Google Working on Secret VR OLED with 10 Times the Pixels of Current Displays

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Google is said to have a prototype display capable of resolutions up to 20 megapixels per eye, which is equivalent to having two and a half 4K TVs strapped to your face and ten times more powerful than any VR display currently available on the commercial market. The biggest challenge is figuring out how to manage and move the data: the device supposedly requires 100Gbps of bandwidth. Being that VR needs a serious boost in image quality, this is exactly the type of development needed to push the concept forward.

The focus of Google is clear and that is to fix the fundamental unresolved problems of virtual reality that must be addressed if the technology is to move forward. Bavor says that to increase the acuity, quality, and field of view for virtual reality in a headset, way more pixels are needed. With the average consumer VR headset providing 2 megapixels per eye, the new secret project Google is working on easily addresses the shortcomings of current technology, but it’s not without its own challenges. He continued to say “that’s enough to render only 20/100 vision through the headset, well below the bar for being declared legally blind in most U.S. states”.
 
Dam that would be sweet, but seriously you'd need like quad SLI at that resolution at a minimum. Like 2x1080Ti per eye with settings lowered to render a 90 FPS. lol

Yeah, that's the real shame. Display tech can get as good as it wants, but we're still waaaaaaaaay off from being able to drive it, and even further off from being able to do it affordably.
 
Yeah, that's the real shame. Display tech can get as good as it wants, but we're still waaaaaaaaay off from being able to drive it, and even further off from being able to do it affordably.
This by a lot. Single card solutions are like 3 generations behind.
 
I'd rather have 40 mega pixel, 90 fps games with only the fidelity of half life 2 than the current implementation. 30 fps, 2 megapixel consoles will always have more processing room for effects and polygons, so better to deliver on what is unique about VR.
 
I think the goal at this point should be to include the ultra-high pixel density, and then scale-down the output to something modern GPU's can handle. Yeah, you lose the "aw man I can't make out that sign in 3d a mile down the road!" (like you can with a plain 4K display) ability, but you lose screendoor...which is distracting. Of course without screen-door, people will say the image looks 'soft' so they'll have to implement a solid sharpening algo......which won't be too hard I imagine, something you can toggle on and off in settings. So then in a year or two, your headset is still viable because now you can punch-in a GPU that can drive more of the available pixels in your HMD. Then again, what hardware manufacturer doesn't use planned obsolesance?
 
I wonder what's the point of that kind of resolution since it sounds far higher than what a human eye can see...Kind of like having a 4K screen on a 5" cell phone. It's cool but pixel density is far higher than a person can see the difference. Sounds like more of a marketing thing.
 
I wonder what's the point of that kind of resolution since it sounds far higher than what a human eye can see...Kind of like having a 4K screen on a 5" cell phone. It's cool but pixel density is far higher than a person can see the difference. Sounds like more of a marketing thing.

Your using flawed logic as that 5 inch screen is literally a couple inches from your eyeball in a vr kit whereas it is probably 2ft away with a mobile phone screen. Hold that 4k phone right up to your eye and you will see the pixels. The resolution of the human eye is phenomenal.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what's the point of that kind of resolution since it sounds far higher than what a human eye can see...Kind of like having a 4K screen on a 5" cell phone. It's cool but pixel density is far higher than a person can see the difference. Sounds like more of a marketing thing.
You're forgetting that when you put displays inside VR headsets, the lenses are acting as magnifying glasses.
 
This is so stupid. There are no connections in the foreseeable future that has that bandwidth. HDMI 2.1 nor Displayport 1.5 has that bandwidth.
 
I wonder what's the point of that kind of resolution since it sounds far higher than what a human eye can see...Kind of like having a 4K screen on a 5" cell phone. It's cool but pixel density is far higher than a person can see the difference. Sounds like more of a marketing thing.

NO. The eye can see 8K so high res displays that are right in front of your face will remove the screen door effect.
 
This makes sense to me. VR is no where close to being a tech that can be a mass market seller right now or next year or the year after. Putting the R&D into a product that can be usable when the tech catches up to the ambition seems smart. I think their is a ton of potential in VR, the issue is current display and gpu tech is just not where it needs to be to increase quality and reduce price to the point it needs to be at. (not that I imagine dual 8k eye displays are going to be stupid cheap even in 3-4 years down the line lol)
 
Well if AMD is to be relied on for VR graphics, we should be able to drive this display sometime in the mid 2030s...

Thank god we have NVIDIA trying to keep up with this stuff.
 
This is so stupid. There are no connections in the foreseeable future that has that bandwidth. HDMI 2.1 nor Displayport 1.5 has that bandwidth.

I'll posit a copule of ideas why you would do it.

1) Screen door effect. It can get rid of that.

2) Augmented reality.

3) You DON'T need to push 100Gbs over the connection

How do you drive it? You don't drive 8k+ resolution 3d content. You push less data over the line and give the display a smart scaler, sharpener, compositor, or some other specialized ability(s) to manipulate the frame buffer. What I mean by the last bit is think about augmented reality. Imagine a whack-a-mole style game where things pop out of real world objects and you have to squish them. If you have the hud and say 4-6 things to squish at a time, you don't really need to render everything that is reality right? Or guiding surgery or an auto mechanic how much of the display does the GPU need to actually fill? Put less strenuous tasks local to the display, and more strenuous tasks remote. Then only transmit what is needed. Only power the light stuff on the users body. Power the energy hungry stuff off-body. Or some combination.

Right now, you could probably build something off of a 1060 level GPU that could do sub-resolution rendering for 4k at 45fps and frame double while scaling up. You could probably backpack a dual 1060 solution with power for an hour or two, and with just the application of 4k console tricks and some kinect style smarts in a fancy HMD rig, you could have up to 50%gpu coverage of the field of view of a AR headset rocking these types of displays.
 
Resolution is fine and dandy but it has to have very bright, accurate, long-lasting and low-persistence to handle being strobe/impulse driven.
 
I wonder what's the point of that kind of resolution since it sounds far higher than what a human eye can see...Kind of like having a 4K screen on a 5" cell phone. It's cool but pixel density is far higher than a person can see the difference. Sounds like more of a marketing thing.
I just saw U2's current tour, I can assure you 8K is mind blowing. Some images looks 3D and when images move, you feel (yes feel) like the entire stadium is moving (apparently some people experience motion sickness, but I did not). I can't wait for 8k video and eventually 8k gaming. But I don't think we'll see affordable 8k TVs anytime soon. But when it does, :geek:
 
NO. The eye can see 8K so high res displays that are right in front of your face will remove the screen door effect.

I'll posit a copule of ideas why you would do it.

1) Screen door effect. It can get rid of that.

I would like to point out that the screen door effect is not directly related to the resolution or pixels per inch.

It's caused by the gaps between the pixels, so all they really need to do is to make screens with larger pixels and smaller gaps.
 
I just saw U2's current tour, I can assure you 8K is mind blowing. Some images looks 3D and when images move, you feel (yes feel) like the entire stadium is moving (apparently some people experience motion sickness, but I did not). I can't wait for 8k video and eventually 8k gaming. But I don't think we'll see affordable 8k TVs anytime soon. But when it does, :geek:

A good formatted image to showcase a given screen will look good. I haven't seen an 8K TV but unless it's over 100 inches or something massive, I highly doubt you'll see the difference from a few feet away. I'm not arguing against advances of technology and all that stuff but what I'm saying is at that some point this becomes more marketing than actual benefit. This is kind of like mp3 versus flac, I can actually tell the difference in some songs but a lot depends on the source from which you master (if I compare using same hardware). With video it's a similar game and many demos for 4K, 8K whatever are specially mastered to showcase a specific device. If they told you it was glorious 8K but really was merely 4K, I doubt you could tell the difference because resolution is already very high and you are some distance from the screen. There are plenty of charts which you can use to calculate view distance based on resolution and screen size at which you can no longer tell the difference. Take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance
 
A good formatted image to showcase a given screen will look good. I haven't seen an 8K TV but unless it's over 100 inches or something massive, I highly doubt you'll see the difference from a few feet away. I'm not arguing against advances of technology and all that stuff but what I'm saying is at that some point this becomes more marketing than actual benefit. This is kind of like mp3 versus flac, I can actually tell the difference in some songs but a lot depends on the source from which you master (if I compare using same hardware). With video it's a similar game and many demos for 4K, 8K whatever are specially mastered to showcase a specific device. If they told you it was glorious 8K but really was merely 4K, I doubt you could tell the difference because resolution is already very high and you are some distance from the screen. There are plenty of charts which you can use to calculate view distance based on resolution and screen size at which you can no longer tell the difference. Take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

All I can say is 3D. Screen size is roughly the width of a football field. Distance probably 20 or 30 yards (too close to take a picture of the entire screen with a 50mm lens (just under a 40 degree angle of view), but the affect was just as good from twice that distance. We'll see when a UHD disk of the tour is released if a 4k set can reproduce the 3d effect. I'm skeptical, but I'd love to be wrong.
 
Back
Top