Meant to be Seen

MSat wrote:I hope you have success in bringing this tech to market some way at a consumer-reasonable price. That form factor is fantastic!

Thanks MSat! I can't give you a price yet -- but regarding form factor, I see no reason to make it any larger than it needs to be:

I just realized....I wonder how many oculus ready games and demos will be compatible with the dev kit 2 resolutions...some of them don't have any resolution options besides the dk1 spec.

squibbfire wrote:I just realized....I wonder how many oculus ready games and demos will be compatible with the dev kit 2 resolutions...some of them don't have any resolution options besides the dk1 spec.

Good question. The device's EDID contains the size, luminance, and pixel mapping data. I have to imagine that developers anticipated that Oculus would be bumping up its resolution in subsequent DKs.

I wonder how carefully the eye-relief must be adjusted; the spacial translation of the pupil as it looks around (with optics that close) could cause things to get screwy...

As a side-note, I had no idea WUXGA microdisplays, fiber optic collimators, and curved microlens arrays even existed, let alone were acquirable! They are all terrifying parts.

The fact that you saw this far ahead in 1996 demonstrates a great deal of vision.

I made a thread a little while ago about the possibility of using ulexite to similar ends, but it's clear my approach was all too naive!

zalo wrote:I wonder how carefully the eye-relief must be adjusted; the spacial translation of the pupil as it looks around (with optics that close) could cause things to get screwy...

As a side-note, I had no idea WUXGA microdisplays, fiber optic collimators, and curved microlens arrays even existed, let alone were acquirable! They are all terrifying parts.

The fact that you saw this far ahead in 1996 demonstrates a great deal of vision.

I made a thread a little while ago about the possibility of using ulexite to similar ends, but it's clear my approach was all too naive!

Yes... These are definitely not components you can find at your local Frys. Even so, they're not hard to find or fabricate if you know exactly what you need and are prepared to pay for it. I had a proof-of-concept done and was satisfied that the relief tolerances aren't nearly as great as they appear -- really no more than an ordinary pair of glasses. BTW: ordinary glasses will remap your FOV to some degree, but your brain just ignores the difference.

I checked your link and saw what you were going. It'd work, but you'd have an easier time with a standard fiber-optic image conduit from someone like Edmunds. I'm not sure what the results with the Oculus optics would be since they're designed to account for the off-axis image distance.

With respect to weight, we calculated about 3.3g per module for our new unit. This is somewhat less than the 89g you estimated, but we're starting from a much smaller display, a smaller volume (2.75 cm3), and using different materials -- in this case PMMA. PMMA is an optical plastic with a refractive index of ~1.49 and density of 1.20 g/cm3.



I'm familier with ulexite -- Someone got me a piece years ago in relation to this work. It works because the fibers are cladded, allowing for internal reflection. It's amazing that stuff like this occurs naturally.

So I can kind of understand how Edmund fabricates their Image conduits, but their tapers and your PMMA fiber optic collimator are a total mystery to me.

What kind of machinery goes into making those, and who runs it?

Would guys like these be able to develop your component?

As far as I can tell, it might come out to ~$1k for each piece, is that a concern?

zalo wrote:So I can kind of understand how Edmund fabricates their Image conduits, but their tapers and your PMMA fiber optic collimator are a total mystery to me.

What kind of machinery goes into making those, and who runs it?

Would guys like these be able to develop your component?

As far as I can tell, it might come out to ~$1k for each piece, is that a concern?

Yeah... It would totally be a concern if we needed absolute pixel-to-pixel tolerances. We don't. We're using simple bundled fiber arrays which are easier and much cheaper to manufacturer. This introduces some geometric distortion, but nothing you'd ever notice (max. 1-2% over the entire field).

With respect to costs, we have 2 suppliers in Shenzhen and one in Beijing that can supply the raw plugs at around US$15-20 /1000 units. After that, they're processed at a separate facility that typically grinds and polishes lenses for optical equipment like cameras and binoculars. For larger quantities, we'll have to look into automating this process. In any case, it's far from the $1,000 you'd feared.

Fiberoptic tapers have been around since the 1950's. You can Google US patent 3853658 for an overview of a basic manufacturing process. If you want one to play around with yourself, there's a reading aid called TaperMag that you can find for around $100 retail.

I hope that helps.

IanBruce wrote:

Attreyu wrote:
Are there 1.8" OLEDs with that higher a resolution to warrant the level of detail needed ?

IanBruce wrote:

Yes, certainly. OLED displays even smaller than 1.8" are being produced in quantity at WUXGA resolutions (1920 x 1200 per eye). Even higher resolutions are available now, or on the immediate horizon. By comparison, WUXGA would be just over 3 times the resolution of the DK2.

Care to share a link providing a model/type/producer ?

Because on http://www.panelook.com there are none.

Hi Attreyu: Try this: http://www.emagin.com/oled-microdisplays/

You posted a link to a .86″ OLED Microdisplay. Attreyu asked for that 1.8" OLED. Pretty huge difference, especially considering how the cost and manufacturing problems increase with the size of a microdisplay

Kazioo wrote:You posted a link to a .86″ OLED Microdisplay. Attreyu asked for that 1.8" OLED. Pretty huge difference, especially considering how the cost and manufacturing problems increase with the size of a microdisplay

Yes... My only point was that physical display size was not an impediment to high resolution. I didn't point him to a specific product because we're not talking about an off-the-shelf item. We're planning on doing something at the sub-pixel level that would pretty much preclude that anyway.

IanBruce wrote:Hi Attreyu: Try this: http://www.emagin.com/oled-microdisplays/

A great pity, @900cad per eye with 500cad controller board, this is why the VR revolution will
be on mobile screens not micro displays. These costs are unlikely to come down any time soon.