Company Creates Mobile VR Headset With 2.5K Display

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
VR headsets seem to be coming out of the woodwork lately. One of the good things about that is the specs on each new system seem to be getting better and better.

GameFace Labs may very well be the furthest along in the quest to create a mobile VR headset. Based on Android, GameFace Labs has been working hard to iterate on their prototypes, their latest is the first VR headset (mobile or tethered) to include a 2.5K display, with 78% more pixels than 1080p based VR headsets like the Oculus Rift DK2. And they’ve got even more surprises up their sleeve.
Click to expand...
 
Going to take a lot of power to drive all those pixels. Can't wait to see some of these actually start to hit the street (mainstream) with decent software support.
 
But can this one run realistic looking environments pushing that many pixels & not some mobile game with cartoony looking graphics?
 
TwistedAegis said:
Going to take a lot of power to drive all those pixels. Can't wait to see some of these actually start to hit the street (mainstream) with decent software support.
Click to expand...

You can buy the optional 60lbs power pack if you want :D
 
Tuxon86 said:
You can buy the optional 60lbs power pack if you want :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, being that my 1600p monitor takes crossfire to run modern games well, not quite sure (as in, absolutely not) my Galaxy is going to be able to drive 2500p (is that what 2.5k truly is?).
 
I loved the part where this new start-up borrowed/stole the optics from an Oculus DK1. So basically they integrated higher def screens with another companies optics without any head tracking and calling all good.

I wonder if Oculus will sue these guys for stealing their optics.

Later...
 
TwistedAegis said:
Yeah, being that my 1600p monitor takes crossfire to run modern games well, not quite sure (as in, absolutely not) my Galaxy is going to be able to drive 2500p (is that what 2.5k truly is?).
Click to expand...

2.5k is 2560 x 1440 I believe. or 1440p

4k is 3840 x 2160. or 2160p

The nomenclature is confusing.
 
Krenum said:
But can this one run realistic looking environments pushing that many pixels & not some mobile game with cartoony looking graphics?
Click to expand...

Skyrim with some of the mods. I'd love to play that. Some look damn near photoreal. I wonder what kind of machine would be needed? It'd need at least 120 FPS, though (60 FPS per eye).

That'd be fun.

I can't wait for the mainstream adoption of these things. I've been waiting for good VR for a long time.
 
They're jumping on the damn 'K' bandwagon. Hopefully companies won't start calling 1080p "2K" since they already use "Full HD."
 
w4ffles said:
They're jumping on the damn 'K' bandwagon. Hopefully companies won't start calling 1080p "2K" since they already use "Full HD."
Click to expand...

Well it has to change from time to time, it's a much easier naming scheme than "ÜberSuperDuperMegaOctoHD".
 
...and the old ones werent better....

VGA, SVGA, XGA, UXGA, QXGA, WXGA, WSXGA, SXGA, QSXGA.
 
I was just thinking about how fun Grand theft atuo would be..... and how flipping nuts and "scary" it coulde could be because of how random GTA is at times.
 
InternationalHat said:
2.5k is 2560 x 1440 I believe. or 1440p

4k is 3840 x 2160. or 2160p

The nomenclature is confusing.
Click to expand...


Or, you can have "1200p" (1920x1200), etc., ad infinitum...;) I think "1080p" [720p, 480p] is a perfectly apt expression to describe the resolution of a TV. It's even marginally acceptable to describe a 1920x1080p computer monitor as a 1080p monitor. But the thing it illustrates is that while "1080p" is relatively new for TV, it's been around on computers for a lot longer, and "Ultra HD" resolutions [> 1080p] are commonplace today among computer owners--and were even in use before 1080p came to television [I think most of tv still falls in the 480p/720p bracket, though.] To that end, there's just nothing special about "1080p" when it comes to computer monitors, and it isn't *that much* harder to simply write out the resolution we mean--so why not? I think that "3840x2160" is much more descriptive than writing "4k" or "2160p"....:D Best leave the "p" with television, and the k's with accountants, imo.
 
it was originally a scam because you could sell a tv that was HD but in fact 720p which sounds really close to 1080, but WE COMPUTER ENTHUSIASTS know that it is only 1280x720, and the 1080 is actually 1920x1080 which is substantially higher in pixel density and resolution, but to consumers, at the time, a 32" 720 looked identical to a 1080 and was 60% of the price so go figure. My dad ran a 720 samsung when they came out with a good hd lcd tv 12 years ago or so and it still looks really good today.

For consumer use, nothing above 720 even matters right now unless you're rocking something larger than 42". Most of the people that buy large tv's from walmart are QUITE CONTENT with a 60" 720 because of the size and price, not the penis measuring resolution debate that we have as hardware enthusiasts. You have to remember the premium for a large 1080 tv used to be astronomical.

On the desktop I personally would never touch anything over 24" that was 1080 or below, but that's because i am a discerning enthusiasts that can see the difference in a blink, I won't even touch TN panels once i bought my first ips, but i was also coming from god's personal monitor the FW-900 so i was ruined quite early in life. It's still the best monitor ever created although its scarcity is endemic.

UHD is a great leap forward in tech and without it on the TV front we would still be stuck permanently with 1600p monitors at 30". They should have been 4k a decade ago! We can thank apple and tablet/Phone makers for screaming the technology of super dense ppi and huge resolutions for paving the way for affordable pixel stuffed screens.

I can't wait for a nice solid 30" 4k screen with 120hz. It might be another 5 years before we can power that with 1 graphic card but i can wait because year to year there hasn't been a noticeable jump in graphics technology since before doom3 came out, and that already feels like forever ago. . .
 
I'm super hyped for this tech but as I have amblyopia(laziness) in one eye and see strictly with the other aka 20-240 vision I wonder if my brain can actually accept a dual vision setup. I'd much rather see a full display that allows me to see left and right with either eye...but as I'm in a vast minority...probably no 3D for me until A) brain fixes arrive B) immersive 3D :(
 
TwistedAegis said:
Yeah, being that my 1600p monitor takes crossfire to run modern games well, not quite sure (as in, absolutely not) my Galaxy is going to be able to drive 2500p (is that what 2.5k truly is?).
Click to expand...

Eh .. it's Android, most newer tablets sport a very high resolution display. 1080P or higher.

Not that it actually can run anything of value on at that resolution. Very big difference between running the desktop at 2.5k and rendering graphics with quality at 2.5k. They'll probably just endup upscaling. But .. PIXELS!
 
The Carpenter in me wants to build a Fokker DV XII cockpit for immersive flying but the medic in me thinks this whole trend is going to bring about a rash of epileptic seizures and hallucinatic attacks in the food court at the mall via teens. exciting times.
 
I like the concept of mobile VR, as once I realized that playing the oculus while standing up provided the most immersive experience. This seems to be a bit of advanced vaporware, in the sense that they have produced a product, but it's just a blatant ripoff of everyone elses work, fails to perform as well, and makes wild claims about the future. If Carmack and Palmer still feel a wire is necessary, it's for good reason. I'll trust their design over this guys (who actually USES the oculus lenses in his own dev kit).
 
I am all for VR, but I call bs on this one. We can't even render the bare minimum of 120 FPS at 1080p on the desktop, let alone mobile. Nothing wrong with "exploring" it but any product in the next 10 years will fail badly, even someone buys it.

I expect greater disasters than OUYA.
 
One thing is for sure is that Oculus is taking too damn long to release and each day that goes by they are risking their niche they have created.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top