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

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, May 30, 2017.

  1. Megalith

    Megalith 24-bit/48kHz Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,004
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    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”.
     
    Pusher of Buttons likes this.
  2. LurkerLito

    LurkerLito 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,133
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    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
     
    tunatime and Pusher of Buttons like this.
  3. Pusher of Buttons

    Pusher of Buttons [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,925
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    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.
     
  4. Gigus Fire

    Gigus Fire 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    This by a lot. Single card solutions are like 3 generations behind.
     
  5. jkw

    jkw Gawd

    Messages:
    608
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2004
    They'll sell 100 of them for $20,000 each, and then abandon the entire program.
     
    Krazy925, Seventyfive and Nukester like this.
  6. cdig

    cdig n00b

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    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.
     
  7. HeadRusch

    HeadRusch [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,129
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    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?
     
    Korrd and Gasaraki_ like this.
  8. JRUHg

    JRUHg Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    385
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2016
    il take one plz!
     
  9. zkostik

    zkostik Gawd

    Messages:
    929
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    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.
     
    Syntax_Error likes this.
  10. Chaos Machine

    Chaos Machine Gawd

    Messages:
    566
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    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: May 30, 2017
    Gasaraki_ likes this.
  11. Coznefx

    Coznefx n00b

    Messages:
    11
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    You're forgetting that when you put displays inside VR headsets, the lenses are acting as magnifying glasses.
     
    VIC-20 likes this.
  12. Gasaraki_

    Gasaraki_ Gawd

    Messages:
    617
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    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.
     
  13. oldmanbal

    oldmanbal 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,062
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Have fun powering that at > 60hz.
     
  14. Gasaraki_

    Gasaraki_ Gawd

    Messages:
    617
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    NO. The eye can see 8K so high res displays that are right in front of your face will remove the screen door effect.
     
  15. ChadD

    ChadD [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,207
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    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)
     
  16. otherweeb

    otherweeb Gawd

    Messages:
    860
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Can I get some FOV love puleez! Tunnel vision is soooo last year.
     
  17. aokman

    aokman Gawd

    Messages:
    801
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    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.
     
  18. raz-0

    raz-0 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,546
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    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.
     
  19. blkt

    blkt Gawd

    Messages:
    666
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Resolution is fine and dandy but it has to have very bright, accurate, long-lasting and low-persistence to handle being strobe/impulse driven.
     
  20. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,483
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    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:
     
  21. sir-gold

    sir-gold Gawd

    Messages:
    931
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    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.
     
  22. zkostik

    zkostik Gawd

    Messages:
    929
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    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
     
  23. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,483
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    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.