The Future of Gaming - Tim Sweeney (Epic) DICE 2012 Session

[krimms]

I thought his talk was very interesting, and it's especially relevant for Oculus Rift in the beginning where he says that an "ideal" resolution for the eyes would be 8k (8000x4000) with a field of view of 90 degrees. That means a 16,000x8,000 display for Oculus Rift so you get about 8,000x8,000 resolution per eye. Of course for now we should be happy even if we get 1kx1k in the first or even second gen Oculus Rift, but at least we know where we should be with it.

He also mentions that the ideal FPS is 72. But that might be only for PC's, and I think in Oculus Rift you would be even more sensitive to frame rates than on a normal PC, so it might need to go higher than that for future games, perhaps 120 FPS with 120 Hz displays (or is it 240 Hz, so you can split it in half for 3D?). If movies are switching to 60 FPS, then games, where frame rate would vary in different scenarios, should definitely have double that. Better to have frame-rate drop from 120 to 80, than from 60 to 40, in Oculus Rift, for an "uninterrupted", fluid and "real" experience.

Anyway watch the talk here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiQweemn2_A

[colocolo]

yeah i saw this video. i hope printed electronics progress will move on because we will need pretty dense TFT for a side by side 32Mega panel.

[Direlight]

8k displays are working now.
3-5 years before they hit mobile market. (guessing)

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413918,00.asp

[Diorama]

On the mobile side, Japan Dispay has a prototype 2.3 inch 1280x800 display.

That's 651ppi, almost exactly double the 351 ppi of the 'Retina' on the iPhone 4/5.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuBevxQG6eo[/youtube]

Jam a couple of those bad boys into the Rift

[colocolo]

On the mobile side, Japan Dispay has a prototype 2.3 inch 1280x800 display.

That's 651ppi, almost exactly double the 351 ppi of the 'Retina' on the iPhone 4/5.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuBevxQG6eo[/youtube]

Jam a couple of those bad boys into the Rift

yeah, if it has an almost 16:9 form factor, than it would fit nine times in there. 9 Million Pixels!

[Leahy]

Don't forget http://www.microoled.net/news/news-from-microoled imagine you tile 5x5 each eye of these you'll get 6400x5120x2, now actually running that sort of display at 120hz is another topic

[KBK]

fill rates are critical. find the fill rate ratio, how much grid there is in the given display, compared to pixel area. Most high density small displays are not talking about fill rates. They just give you the pixel density as a number.

Ortus has some interesting stuff.

http://www.ortustech.co.jp/english/

As a single basic specification, this technology may be quickly scalable to the correct sizing. Bear in mind that only basic pixel densities are considered here.

Their 9.6" unit density scaled to 7", is approx 2800x1575. which is ~1400Wx1575H available for each eye. It has 10 bit color depth, which is a good thing. The rest of the specifications are not detailed, but from their site data, it is probably good. since I've not done the search work, this item is probably in a thread or two on this forum, as a wild but easy guess. Their fill rates appear to move toward the desirable directions ,as they actually speak about it. When it is not good, then the given manufacturer would not make mention of it (in most cases).

[PasticheDonkey]

becomes less important as resolution goes up.

[KBK]

becomes less important as resolution goes up.

Spent many years modifying all projector types known. Electrical, mechanical, and optical modifications. Everything counts.

Fill rate remains as a false noise floor, due to the grid.

[KBK]

To add:

That as pixel density goes up, that unless a new technology is in hand that is reducing the given grid % of fill, ie, a finer grid..that unless a smaller grid emerges as a technology, along with the increase in pixel density..that the grid emerges as a bigger problem than it does in the lower pixel density displays.

In some forms of practice, what you say is true, as pixel density and grid percentage reduction have moved along with each other, with regard to technological advances. But this is not always true.

I have worked with the aspect of these parameters and problems vs realized acuity via manipulation of all potential parameters that are possible to change, in the given projector, and associated technology. LCOS projectors, LCD projectors, DLP projectors, and CRT projectors. Overall, I was doing such work in the form of single cause analysis experiments, on my own, with about 25 or more individual projectors, at a minimum. this, over a period of 8 years, as a form of daily fare. as in, maybe 25 to 100 or more single cause analysis experiments with the given individual projector and its associated parameters that can be affected.

This, in conjunction with modification and in single cause analysis of source and connection, as well as defining the screen and room, the screen being done as a form of molecular and atomic considerations of photonic interaction. Then the whole thing as a combined set, for human consumption. The number of people on this planet that have taken it that far, can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Maybe.

Please understand that this is not about one upmanship, no not at all. This is a clearer qualification of my remark.

I stepped out of video as, you might imagine, I was pukingly saturated. I went back to my original love, which is audio design. Invented a different method of conduction in order to overcome the limitations of normally considered electrical propagation.

I'm back, staring at video again, due to the introduction of Palmer's work.

[Randomoneh]

The amount of fact non-checking: too damn high.

If apparent pixel size is not same across your FOV (flat display without any external optics), 8000 pixels over 90 degrees yields a [center-to-center] pixel spacing of 8.6 arcdegrees. Not even close to the abilities of human visual system.
If, however, every pixel has the same apparent size (spherical display or external optics), then 8000 pixels pver 90 degrees yields a pixel spacing of 0.7 arcminutes - much closer to "point of diminishing returns".

[gravity360]

To add:

That as pixel density goes up, that unless a new technology is in hand that is reducing the given grid % of fill, ie, a finer grid..that unless a smaller grid emerges as a technology, along with the increase in pixel density..that the grid emerges as a bigger problem than it does in the lower pixel density displays.

In some forms of practice, what you say is true, as pixel density and grid percentage reduction have moved along with each other, with regard to technological advances. But this is not always true.

I have worked with the aspect of these parameters and problems vs realized acuity via manipulation of all potential parameters that are possible to change, in the given projector, and associated technology. LCOS projectors, LCD projectors, DLP projectors, and CRT projectors. Overall, I was doing such work in the form of single cause analysis experiments, on my own, with about 25 or more individual projectors, at a minimum. this, over a period of 8 years, as a form of daily fare. as in, maybe 25 to 100 or more single cause analysis experiments with the given individual projector and its associated parameters that can be affected.

This, in conjunction with modification and in single cause analysis of source and connection, as well as defining the screen and room, the screen being done as a form of molecular and atomic considerations of photonic interaction. Then the whole thing as a combined set, for human consumption. The number of people on this planet that have taken it that far, can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Maybe.

Please understand that this is not about one upmanship, no not at all. This is a clearer qualification of my remark.

I stepped out of video as, you might imagine, I was pukingly saturated. I went back to my original love, which is audio design. Invented a different method of conduction in order to overcome the limitations of normally considered electrical propagation.

I'm back, staring at video again, due to the introduction of Palmer's work.

I don't believe this is fully true as the light given off of a pixel isn't coherent light and will have some scatter to it. I'd think that because of the natural property of the light; at a denser PPI (so long as the fill rate is decent) the scatter would blur the "screen/grid" effect because the gap between the pixels is actually smaller.

[KBK]

To add:

That as pixel density goes up, that unless a new technology is in hand that is reducing the given grid % of fill, ie, a finer grid..that unless a smaller grid emerges as a technology, along with the increase in pixel density..that the grid emerges as a bigger problem than it does in the lower pixel density displays.

In some forms of practice, what you say is true, as pixel density and grid percentage reduction have moved along with each other, with regard to technological advances. But this is not always true.

I have worked with the aspect of these parameters and problems vs realized acuity via manipulation of all potential parameters that are possible to change, in the given projector, and associated technology. LCOS projectors, LCD projectors, DLP projectors, and CRT projectors. Overall, I was doing such work in the form of single cause analysis experiments, on my own, with about 25 or more individual projectors, at a minimum. this, over a period of 8 years, as a form of daily fare. as in, maybe 25 to 100 or more single cause analysis experiments with the given individual projector and its associated parameters that can be affected.

This, in conjunction with modification and in single cause analysis of source and connection, as well as defining the screen and room, the screen being done as a form of molecular and atomic considerations of photonic interaction. Then the whole thing as a combined set, for human consumption. The number of people on this planet that have taken it that far, can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Maybe.

Please understand that this is not about one upmanship, no not at all. This is a clearer qualification of my remark.

I stepped out of video as, you might imagine, I was pukingly saturated. I went back to my original love, which is audio design. Invented a different method of conduction in order to overcome the limitations of normally considered electrical propagation.

I'm back, staring at video again, due to the introduction of Palmer's work.

I don't believe this is fully true as the light given off of a pixel isn't coherent light and will have some scatter to it. I'd think that because of the natural property of the light; at a denser PPI (so long as the fill rate is decent) the scatter would blur the "screen/grid" effect because the gap between the pixels is actually smaller.

This is what I mean, about artificial noise floors due to the 'grid' and the pixel, as a combination of things. The specific design parameters of the panel proper, with regard to the minutiae of the materials as a combination. How this affects and integrates with the given system, as a whole (as a single criteria, in-situ, in flow).

I have had some ideas that I have sat on for quite a few years, with regard to obtaining 10k:1 or more in a pixel to pixel single frame analysis, in the context of LCD systems. That I have solved this issue to my satisfaction in the theoretical sense and can commit to practical execution in today's reality. That the LCD, DLP, and LCOS engines that I modified are still superior to what is out there today, even though I have not touched an engine in almost 5 years. This, in the most important specification, which is that of single frame contrast ratio in the pixel to pixel sense, in-situ, in the given finished system. The big guys seemingly had no interest in such improvements, unless it was given to them for free. Sorry, not happening.

The way it tended to work, is that the CEO or given department head (LG, Samsung, Optoma, PD, Ti, etc), would ask the engineers if what I'm saying is bull..and since they can't do it, and don't understand it, the engineers say it is bull, and the CEO has his own people telling them that what I'm saying and actually doing, is impossible.... and thus they walk away. This was ultimately very frustrating, so I finally gave up. That their best modern engines and hardware (as a set) are still not even close to what I was achieving with their older designs 5-6-7 years ago.

Witnesses tended to think differently than the people at these given companies. That one close friend who's done work in the film industry for about 25+ years, thought that my CRT projection (in 1999 or so), as a integrated finished system, was as good or better than, in overall terms, as the film rushes used on set to check the day's shots. (the single original processed 35mm film, a few hours old - which is considered to be as good as it gets). That I had pushed the limitations back toward the eye/brain combination and not in the presentation technology.

That Palmer has gotten me interested in video again. That I would not mind contributing, but I'm not interested in a battle, which is my prior experience. People, specifically companies..tend to get very stand-offish, if it seems that you can take something they have done... and bring it to a higher level.

Edit:

I will readily admit that I know next to nothing about HMD's.

OTOH, with regard to the what they do, all the intricate hardware, electrical, mechanical, optical, and what the eye desires to see..regarding all that: I am well versed in perfecting those aspects -individually, and as a set.

[KBK]

That just a few seconds ago, I found the fix for the major lens issue, and in theory, and practice have probably eliminated it completely.

That my ignorance of the HMD market, makes it so I don't know if a similar solution has already been enacted, or not. But it took me about 12 hours to go from zero to solution.

[gravity360]

So are you talking about a beam splitter type effect? My knowledge in optics isn't vast by any margin. Regardless, it does sound interesting. Please don't take my statements as a way of saying or denying the information you are presenting. I find it fascinating and will probably end up inquiring about it more.

[KBK]

I'd like to talk about the solution I've 'found', but that I don't know if it is common knowledge or not. Thus I will have to research and look around. This sort of detail is thin on the ground as most of these devices (HMD's) are coming from small proprietary type firms, and intellectual property, is really just that: property. That the lore and 'leet skillz', is where it's at. Thus they tend to sound like a crew of old men having a nuance-expression and ego fight in the middle of a very serious poker game. Everyone keeps their cards close, and their guard up.

If I was able to talk with Palmer, then I'd know in seconds. I'm here to improve the Rift, if I can. I don't know if I can, but I have every reason to believe I can improve the experience in subtle ways that count. To go from Toyota (or whomever) to BMW, where everything is sublimely perfected. That little bit more in all areas, that cumulatively makes the experience that much more real. That it does not generally cost more to do, but it takes more interconnected 'lore' in the associated areas to put the package together. I'm not discounting other folks skills - as one can see, this gets to be a tricky area.

[PalmerTech]

If I was able to talk with Palmer, then I'd know in seconds. I'm here to improve the Rift, if I can.

I am always here.

[KBK]

Ok. I'll PM you. As stated, there is possibility that it has been used before ...and possibility that it has not.

As I write this.... the more I think about... the more I think that it has not. The reasons will be clear in the pm.

[KBK]

whoops, no post