we need it running at at least 60hz. Plus, if you're going with 1080p per eye, not many people have computers that are capable of rendering two views at 1080p, at 60fps, without ever dropping. The technology just isn't quite there yet.

We don't know what the final resolution will be for the consumer version.

[brantlew]

I am a bit ignorant on the subject, but don't the old analog VGA outputs still output high resolutions at 60 or 70Hz? Could Oculus just bypass the whole HDMI limitation by going with an analog input? I personally wouldn't complain about the slight degradation in quality if the resolution could be boosted to 800x1200 per eye (UXVGA / 2) - assuming you can actually find panels like that. But even if those panels don't exist, can analog hardware drive a 1920x1080 panel at 60Hz?

[Fredz]

1080p at 60Hz per eye is the standard configuration for PC gamers thanks to dual-link DVI, you're not forced to use HDMI and their limited transmission chips. And 325Hz HDMI transmission chips are already available to bypass this limitation, they can't still be found in current displays but some may be available for the Rift consumer version.

[Fredz]

I am a bit ignorant on the subject, but don't the old analog VGA outputs still output high resolutions at 60 or 70Hz?

VGA can support 2048×1536 @ 85Hz and in theory should be able to support 2560×1600 @ 60 Hz, the problem would be to find displays with such an input (certain Barco projectors did according to the following link).
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_connectors

But since VGA is a dying standard I guess dual-link DVI is the best alternative if relatively small displays supporting this interface can be found. dual-link DVI supports 2560×1600 @ 60 Hz. The max res. with current HDMI displays is 1920×1200 @ 60Hz. The HDMI 1.3 spec. indicates a max res. of 2560×1600 @ 75Hz, but no display can support that yet.

[Krenzo]

1080p for each eye? Or 1080p total?

Either way, the current problem with that is the 1080p standard only supports 24hz, when we need it running at at least 60hz. Plus, if you're going with 1080p per eye, not many people have computers that are capable of rendering two views at 1080p, at 60fps, without ever dropping. The technology just isn't quite there yet.

We don't know what the final resolution will be for the consumer version.

1080p total. I guess I was wondering what chipset you're going to use or if you're going to roll your own to drive a higher display in the consumer Rift, but I suppose that's too far in the distance.

[EdZ]

DVI, HMDI, DisplayPort or VGA are not the limitation here. The big barrier to adopting a different, higher resolution, display is that last few mm between the end of the video cable and the panel itself: the display controller interfacing with the panel. Panels are not plug-and-play, you have to tweak and tune your display controller for the panel. This takes time and money, and quite a lot of both even if you have the cooperation of the display panel manufacturer in doing so (without it the task is herculean, which is why "just use an iPhone panel" is not particularly helpful).

[Fredz]

which is why "just use an iPhone panel" is not particularly helpful).

Not if you want to connect it to a PC, but very interesting if you want to use a smartphone as the video source. They're more and more powerful and could make the basis for a great mobile VR system. If the 2560x1600 panels from Sharp and Toshiba came with SoC, I think a lot of people would like to see them on a VR device.