It is currently Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:00 pm



Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
 If the Rift could get a custom screen, what would it be? 
Author Message
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 6:46 am
Posts: 314
Reply with quote
Let's say the dev kit is a success (and it will be :) ) and some leading display manufacturer (like AOC, Samsung, LG, Toshiba, Sharp, etc.) believes the project has the potential to carry out big selling numbers and is interested in producing a custom display for the consumer version of the Rift.
Resolution and refresh aside, what would it be the best size and display aspect ratio of the screen, to obtain the largest FOV, with the current design and maybe a minor increase in size?
It would be larger or smaller then 5 inches?
It would have a 16:9 ratio or maybe 16:8 16:7 or whatever?
It would still be convenient to stick with the actual design of a single large display to be split between the eyes, or it'd be more convenient to have two smaller displays, one per eye, like standard HMDs (but with the obvious benefit of using smaller and cheaper lenses), if costs were comparable and the sync problems were addressed?


Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:00 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:34 pm
Posts: 148
Reply with quote
Theoretically, there has to be some sweet spot in ppi at a certain density that gives a good balnce between price point and pixel density. I have no idea what that ppi would be but that would be my academic answer. My more IRL answer would be 1080p. Many of the 5.6" format screens that were 800x480, are being replaced with the 1280x800 native screen as an option. 1280x800 is an obvious resolution because of it's marketplace standards as one of the resolutions commonly referred to as 720p (even though it is 800p). In the display market 720p and 1080p are the big consumer standards, so the next logical step in the display market for hardware driven by video content would be 1920x1080. I have no idea if the manufacturing processes are available to do the pixel density required 1080p in a 5.6" footprint at a price point conducive to consumer pricing though.

_________________
S3D Multi-projector Gaming System:
Intel i7 930, EVGA E762 4-Way motherboard, NVIDIA GTX470 Tri-SLI, 3x Optoma GT720 projectors, 180-degree circular screen, NVIDIA 3D Vision Kit, NTHUSIM Plus 3.2, Windows 7 Pro 64


Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:50 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 6:46 am
Posts: 314
Reply with quote
You missed my point :D I was not referring to resolution but only to diagonal size and aspect ratio.
Imagine we can ask a custom size and resolution for the display of the Rift, and we want to maximize FOV without increasing size and weight of the HMD.
Let's say a 1080 vertical resolution is enough, so it will not require a too powerful VGA.
What would it be the perfect diagonal size and aspect ratio?
It should be a standard 1920x1080 (960x1080 8:9 ratio per eye) or would it be like a custom 2160x1080 (1080x1080 1:1 ratio per eye) or maybe 2560x1080 (1280x1080 1,18:1 per eye) or a stunning 2880x1080 (1440x1080 4:3 per eye) or even wider?
Or would it be better with two single screens with half the horizontal resolution each?
And what about the perfect diagonal size?
If a large display manufacturer believes in a mass adoption of this tech among the gamers (let's say we talk millions sold like the popular kinect) this is a very likely scenario (let's remember that even the disastrous Nintendo Virtual boy sold nearly 800,000 units back in the day!)


Last edited by crespo80 on Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:48 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:10 pm
Posts: 100
Reply with quote
In my opinion for a 100% overlap design w/ a fixed IPD of 65mm an optimal configuration might be:

Number of displays:
1 - A single LCD split into two views is an extremely efficient approach in so many ways.
Less complex, cost effective, easier implementation on customer side, etc.

Size: (screen-space not including bezel)
Again, for a 100% overlap @ 65mm fixed IPD configuration...
A single LCD @ 130mm W x 65mm H (2:1 aspect ratio)
That would allow each eye to have an equal 65mmx65mm (1:1 aspect ration).

Resolution:
Well, as high a resolution as the target demographic's machines would likely be capable of handling. So, with the size and aspect ratio mentioned above:
1600x800 (800x800 per eye)
2048x1024 (1024x1024 per eye)
2560x1280 (1280x1280 per eye) (I like this one 8-))
3840x1920 (1920x1920 per eye) (ok, I like this one too...)
8000x4000 (4000x4000 per eye) (now we're just getting crazy... ;))


Partial Overlap:
If you were going to do partial overlap you could go a bit wider on the screen... the central 130mmx65mm (65x65mm per eye) would represent your 100% overlap...and anything extending beyond that would be seen only by the corresponding eye.

Something to note is that partial overlap is usually implemented w/ a two screen configuration whereby each screen is angled outward (even inward in some cases) by a desired degree. However, depending on lens configuration it is possible to implement it quite effectively with as single, wider screen or even two screens in a flat, non-angled configuration as well.

_________________
My Current VR Setup
- N-Vision Datavisor 80 HMD (1280x1024, 80 FOV at 100% Overlap)
- Ascension Technology Flock of Birds 6DOF Magnetic Tracking + Extended Range Transmitter
- Prototype HMD (~100 FOV) - Specs and design to be shared after patent issued.
- IZ3D for non stereo-ready apps
- GlovePie for TrackIR emulation for apps without native Ascension Tech FOB Support
http://www.thelostbrain.com/?tag=/head+mounted+display


Last edited by TheLostBrain on Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:21 am, edited 3 times in total.



Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:54 am
Profile WWW
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:34 pm
Posts: 148
Reply with quote
crespo80 wrote:
You missed my point :D I was not referring to resolution but only to diagonal size and aspect ratio.
Imagine we can ask a custom size and resolution for the display of the Rift, and we want to maximize FOV without increasing size and weight of the HMD.
Let's say a 1080 vertical resolution is enough, so it will not require a too powerful VGA.
What would it be the perfect diagonal size and aspect ratio?
It should be a standard 1920x1080 (960x1080 8:9 ratio per eye) or would it be like a custom 2160x1080 (1080x1080 1:1 ratio per eye) or maybe 2560x1080 (1280x1080 1,18:1 per eye) or a stunning 2880x1080 (1440x1080 4:3 per eye) or even wider?
Or would it be better with two single screens with half the horizontal resolution each?
And what about the perfect diagonal size?
If a large display manufacturer believes in a mass adoption of this tech among the gamers (let's say we talk millions sold like the popular kinect) this is a very likely scenario (let's remember that even the disastrous Nintendo Virtual boy sold nearly 800,000 units back in the day!)

I doubt any manufacturer would do a run of custom aspect ratio unless they knew they could get rid of all their stock in it without it sitting in a warehouse somewhere. I'm totally at a loss as to what a display manufacturer would consider minimum quantities for a run of panels. The realist in me falls back on aspect ratio standards: 3:4, 5:4, 16:9, 16:10 and more recently in very small quantities 21:9. 21:9 would be an interesting option, but so far they only make those in full size HDTVs and plasma tvs. My belief is that Oculus should come at this with as cost effective a solution as possible, and that means use as many COTS parts as possible for assembly. My primary motivator with the Rift is price point, not resolution though.

_________________
S3D Multi-projector Gaming System:
Intel i7 930, EVGA E762 4-Way motherboard, NVIDIA GTX470 Tri-SLI, 3x Optoma GT720 projectors, 180-degree circular screen, NVIDIA 3D Vision Kit, NTHUSIM Plus 3.2, Windows 7 Pro 64


Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:17 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 6:46 am
Posts: 314
Reply with quote
BHawthorne wrote:
My primary motivator with the Rift is price point, not resolution though.

Yeah, that is my primary concern too, I was just making hypothesys about possible future developments :)


TheLostBrain wrote:
In my opinion for a 100% overlap design w/ a fixed IPD of 65mm an optimal configuration might be:
Number of displays:
1 - A single LCD split into two views is an extremely efficient approach in so many ways.
Less complex, cost effective, easier implementation on customer side, etc.
Size: (screen-space not including bezel)
Again, for a 100% overlap @ 65mm fixed IPD configuration...
A single LCD @ 130mm W x 65mm H (2:1 aspect ratio)
That would allow each eye to have an equal 65mmx65mm (1:1 aspect ration).


So 130x65 mm (5,11x2,56 inches) is a 5.7" diagonal, similar to the actual, but obviously with augmented horizontal size and reduced vertical one.
With these specs, what would it be the approximate hFOV and vFOV?
With current state-of-the-art 498dpi Toshiba/Sharp technology, that would mean a maximum of 2560x1280 resolution, not bad at all :D

About IPD, if we have a single screen and cannot obviously adjust the distance between the two halfs of the screen: people with very different IPD, like say 55mm or 70mm, which problems will encounter?
Can you adjust the optics and correct the displayed image in software, at the cost of some resolution loss?


Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:27 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:10 pm
Posts: 100
Reply with quote
crespo80 wrote:
So 130x65 mm (5,11x2,56 inches) is a 5.7" diagonal, similar to the actual, but obviously with augmented horizontal size and reduced vertical one.
With these specs, what would it be the approximate hFOV and vFOV?


Well, at 65mm height and width and placing the virtual image at infinity:

Lenses w/ 50mm FL: 85.181 Diag (66.048V and 66.048H)
Lenses w/ 40mm FL: 97.935 Diag (78.188V and 78.188H)
Lenses w/ 30mm FL: 113.734 Diag (94.581V and 94.581H)
...and so on...

However, the higher you go the more you fight with physics and the anatomy of the human skull. ;)

Ex:

-Lens wise, as the FL becomes shorter the curvature of the lens goes up - increasing the overall weight of the lens. Also, the max diameter of the lens goes down. This can be partially fought w/ aspheric designs like Palmer is using... Or even using multiple thinner lenses that together = the total FL. You can also fight this by using exotic high-index (and hopefully high abbe value) lens materials (maybe Palmer doing this as well?) but generally this = ongoing $$$$ for the raw materials.

-Also, because the angle subtended from eye to the lens diameter cannot be less than the diag. FOV mentioned above (if you wish to have the entire field visible at once) you either have to increase your lens diameter (fighting the first issue metioned)...or decrease your eye-relief (distance of lens to eye)... potentially fighting human anatomy depending on lens diameter, etc.

It's just a damn battle. ;) But, maybe those new paper-thin lenses may come to the rescue? ;):
http://gizmodo.com/5938161/paper+thin-d ... s-possible

_________________
My Current VR Setup
- N-Vision Datavisor 80 HMD (1280x1024, 80 FOV at 100% Overlap)
- Ascension Technology Flock of Birds 6DOF Magnetic Tracking + Extended Range Transmitter
- Prototype HMD (~100 FOV) - Specs and design to be shared after patent issued.
- IZ3D for non stereo-ready apps
- GlovePie for TrackIR emulation for apps without native Ascension Tech FOB Support
http://www.thelostbrain.com/?tag=/head+mounted+display


Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:41 am
Profile WWW
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:10 pm
Posts: 100
Reply with quote
crespo80 wrote:
About IPD, if we have a single screen and cannot obviously adjust the distance between the two halfs of the screen: people with very different IPD, like say 55mm or 70mm, which problems will encounter?
Can you adjust the optics and correct the displayed image in software, at the cost of some resolution loss?


Yes. While there are a few ways to interpret what you're asking... A good approach for handling a physically adjustable IPD in a single LCD configuration is to just go with a wider LCD and only use a subset of the pixels (pixel area) for each eye. Then you'd just need to keep this pixel area in sync with the lens position during physical IPD adjustments.

EX:


Used Pixel Area: ------------

Physical Screen: ================

Virtual Divider: |

Lens centered to pupil of eye: /------\


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
My Current VR Setup
- N-Vision Datavisor 80 HMD (1280x1024, 80 FOV at 100% Overlap)
- Ascension Technology Flock of Birds 6DOF Magnetic Tracking + Extended Range Transmitter
- Prototype HMD (~100 FOV) - Specs and design to be shared after patent issued.
- IZ3D for non stereo-ready apps
- GlovePie for TrackIR emulation for apps without native Ascension Tech FOB Support
http://www.thelostbrain.com/?tag=/head+mounted+display


Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:54 pm
Profile WWW
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:56 pm
Posts: 295
Location: England
Reply with quote
TheLostBrain wrote:
crespo80 wrote:
-Lens wise, as the FL becomes shorter the curvature of the lens goes up - increasing the overall weight of the lens. Also, the max diameter of the lens goes down. This can be partially fought w/ aspheric designs like Palmer is using...


Don't forget; the quality of 'plastic' lenses has increases dramatically since the last age of VR...

_________________
My HMD Blog: http://www.wastedspace.co.uk/cms/category/projects/vintage-head-mounted-display-upgrade/


Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:11 pm
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 6:46 am
Posts: 314
Reply with quote
TheLostBrain
I really appreciated your posts, they were very explanatory, and the scheme if IPD correction was awesome :mrgreen:


Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:27 am
Profile
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 6:46 am
Posts: 314
Reply with quote
What if we put a little high density curved OLED screen covering our front view side to side, I wonder if far larger horizontal FOV can be achiedev (while not 100% overlap of course) and if a single optic design still can be used.


Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:55 am
Profile
Certif-Eyable!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:38 am
Posts: 990
Reply with quote
I think close to square image per eye would be good. Or side by side 4:3. There are advantages to having a good vertical FOV such as being able to judge your movement in the world (being able to see the floor a short distance in front of you, even when it's your peripheral, gives a good sense of movement), but in terms of playing games, being able to see wider horizontal FOV is probably more important since you can notice movement of an object that is in your peripheral. This is why I think square or a little wider would be good.
I think that to have wider then square will require a prismic lenses and angled panel placement.


Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:21 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:50 am
Posts: 49
Reply with quote
Thank @TheLostBrain! Your posts help me to better understand how the Rift and similar HMDs work :)
But one aspect is not clear: how changes the size of the visible screen area through the lens?
Of course it depends on the eye relief, but assuming i have my eye almost attached to the lens, how many cm (width or height) can i see from the screen with a 50mm FL lens?
and with a 40mm? 30mm?
I think the goal is, having the IPD fixed, to avoid that one eye sees the other half of the screen, therefore i guess that lens should show less than the IPD distance, right?


Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:18 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 13 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.