MWC 24-27 FEB-14 Rise of WQHD!

[Dilip]

Mobile World congress is coming on 24-27th FEB 2014 Barcelona Spane, i know it may not be of much significance for RIFTers here. But as my prime suspicion "The only thing which is holding back oculus from declaring or demoing WQHD (2560X1440) Rift may be mobile companies insist that they may want to display this teach as first seen on their mobile and not any third party HMD Maker
"
Of course this is educated wild guess, but look at the WQHD Devices in queue to be revealed at MWC-2014


A. LG G3 with Quad HD screen, 16MP camera and octa-core processor
B. Samsung - Galaxy S5 (aka thunder-thief) it's reportedly specced to the hilt, with a 5.25in 2560x1440 QHD display, eight-core
Exynos processor or Snapdragon 805 quad-core processor and all-metal body.
C. NOKIA LUMIA 1820 5.2in 2K display, quad-core Snapdragon 805 processor, 3GB of RAM and 32GB of expandable storage.

http://www.stuff.tv/htc/mwc-2014/mwc-20 ... ar/feature
http://www.mobileworldcongress.com/2014-preview/

Anyway 1080p OLED Screen of CRYSTAL COVE is part of mobile only. so that's kind of more backup to educated wild guess.

I am expecting WQHD rift at GDC 2014(will update here if i proved to be wrong or even right

Its going to be raining WQHDs
And of course everyone's beloved OCULUS RIFT is WAITING FOR JUST THAT
May be behind the closed doors it might have hit 4K, but mass production availability and 2014/15 processing power wise i guess
consumer version has to be WQHD, fingers crossed!

[Kazioo]

Isn't 5.25" screen too small? Oculus would probably need the screen from the newest Galaxy Note.

[Dilip]

wasn't initial perceived version 5.6" ?
Moving to 7" was decision taken due to non availability of 5.6" display at time of production

[Kazioo]

Yes, 5.5-5.7" seems to be perfect, but not 5.25".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_Note_3

1080p Galaxy Note was released in Q3 2013, long after Valve made their headset with galaxy S4 screens.
I guess 1440p Galaxy Note may release in Q3 2014.

Unfortunately, new Galaxy Note with 1440p screen isn't even rumored and I doubt Oculus would get the panels before it's released.
I guess DK2 will have 1080p panel, but V1 may get 1440p panel, because it will release after Q3 2014.

EDIT: S5 seems to be 1080p... http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthr ... ?t=2659857

[Fredz]

Yes, 5.5-5.7" seems to be perfect, but not 5.25".

5.6" 16:10 : 16×5.6÷sqrt(16^2+10^2) = 4,75" width (12,06cm)
5.25" 16:9 : 16×5.25÷sqrt(16^2+9^2) = 4,57" width (11,62cm)

The difference is not that big, you'll only loose a small bit of FOV.

The ideal would probably be a screen with at least twice the IPD of the viewer (6.4 cm in average), ie. 12.8cm. For 16:9 that means a 5.8 diagonal and for 16:10 a 5.95" diagonal.

[RikuDesu]

As long as microstutter is fixed because to run higher resolutions at 75fps you're either going to need a 780ti, a titan or probably SLI

[cybereality]

SLI causes additional latency. A GTX 780 should be enough anyway.

[KBK]

5.6 was the prototype. Not optimal. it was JUST a prototype,and proof of concept and a price and availability point.

the 7" was too big, but all that was available in quantity and quality.

The PROPER screen is a 16:10 at 6.2"-6.3" diagonal.

Anything smaller, takes the main target group out of the sizing sweetspot.

5.9" would not be production model, for example, unless the target audience as of marginally smaller IPD, such as an Asian target group.

westerners tend to have a marginally greater IPD, and thus require a marginally larger screen, to hit the 'middle of the group' size ranging.

I require a 67mmIPD, for example, which is just a HAIR above the western averages of the target audience, the average being 65mm, estimated. 2x for the 130mm width, and then the 16:10 calculator spits out a 6.1" diagonal....which is the MINIMUM size required to get to the center of the bell curve of sizing for the target audience. To get to the SECOND half of the potential buyers, requires that the screen be still a hair larger, like 6.3" diagonal. maybe 6.4" diagonal on a 16:10 screen.

Best bet is a 16:9 screen, at 6.4" or thereabouts.....but no smaller. Not for a commercial release.

[Dilip]

maybe 6.4" diagonal on a 16:10 screen.

Best bet is a 16:9 screen, at 6.4" or thereabouts.....but no smaller. Not for a commercial release.

Isn't that custom size you are talking about? Can you suggest any present or upcoming device which is having that sized WQHD OLED display?

I doubt oculus can pre-order such large number of OLEDs which allow them to speak of custom size. They probably will play safe by acquiring units which are part of large production cycle at-least for CV1. if that hit millions then may be CV2 can have display of custom made.

[mr.uu]

5.6 was the prototype. Not optimal. it was JUST a prototype,and proof of concept and a price and availability point.

the 7" was too big, but all that was available in quantity and quality.

The PROPER screen is a 16:10 at 6.2"-6.3" diagonal.

Anything smaller, takes the main target group out of the sizing sweetspot.

5.9" would not be production model, for example, unless the target audience as of marginally smaller IPD, such as an Asian target group.

westerners tend to have a marginally greater IPD, and thus require a marginally larger screen, to hit the 'middle of the group' size ranging.

I require a 67mmIPD, for example, which is just a HAIR above the western averages of the target audience, the average being 65mm, estimated. 2x for the 130mm width, and then the 16:10 calculator spits out a 6.1" diagonal....which is the MINIMUM size required to get to the center of the bell curve of sizing for the target audience. To get to the SECOND half of the potential buyers, requires that the screen be still a hair larger, like 6.3" diagonal. maybe 6.4" diagonal on a 16:10 screen.

Best bet is a 16:9 screen, at 6.4" or thereabouts.....but no smaller. Not for a commercial release.

You all take the lens completely out of the equasion. With a more magnifying lens you would fight the smaler size. But you would increase screendoor and waste pixels in the middle of the screen. Certainly not an optimal situation, but definately possible.

Nevertheless i do see oculus release sooner or later a dual panel version, where you do shift the panels when you adjust the IPD. No wasted pixels and no problem with seeing borders when you have a bigger IPD. With a proper lens they could even use 16:9 panels to give you a square image - Or hype the greater FOV. Probably not for CV1, but who knows?

[Dilip]

You all take the lens completely out of the equasion. With a more magnifying lens you would fight the smaler size. But you would increase screendoor and waste pixels in the middle of the screen. Certainly not an optimal situation, but definately possible.

Nevertheless i do see oculus release sooner or later a dual panel version, where you do shift the panels when you adjust the IPD. No wasted pixels and no problem with seeing borders when you have a bigger IPD. With a proper lens they could even use 16:9 panels to give you a square image - Or hype the greater FOV. Probably not for CV1, but who knows?

Long time ago i asked in this forum only that why oculus don't straight way utilize two 5" 1080 panels and build Real Full HD rift with 1080p resolution per eye. Reply from Palmar was using two display has sync issues and many technical limitations which do not affect single screen.

For twin panels there is actually a product emerging with Fresnel lenses.
http://www.roadtovr.com/infiniteye-tech ... lity-work/

They are offering vertical 90 degree and total freaky staggering 210 degree fov they have also took part in SAMSUNG YOUM CONTEST then SAMSUNG DITCHED ALL .

May they are also helped by palmer in past on same project and some of their tech demos are also curtsey OCULUS. now you say who was stopping oculus them self from going twin screen if they ever wanted to. they must have sufficient reasons to not to do that.

I even think of FLEXIBLE Displays. What if twin 720P displays of LG G FLEX used in single hmd and wrap them around the face and use concave lenses of such curvature that cancel the physical warping of screen so you don't need to add pre-warping at all? Benefit will be 210 Degree FoV in rather SLEEK Device as infinite-eye looks odd twinbox on head+more natural feeling due to curved screen that match curve of your face.

[Fredz]

The PROPER screen is a 16:10 at 6.2"-6.3" diagonal.

On what do you base these numbers ? For the 6.5mm interpupillary distance you gave it should be 6.04" for a 16:10 display, not 6.2"-6.3".

To get to the SECOND half of the potential buyers, requires that the screen be still a hair larger, like 6.3" diagonal. maybe 6.4" diagonal on a 16:10 screen.

Going this route, why not include 99% of the population then. The 99th percentile has a 74mm IPD, so this would give :
- 16:10 : 16(x*2.54)/√(16*16+10*10) = 7.4*2 : 6.88"
- 16:9 : 16(x*2.54)/√(16*16+9*9) = 7.4*2 : 6.69"

These numbers are only useful for 100% binocular overlap though, for partial overlap the screen size can be bigger. And it's more complex than that anyway because it doesn't take into account the vertical FOV and the lenses characteristics.

[Fredz]

For twin panels there is actually a product emerging with Fresnel lenses.
http://www.roadtovr.com/infiniteye-tech ... lity-work/

Funny that you link to an external website for a project that first started here on MTBS3D.

May they are also helped by palmer in past on same project and some of their tech demos are also curtsey OCULUS.

They did everything "in-house", they only used the Tuscany assets in the demo they coded. Foisi started building HMDs 3 years ago, Palmer made some comments on his initial efforts.

now you say who was stopping oculus them self from going twin screen if they ever wanted to. they must have sufficient reasons to not to do that.

Cost and more complexity for no evident benefit, the DK1 is half the price of the InfinitEye in parts and doesn't need two video outputs.

I even think of FLEXIBLE Displays. What if twin 720P displays of LG G FLEX used in single hmd and wrap them around the face and use concave lenses of such curvature that cancel the physical warping of screen so you don't need to add pre-warping at all?

Curved displays have been talked about at length and do not provide any benefit but only drawbacks, they don't "cancel" the warping.

[Dilip]

Funny that you link to an external website for a project that first started here on MTBS3D.

What can i say, just type infinite eye in Google
https://www.google.co.in/#q=infinite+eye

1) After first 7 useless findings 8Th is road to vr review-article.I enjoyed reading it and find it very interesting.
2) In first 5 pages of Google MTBS3D is nowhere for infinite eye.
3) It was really cool and in depth review by Paul James. Though project started here and here is really very very much information than that article.Sadly its scattered among multiple posts and not in form of single in-depth review.
4) I have pointed out it to some one who seek RIFT's problems solution in twin screen. who may not be knowing about infinite eye and to introduce one with device it was really good article.that does not mean Road to Vr has discovered this project..certainly no.
5) I love MTBS,this is gem place but that was also article which gave due credit to Lionel Anton-who knows foisi?

Curved displays have been talked about at length and do not provide any benefit but only drawbacks, they don't "cancel" the warping.

I meant if flexible display used in half spherical setting in such way that a concave created by display exactly match the convex of lenses so that it compensate the distortion or fish-eye effect introduced by convex lenses.Thus no need to do software pre-warping for image correction.. this was just thought, i really don't know practical scene so if you explain why it won't work i am glad to enhance my knowledge.

BTW -- SAMSUNG AGAIN DITCHED......Now i think if DK2 introduced in GDC14 it might probably have 1080P AMOLED only (aka Note3?)
Still crossed fingers (Just to fool my self a bit!!)

[Fredz]

I meant if flexible display used in half spherical setting in such way that a concave created by display exactly match the convex of lenses so that it compensate the distortion or fish-eye effect introduced by convex lenses.

So you'd need one display for each eye, and the only advantage would be to avoid de-warping in software, which is a very cheap operation. Sorry but I don't see the benefit here.

And the problem with curved displays is that they bend in one direction only. To get a focused image for every pixel on the screen you'd need concave displays (the inside of a sphere), but nobody is building them. I'm not even sure simple aspheric lenses could still be used in this case.

BTW -- SAMSUNG AGAIN DITCHED......Now i think if DK2 introduced in GDC14 it might probably have 1080P AMOLED only (aka Note3?)

JDI (Sony, Toshiba, Hitachi) is also building OLED displays in mobile size. They demoed a 5.2" WRGB-stripe OLED last year, better than the PenTile matrix used by Samsung, and they should start mass production this spring.

[cybereality]

What can i say, just type infinite eye in Google

That's not the name of the product. Maybe that's why the hits are nonsense. It's called "Infiniteye".

[Attreyu]

It's 5.9-6.0". No more.

I use the 7" in the 3Deva for tablets. With the Kindle Fire HDX and the Nexus 2013 you have massive overlapping issues and a hard time focusing without seeing double. Instant headaches.

Unless you have software implementations of the necessary adjustments, you're lost in the desert.

Using 5X, 50mm. aspherics - positioned at precisely 6.5 cm - you look through the centers of the lenses, but the lenses themselves are not positioned over the centers of the two halfes of the panel, thus your eyes are forced to diverge.

Adjusting the overlapping gives you a wicked FOV at the expense of losing about 0.4-0.5" of lateral screen.

If using greater magnification lens, at about 6X combined with a smaller diameter (the Rift ones), you have increased detail and screen-door and lose even more FOV.

So it's the 5.9-6.0" screen.