Meant to be Seen

http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/13/lg-g-flex-revealed/

LG has admitted that "bendable and unbreakable" smartphone displays are already in production, and we've heard plenty of rumors about a device known as the G Flex which features the new tech. Engadget has come across a trio of renders of the upcoming device, and we have learned from our sources that it will be coming out sometime next month -- pricing and availability (as well as hard specs) are as of yet unknown, however. As you can see in the images (above and below), the G Flex offers a curved display, but LG's version approaches it at a literally different angle from the Galaxy Round that was announced last week: instead of it curving from left to right, the G Flex goes orthogonally from top to bottom. We'll update you with more information and images as we get closer to the device's launch.

Update: Our sources have confirmed to us that the G Flex will indeed have a 6-inch display, as rumored previously.

Seems like a bad fit in a pocket : p
Tech is really cool though : )

http://liliputing.com/2013/10/japan-dis ... splay.html
two new 2.5K panels. a 5,4inch and a 6,2 inch.
Also Vivo xplay S3 with a 5,5inch 2,5k.
Sharp presented their 6.1 inch 2,5k display two years ago.
Brendan Iribe talking about 4k VR.
Looking good...

This one looks a bit more interesting to me for the consumer Rift :

7.0-inch Wide-QXGA (1,600 x 2,560 pixels) for tablet applications
The high resolution (432ppi) of this display for tablet applications is more commonly found in smartphone applications. Its power consumption is almost 60% less than conventional Red/Green/Blue (RGB) LCD panels* (the new "WhiteMagic" display), with a narrow border of 1.0mm and a thin module structure of only 1.17mm thickness (dimensions equivalent to specifications for a 5.0-inch Full-HD module for smartphone use*). The new "Pixel Eyes" display also includes integrated touch function and smooth pen input 1.0mm in diameter.

Source : http://www.j-display.com/english/news/2 ... 31018.html

But for something like the InfinitEye, the display in the Vivo Xplay 3S surely looks more interesting. Not sure if two 2560x1440 displays can be driven from a PC though.

Real mysteries are mostly settling in display,it seems to be.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/22/48891 ... re-hurdles

"If we move to an OLED panel, pixel-switching times would go down to about zero, because OLED tech just gives us that for free," he explained. "But we can't buy them at the size that we want because the only company that has them is Samsung.

Why OLED is still in clutches of Samsung? no one else is interested/capable in manufacturing displays of this tech? or is it patenet issue?
there are many china made phones here having OLED displays like MICROMAX and HUAWEI do they all buy their phone panels from Samsung only? if that’s a case why won't Samsung sell them to oculus. RIFT is really far far away from any form of Cell Phone or Tablet they may face competition with.

"We're not Microsoft, Apple or Samsung," he said. "We've sold 35,000 dev kits so far. Showing that number to a screen manufacturer, they're like 'OK, come talk to us when you're selling a million units.'

Most sad part of whole story, but I m sure one day they will be if they make right choices and take right decisions at right times. But to reach there they got to have a compelling product to begin with and here advance display is critical requirement, so are we looking at paradox ? of course but not a unbreakable one as it need a display manufacturer with INTREST in THiS Tech and FAITH in THEM. because ‘All GIANTs are Babies at some point of time’.

Fredz wrote:This one looks a bit more interesting to me for the consumer Rift :

7.0-inch Wide-QXGA (1,600 x 2,560 pixels) for tablet applications
The high resolution (432ppi) of this display for tablet applications is more commonly found in smartphone applications. Its power consumption is almost 60% less than conventional Red/Green/Blue (RGB) LCD panels* (the new "WhiteMagic" display), with a narrow border of 1.0mm and a thin module structure of only 1.17mm thickness (dimensions equivalent to specifications for a 5.0-inch Full-HD module for smartphone use*). The new "Pixel Eyes" display also includes integrated touch function and smooth pen input 1.0mm in diameter.

Source : http://www.j-display.com/english/news/2 ... 31018.html

But for something like the InfinitEye, the display in the Vivo Xplay 3S surely looks more interesting. Not sure if two 2560x1440 displays can be driven from a PC though.

what would be the ideal size for the Rift?
integrating a SoC would be a nice feature to compensate for a missing wireless link,(watching movies wirelessly on my bed, yes why not.)
though a Tegra 3 chip costs around 25$ today. Why not building in also a telecom unit...(they must be very cheap)Would be kind of cool to telecommunicate in VR.
OMG OMAP 4 costs about 12-14$.

colocolo wrote:

Fredz wrote:This one looks a bit more interesting to me for the consumer Rift :

7.0-inch Wide-QXGA (1,600 x 2,560 pixels) for tablet applications
The high resolution (432ppi) of this display for tablet applications is more commonly found in smartphone applications. Its power consumption is almost 60% less than conventional Red/Green/Blue (RGB) LCD panels* (the new "WhiteMagic" display), with a narrow border of 1.0mm and a thin module structure of only 1.17mm thickness (dimensions equivalent to specifications for a 5.0-inch Full-HD module for smartphone use*). The new "Pixel Eyes" display also includes integrated touch function and smooth pen input 1.0mm in diameter.

Source : http://www.j-display.com/english/news/2 ... 31018.html

But for something like the InfinitEye, the display in the Vivo Xplay 3S surely looks more interesting. Not sure if two 2560x1440 displays can be driven from a PC though.

what would be the ideal size for the Rift?

Just a rough calculation, assuming 7cm ipd and two 3.5 cm radius circles touching. The ideal size would be a 16.06 cm (~6.3 inches) diagonal using a 16:9 aspect ratio. However, that aspect ratio in itself is not ideal but there's little to do about that fact as the Rift won't be getting a custom screen anytime soon. They could also go for non-circular optics.

A curved screen has the potential to be far superior and would throw some of those numbers out the window though.

A panel that is slightly wider than that may be deemed optimal, as it will have greater capacity to engage the outer peripheral vision aspects, thus being more immersive.

considering the vast majority, ie bell curve center of IPD is at the 6.5cm mark, then the 6.3" might be fine. Since I'm at about 6.85cm, I'd like it to be a hair bigger. That is obviously a personal concern, not a target market concern.

A curved screen compounds the complexity of the overall optics package, so this is definitely a concern. One not easily addressed. Spherical section, one per eye, is probably the best way to handle the introduction of curved screens. If curved at all-a single curve, then one panel per eye, so the entire optics package can move with the IPD. Otherwise, it's an optical mess, at best. on a pro headset, the system could be slowly dialed in with a trained eye and an an expert hand, but this is far too much to expect for a consumer level device.

I've been on the manufacturing end of that situation, more times than once...and I can tell folks ....with an experienced and well seasoned opinion, that added complexity in set up of a head set will push a largish part of the market away.

99.9% of the people reading this post (it being on MTBS3D) will say, 'just give me the forking headset and I'll get it working right, I'll dial it in'....but you ain't the target market.

KBK wrote:A curved screen compounds the complexity of the overall optics package, so this is definitely a concern. One not easily addressed.

So you say using curved display like LG G FLex is very difficult/optically Expensive in HMD like Rift?

KBK wrote:Spherical section, one per eye, is probably the best way to handle the introduction of curved screens. If curved at all-a single curve, then one panel per eye, so the entire optics package can move with the IPD.

A. you are suggesting Spherical section, one per eye, is probably the best way
to handle the introduction of curved screens,Then won't it be difficult to
keep both screens in sync?

B. isn't it reason why palmer is avoiding twin 1280X800 displays from very
beginning of this project?

C. Though Sony & Vuzix already has this twin display thing so i m failed to
see why keeping twin display for HMD like RIFT is such a big deal?

D. How optic package can move with IPD? are you suggesting adjustable IPD
with button like in binocular?

KBK wrote: Otherwise, it's an optical mess, at best.

A. So you suggest with single flex screen wrapped around horizontal FOV like
RIFT will endup in optical mess?

KBK wrote: on a pro headset, the system could be slowly dialled in with a trained eye and an an expert hand, but this is far too much to expect for a consumer level device.

"on a pro headset, the system could be slowly dialled in with a trained eye and an an expert hand"- Please elaborate.

KBK wrote:I've been on the manufacturing end of that situation, more times than once...and I can tell folks ....with an experienced and well seasoned opinion, that added complexity in set up of a head set will push a largish part of the market away.

A. "I've been on the manufacturing end of that situation"-So are you HMD Manufacturer or Optics manufacturer or optical projection devices designer?

B. BIGGEST QUESTION: Why do you put many RIDDLEs? Are you fan of RIDLEY SCOTT?

@KBK
With all due respect.....
I am waiting for your replies

Dilip wrote: A. you are suggesting Spherical section, one per eye, is probably the best way
to handle the introduction of curved screens,Then won't it be difficult to
keep both screens in sync?

B. isn't it reason why palmer is avoiding twin 1280X800 displays from very
beginning of this project?

C. Though Sony & Vuzix already has this twin display thing so i m failed to
see why keeping twin display for HMD like RIFT is such a big deal?

While I heard Luckey say two displays posed a problem with both cost and synchronization, he never said it was an insurmountable one. Also, reading Carmack's tweet seems to indicate he's anxious for when the new 3D oled printing techniques will allow the creation of spherical shaped panels. I don't see any reason why Oculus should always maintain the one display setup when flexible displays start to appear.

Dual Flexible displays i see as good opportunity for INFINITEEYE

http://www.roadtovr.com/infiniteeye-wor ... hmd-video/

I wish i could know thoughts of Linonel ,weather he has tried flex displays till now!