Oculus Rift 1080P HD Prototype

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Oculus Rift team is showing off its new 1080P HD prototype today. There is more information on the company blog and the team says it will also have prototypes on hand at upcoming shows.

The 1080p prototype isn’t a product — this isn’t necessarily the display (or even the resolution) that we’ll use for the consumer version — it’s simply a taste of what’s coming. Developers can continue building Oculus-ready content with the development kit; the Oculus SDK will automatically handle the resolution and distortion changes for the consumer version.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, they're really burning through the kickstarter funding, even before they've gotten a successful commerical product. :( It's no wonder they couldn't get a solid set of VCs to help them instead of going to the general public.
 
oh that was quicker then expected... nice :)

At what point are pixels "indistinguishable" though? 8K, or higher?
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Wow, they're really burning through the kickstarter funding, even before they've gotten a successful commerical product. :( It's no wonder they couldn't get a solid set of VCs to help them instead of going to the general public.
Click to expand...
... based on what, exactly?
 
It would be great if, when in that virtual movie theater, you can put on 3d glasses to enable the 3d effect on the projector/screen.
 
Man 1080p nice.. I might pick these up if there ever released.. That's 1080p per eye so full res 3d plus i'm guessing 60hz per eye that would be sexy..
 
Makeroflostsouls said:
Man 1080p nice.. I might pick these up if there ever released.. That's 1080p per eye so full res 3d plus i'm guessing 60hz per eye that would be sexy..
Click to expand...

It's not 1080p per eye, it's something like 1080x960 per eye. Still a huge improvement over the last one. Glad I'm waiting for dev vit 2, since the screendoor effect is really the only factor people are complaining about (and very little at that).
 
They probably have sold quite a few of those Dev Kits to help with the funding and I imagine that went well. I'm skeptical if they will have another dev kit considering everything developed on 1 will roll over to the next though I guess they will still need testing. I think they would just roll into producation next or so I wish!
 
Once we pass the early versions of this, and get to 1080p per eye... there will be a VR revolution. Stereo 3D vision in gaming with no flicker at high res.

Until then? It may well be quite nice but the low res will continue to be the holdup.
 
Yea, I continue not caring. Not ever going to wear something that retarded on my head to game. It was a stupid concept when it was the Virtual Boy and it hasn't improved any. VR is to gaming what 3D is to TV, a Stupid gimmick that gets old about 5 minutes in where either your neck starts hurting or your start heaving violently.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Yea, I continue not caring. Not ever going to wear something that retarded on my head to game. It was a stupid concept when it was the Virtual Boy and it hasn't improved any. VR is to gaming what 3D is to TV, a Stupid gimmick that gets old about 5 minutes in where either your neck starts hurting or your start heaving violently.
Click to expand...

Virtual Boy was shit because the graphics were shit and it didn't have a good field of view. Oculus Rift is the games you already love, not shitty 2d red line drawings. And the FoV provided by the Oculus Rift is insanely wide. It's not the same at all.

It's just a really, really good & wide monitor that you put close to your eyes to be fully immersed.
 
I wonder if this will change how the SLI/Crossfire works as its rendering 2 displays now, the occulus plugs into both gfx cards, one for left one for right eye.

Is it going to start getting really heavy hardware wise if its effectively rendering 2 images now, esp with next gen coming up.
 
Acoustique said:
I wonder if this will change how the SLI/Crossfire works as its rendering 2 displays now, the occulus plugs into both gfx cards, one for left one for right eye.

Is it going to start getting really heavy hardware wise if its effectively rendering 2 images now, esp with next gen coming up.
Click to expand...

I hope it works like this. Would make dual GPU actually useful for me.
 
Advil said:
Once we pass the early versions of this, and get to 1080p per eye... there will be a VR revolution. Stereo 3D vision in gaming with no flicker at high res.

Until then? It may well be quite nice but the low res will continue to be the holdup.
Click to expand...

Yeah I tried the dev kit out and while I can look past the resolution as a dev kit issue, 1080p is not enough for the full screen. They really need to go with a panel similar to what you find in high resolution tablets / phones to get the effect that they really want. It's cool hardware, but needs more work.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Yea, I continue not caring. Not ever going to wear something that retarded on my head to game. It was a stupid concept when it was the Virtual Boy and it hasn't improved any. VR is to gaming what 3D is to TV, a Stupid gimmick that gets old about 5 minutes in where either your neck starts hurting or your start heaving violently.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on this one, I actually tried a friend's dev unit and its worlds apart from watching something with messily 3D glasses. The Oculus Rift *is* a big deal, its awesome.
 
I remain skeptical because there is no eye-tracking to determine where to converge or focus to in 3d. Surely it's possible to disable 3d and just watch it flat, or with "fake" 3d for things like particles that are close by? Seems like you could get a nice FPS boost with that, as you'd just be copying the buffer instead of rendering another angle.
 
speaking of virtual boy, never tried it but it would be funny to see an HD remake of that for oculus :p
 
Makeroflostsouls said:
Man 1080p nice.. I might pick these up if there ever released.. That's 1080p per eye so full res 3d plus i'm guessing 60hz per eye that would be sexy..
Click to expand...

What do you mean 60 Hz per eye? This is nothing like nvidia's flickerinig bullshit. It's not nearly enough for a VR headset but it's a start.
 
Acoustique said:
I wonder if this will change how the SLI/Crossfire works as its rendering 2 displays now, the occulus plugs into both gfx cards, one for left one for right eye.

Is it going to start getting really heavy hardware wise if its effectively rendering 2 images now, esp with next gen coming up.
Click to expand...

it's only one display, not two.
 
dr.stevil said:
it's only one display, not two.
Click to expand...

but the image is like split screen then in a way then so its effectively doubling the polycount, portal 2's split screen at 1920 with max AA is rather chuggy and that's just the source engine, I don't think many will be using a rift with max settings in a lot of games, and then you need to add in the extra FOV the rift will add. Be interesting to see the FPS differences between games on rift and games without, then again I think I've heard the AA is not as crucial because its so close to your eyes and its really just the resolution at that point.
 
Youn said:
I remain skeptical because there is no eye-tracking to determine where to converge or focus to in 3d. Surely it's possible to disable 3d and just watch it flat, or with "fake" 3d for things like particles that are close by?
Click to expand...
Although there's no eye tracking, you don't need it to get proper stereo convergence for a given set of eyes. All you need is that set of eyes' interpupilary distance, which you can calculate reasonably accurately with the Rift. If you want the convergence to be dead-on-balls accurate, you can always have your IPD measured by an optician with specialized equipment, but you don't really need to go to such lengths.
 
Acoustique said:
but the image is like split screen then in a way then so its effectively doubling the polycount, portal 2's split screen at 1920 with max AA is rather chuggy
Click to expand...
It's possible to actually make that not such a big deal performance-wise. After all, polygons and surfaces aren't such bad things for a GPU to deal with, particularly when their vertices are indexed. You can do an n-perspective render using the same commands and with the same number of draw as you would rendering from a single perspective, and that's where a lot of the frame time bulk comes from.
 
wonderfield said:
you don't need it to get proper stereo convergence for a given set of eyes. All you need is that set of eyes' interpupilary distance
Click to expand...
Convergence is variable depending on where you wish to focus your eyes. Look to the "floating sausage" for an example of what I'm talking about - this is not possible with stereoscopic displays without some kind of eye-tracking, no?
 
McFry said:
It's not 1080p per eye, it's something like 1080x960 per eye. Still a huge improvement over the last one. Glad I'm waiting for dev vit 2, since the screendoor effect is really the only factor people are complaining about (and very little at that).
Click to expand...
That isn't 1080 then.

1080 resolution is 1920x1080. Huge difference over 1280x720. If it is 1080x960, then that would be "960".

The 'p' means progressive frames, and an 'i' would mean interlaced frames. You don't want 'i' if you want the good stuff. TVs use interlaced frames. Don't know the difference? Think of progressive (p) as though you had vsync enabled. For interlaced (i), the best way to think of it is that every other row of pixels of FrameA is merged with that of FrameB in an alternating pattern; it looks real ugly when you take a camcorder and move pan sideways very fast.

When it is written out as 1080p, it usually means 1080p30 -- that means 1920x1080 at 30 progressive frames per second.
 
oh, I'm sure he meant to say 960x1080 per eye (width = 960, height = 1080)
 
Take my money. Please. I'm begging you, take it.

If these are as good as they claim to be were looking at the future of computer gaming. 3 years from now every AAA title will be Oculus Rift supported.

I can see version 2 being a full 180 degrees. Total immersion.
 
Youn said:
oh that was quicker then expected... nice :)

At what point are pixels "indistinguishable" though? 8K, or higher?
Click to expand...

That depends on the distance to your eyes and the size of the screen. But assuming a 7" screen and a 5" distance from your eyes and a 16:9 aspect ratio, it would be approximately 11984 x 6741, so your estimate was not far off.
 
Youn said:
Convergence is variable depending on where you wish to focus your eyes. Look to the "floating sausage" for an example of what I'm talking about - this is not possible with stereoscopic displays without some kind of eye-tracking, no?
Click to expand...
I don't actually know if that's an issue with this type of device, but I could be wrong. The science is a little beyond me.
 
Cerulean said:
That isn't 1080 then.

1080 resolution is 1920x1080. Huge difference over 1280x720. If it is 1080x960, then that would be "960".
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't be. 1080p and 720p are broadcast standards. "960" would be nothing, it doesn't exist especially with that near 1:1 ratio.
No one is talking P vs. i, not sure why you are going down that road.
1080p doesn't mean 1080p30. We aren't discussing broadcast standards. On a PC the frame rate is variable and we don't differentiate p and i, just list the resolution.
 
funkydmunky said:
No it wouldn't be. 1080p and 720p are broadcast standards. "960" would be nothing, it doesn't exist especially with that near 1:1 ratio.
No one is talking P vs. i, not sure why you are going down that road.
1080p doesn't mean 1080p30. We aren't discussing broadcast standards. On a PC the frame rate is variable and we don't differentiate p and i, just list the resolution.
Click to expand...
You're right about "1080p doesn't mean 1080p30", that is my lack of attention.

However, I don't believe you're right about '960' at all unless I'm misunderstanding you. There's no mention of it whatsoever on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

One thought -- when talking about the Oculus rift, does 1080 mean differently than what goes with TVs that have native support for 1080 (aka HDTV) + computer LCD displays that support 1080? I realize that the Oculus rift doesn't seem to have a 16:9 or 16:10 display, but rather two sets of something closer to being square (1:1) vs widescreen (16:9, 16:10).

But that still doesn't make sense. You can't call something that is 1080x960 "1080", that's just like trying to set new standards that are completely different from standards used everywhere else; almost like the browser wars when it comes to consistency in HTML+CSS rendering across multiple browsers.

Mind clearing up my confusion?
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Yea, I continue not caring. Not ever going to wear something that retarded on my head to game. It was a stupid concept when it was the Virtual Boy and it hasn't improved any. VR is to gaming what 3D is to TV, a Stupid gimmick that gets old about 5 minutes in where either your neck starts hurting or your start heaving violently.
Click to expand...

Are you trolling or do you just not bother knowing what you're talking about?

This is NOTHING like the virtual boy, and we have progressed quite a bit since those days.

You obviously haven't even tried it or know how the thing even works.
 
Fuck a console, next gen doesn't start till Oculus Rift.

How awesome would a new SPACE HARRIER game on the Oculus be? STUPID SEXY




But that wont ever happen because, SEGA.
I cannot wait for the rift. It is incredibly revolutionary. An actual step forward in gaming interactivity. I love the future.
 
Cerulean said:
Mind clearing up my confusion?
Click to expand...
The Rift prototype has a single 1920x1080 display. Each eye can only view a portion of the single display: each eye effectively receives 960x1080 pixels.

It's not 1080x960 per eye. It's 960x1080 per eye. 1920 horizontal pixels divided by two.
 
wonderfield said:
The Rift prototype has a single 1920x1080 display. Each eye can only view a portion of the single display: each eye effectively receives 960x1080 pixels.

It's not 1080x960 per eye. It's 960x1080 per eye. 1920 horizontal pixels divided by two.
Click to expand...
pshh... now you've gone and done it, now everyone knows the secret math-sauce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top