Apples to oranges. My shades/PPE/et al don't project fake images into my eyeballs. I've tried VR and HATE it. Until it can look 100% identical to what "real life" is then I have no interest in it.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Where are the 8K Monitors?
- Thread starter Baasha
- Start date
Apples to oranges. My shades/PPE/et al don't project fake images into my eyeballs. I've tried VR and HATE it. Until it can look 100% identical to what "real life" is then I have no interest in it.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,488
Your flat screen which fills much of your FoV is projecting images to your eyeballs though. I do agree that VR is way too boxy and primitive currently, and that XR glasses are way too low resolution for virtual screens, and with clunky interfacing so far.
I was commenting on lightweight MR glasses of the future, which is why the pictures show a progression (ironically of R. Downey with the bra on his head in the first pic) from bulky VR gear to the (fictional) svelte smart eyeglasses of the future envisioned in the later avengers movies on tony stark (and spiderman).
. .
. .
Bad ergonomics of the chair/posture and cramped peripherals choice aside, something capable of displaying high resolution virtual screens like this would be nice, for one example in the simulated scene below. Such glasses at that point would be capable of much more, with virtual objects, people, skinning of real world stuff incl. augmenting how people look and skinning over robot frames, "holographic" games floating on game world planes, full size area cut-aways., look-through "portals", etc. in real space - without the user having to be boxed in and shut out.
I suspect that, like it, or not - much like people who nay-sayed smart phones, it (mixed reality) will, in the long run, despite them, take over for the general population once lightweight and sexy enough. At that point, probably the only way you'd otherwise be able to see what everyone else is seeing day to day and the information they benefit from would be to hold your phone up like a monocle (like that pokemon game) lol.
Last edited:
Don't like curved screens either. As someone that spent years looking at CAD drawings and diagrams, geometry had to be perfect.
Now when/if they have a contact lens that can display the equivalent of 100s of MP, that would be a game changer. Of course it won't be in my lifetime and that's fine too.
Now when/if they have a contact lens that can display the equivalent of 100s of MP, that would be a game changer. Of course it won't be in my lifetime and that's fine too.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,488
All of the pixels are pointed directly at you when you sit at the center of the curvature. It's unfortunate that very view curved monitors are designed to allow you the realistic option sitting at the center of the curvature. If you did, you'd be too far away and the screens would turn into a short belt, because most are 1000R or less, on short height screens (other than maybe the 55" 16:9 ark).
If you had a decent sized screen and sat at the center of curvature, it would follow a curvature like holding a posterboard or portrait mode screen in front of you on a long selfie stick arm and rotating your chair. So you could get uniformity in large areas, and less distortion. (Also, most cad and cgi programs, and image editing programs have grid guidelines you can turn on, besides). Curved screens with full screen content are probably better being media full screen, and for apps being segmented like multiple screens or multiple windows/pages, space for toolboxes and filters, file browsers, history, layer panels, preview windows, etc using real-estate outside of the central workspace.
. .
Center of Curvature:
750R(adius) - 750mm = 29.5 inches
800R(adius) = 800mm = around 31.5 inch view distance to sit with all pixels on axis, pointed at you.
1000R(adius) = 1000mm = around 40 inch from screen surface to eyeballs to sit at center of curvature.
1800R(adius) = 1800mm = around 71 inches to center of curvature, almost 6 feet. That's a very small, slightly bent segment of a ~ 144inch diameter circle. A very slight curve, not worthwhile at all imo.
. .
Most people's desks are 24" deep, plus the monitor footprint on it in some cases. Some people use 30" deep desks, but still.
. .
. . .
That's getting a bit off track about my point that high rez lightweight glasses and Mixed Reality would be much better than stalling and wasting development on super expensive transparent physical displays, and that lightweight super high rez MR glasses would likely not be a burden for most people with two ears and two eyes, were the glasses lightweight, svelte and sexy enough, and were delivering high enough resolution mixed reality . . compared to staring at a slate slab of a phone in your hand , and eventually compared to using physical panels in the long run. Also, just because my example showed a curved screen, a virtual screen wouldn't have to be curved, and with good enough mixed reality, theoretically it could look like an actual drafting table, or multiple tables, if you are doing that kind of work.
I'm also completely the opposite about contacts. I don't want to stick anything in my eye. I'd much rather have lightweight glasses.
If you had a decent sized screen and sat at the center of curvature, it would follow a curvature like holding a posterboard or portrait mode screen in front of you on a long selfie stick arm and rotating your chair. So you could get uniformity in large areas, and less distortion. (Also, most cad and cgi programs, and image editing programs have grid guidelines you can turn on, besides). Curved screens with full screen content are probably better being media full screen, and for apps being segmented like multiple screens or multiple windows/pages, space for toolboxes and filters, file browsers, history, layer panels, preview windows, etc using real-estate outside of the central workspace.
. .
Center of Curvature:
750R(adius) - 750mm = 29.5 inches
800R(adius) = 800mm = around 31.5 inch view distance to sit with all pixels on axis, pointed at you.
1000R(adius) = 1000mm = around 40 inch from screen surface to eyeballs to sit at center of curvature.
1800R(adius) = 1800mm = around 71 inches to center of curvature, almost 6 feet. That's a very small, slightly bent segment of a ~ 144inch diameter circle. A very slight curve, not worthwhile at all imo.
. .
Most people's desks are 24" deep, plus the monitor footprint on it in some cases. Some people use 30" deep desks, but still.
. .
Think of the pixels on the screen like small laser pointers. In a room with a fog machine you'd see the shafts of laser light. When sitting at the center point of the curve, all of the lasers would be on axis to you and pointed directly at you so that for the most part you'd be seeing the points of light. The nearer you sat than that, the more you'd see the shafts of the light beams more sidelong the farther away they pixels were from the center of the screen.
The bottom dot in this gif would be like the center of curvature, the dot halfway between that and the screen is more like where most people are instead sitting due to the overall design (size, including height, vs how aggressive the curvature is on most curved screens, and also the fact that most people mount them directly onto desks)
From your nearer position, the farther the pixels were from center of the screen, the more of the side of the laser beams you'd see. In a graduated fashion the pixels would be more and more off axis the farther they were away from the center and towards the outer ends of the screen.
[
Sitting nearer than the center of curvature will contribute to uniformity issues progressively the farther from center of screen the pixels are, and will also exacerbate geometry issues and distortion. Practically all uw and super ultrawides are designed lacking an aggressive enough curve and/or long enough semi-circle segment screen length to be able to realistically sit at the center point of their curve without making the screen look short and belt like. (Outside of maybe the adjustable curve model monitor that could do up to 750R ~> 30" center point but I didn't like the overall specs of that screen, and a few 800R ones now). So practically everyone is sitting with the center point way behind them, the pixels like a gradient more and more off axis the farther from center of the screen, with current curved screens. Considering that, I can understand where people would not like the current curvatures, but making the screen flatter is the opposite direction of where it needs to go.
. . .
That's getting a bit off track about my point that high rez lightweight glasses and Mixed Reality would be much better than stalling and wasting development on super expensive transparent physical displays, and that lightweight super high rez MR glasses would likely not be a burden for most people with two ears and two eyes, were the glasses lightweight, svelte and sexy enough, and were delivering high enough resolution mixed reality . . compared to staring at a slate slab of a phone in your hand , and eventually compared to using physical panels in the long run. Also, just because my example showed a curved screen, a virtual screen wouldn't have to be curved, and with good enough mixed reality, theoretically it could look like an actual drafting table, or multiple tables, if you are doing that kind of work.
I'm also completely the opposite about contacts. I don't want to stick anything in my eye. I'd much rather have lightweight glasses.
Last edited:
I'd say no. Motion sickness is usually caused by not having some point to focus on, or unnatural motion. E.g sitting in a chair and playing a VR game controlled by moving with a joystick can feel like you are flying on your chair.
I get motion sickness from some games if I can't enable a dot on screen that is visible at all times. For example I could not play through Gears of War 5 without turning on that kind of feature from the monitor I had at the time. Thankfully it's becoming a common accessibility feature nowadays.
But if you see the road but have e.g some sort of HUD on your smartglasses, I don't think that would cause issues. Unless you are trying to watch a YT video while driving I suppose...
Yes I can fly in a jet (not an airliner), small plane, helicopter, ride on a sea doo at 50 knots and not have a problem.
But watching a movie like Cloverfield on anything larger than a 10" screen its nausea in about 10 minutes. I played games like Quake for a few hours and was fine but if I watch someone play, again about 10 minutes I'm done.
In the 90s there was a game called Forsaken where you flew under some contraption and had ability to move all around in tunnels. That one actually made me barf! LOL
But watching a movie like Cloverfield on anything larger than a 10" screen its nausea in about 10 minutes. I played games like Quake for a few hours and was fine but if I watch someone play, again about 10 minutes I'm done.
In the 90s there was a game called Forsaken where you flew under some contraption and had ability to move all around in tunnels. That one actually made me barf! LOL
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,488
Agree about the driving. I'd say if it's not enhancing your driving (like highlighting the road, highlighting pedestrians-animals-obstructions, giving speed readout, road congestion/accident warnings, helping vs bright lights or seeing in the dark, giving some brief information labeling to things in sight like stores and buildings, GPS directions on road etc.) .. then it would be a distraction to put any visual entertainment info on a screen while driving.
It's interesting to think about how MR glasses will probably end up in the future, including being out and around, and driving. They will almost certainly replace smart phone use initially, as that is already mobile and less demanding.
I was more focused on how, with enough resolution, lightweight "sunglasses" style MR glasses could, in the future, make virtual screens or other workspace virtual surfaces pinned anywhere, or pinned to yourself. That would have great use for desktop/apps, but you could also have virtual work spaces/surfaces that aren't screens, for drawing/designing/modeling things. You could have virtual screens for games too. By that point, however, scrolling game world terrain and buildings, etc as environmental planes could probably be placed in real space like a holographic field with holographic characters, or you could have a tear-away in real space (looking like a rip in space, or opening a wall ) . . or some other portal view into a holographic game world (separate image per eye in glasses makes 3d objects and scenes essentially holographic). At that point virtual flat screens would be more useful for desktop/apps. I suspect even older games, even if they couldn't be easily adapted to break out into full mixed reality type game, would at least be able to be updated, perhaps automatically with the help of AI, to be "holographic" 3d inside of a virtual screen space.
The only game I got motion sickness on, with decades of gaming, was dead island. That was because for some reason, activating the curb stomp on zombies would steal the FoV camera control from me and lurch the point of view/virtual camera swimmingly looking up and around and then down at the zombie on the ground. The problem only seemed to surface in rare instances where the camera , my entire perspective and game world, is moving contrary to where I want to move with my controller as if someone grabbed my head and swirled it around. I haven't experienced that since, and I've played VR games, including those with heights and climbing ladders, ledges, etc - and those really didn't bother me, because I was in control of where I was looking. Videos of roller coasters, etc don't bother me either, though they can occasionally give that light butterfly feeling in stomach, depending, but not nausea or headaches for me. I also don't have any issues with vertigo with heights IRL.
Some people get motion sickness easier than others, like if they sit facing backwards in a vehicle, or if they try to focus on a static phone screen reading while moving in a vehicle, etc. or just being on a boat or ship or a bridge that has motion. Some people are less dexterous and more clumsy than others too, or can't do more than one thing, are much worse at separate handed manipulation of things (always the same hand), can't stand on one foot very stably, get very disoriented when swimming (especially when upside down underwater) etc. where others have no problem with those types of things. It might partly be related to equilibrium center in their ear, and dexterity overall could be partly genetic. For some it can be a mind over matter thing though, with training on something, getting accustomed to it, making it easier over time both mentally and with the whole body adapting to it.
It's interesting to think about how MR glasses will probably end up in the future, including being out and around, and driving. They will almost certainly replace smart phone use initially, as that is already mobile and less demanding.
I was more focused on how, with enough resolution, lightweight "sunglasses" style MR glasses could, in the future, make virtual screens or other workspace virtual surfaces pinned anywhere, or pinned to yourself. That would have great use for desktop/apps, but you could also have virtual work spaces/surfaces that aren't screens, for drawing/designing/modeling things. You could have virtual screens for games too. By that point, however, scrolling game world terrain and buildings, etc as environmental planes could probably be placed in real space like a holographic field with holographic characters, or you could have a tear-away in real space (looking like a rip in space, or opening a wall ) . . or some other portal view into a holographic game world (separate image per eye in glasses makes 3d objects and scenes essentially holographic). At that point virtual flat screens would be more useful for desktop/apps. I suspect even older games, even if they couldn't be easily adapted to break out into full mixed reality type game, would at least be able to be updated, perhaps automatically with the help of AI, to be "holographic" 3d inside of a virtual screen space.
The only game I got motion sickness on, with decades of gaming, was dead island. That was because for some reason, activating the curb stomp on zombies would steal the FoV camera control from me and lurch the point of view/virtual camera swimmingly looking up and around and then down at the zombie on the ground. The problem only seemed to surface in rare instances where the camera , my entire perspective and game world, is moving contrary to where I want to move with my controller as if someone grabbed my head and swirled it around. I haven't experienced that since, and I've played VR games, including those with heights and climbing ladders, ledges, etc - and those really didn't bother me, because I was in control of where I was looking. Videos of roller coasters, etc don't bother me either, though they can occasionally give that light butterfly feeling in stomach, depending, but not nausea or headaches for me. I also don't have any issues with vertigo with heights IRL.
Some people get motion sickness easier than others, like if they sit facing backwards in a vehicle, or if they try to focus on a static phone screen reading while moving in a vehicle, etc. or just being on a boat or ship or a bridge that has motion. Some people are less dexterous and more clumsy than others too, or can't do more than one thing, are much worse at separate handed manipulation of things (always the same hand), can't stand on one foot very stably, get very disoriented when swimming (especially when upside down underwater) etc. where others have no problem with those types of things. It might partly be related to equilibrium center in their ear, and dexterity overall could be partly genetic. For some it can be a mind over matter thing though, with training on something, getting accustomed to it, making it easier over time both mentally and with the whole body adapting to it.
Does anyone know what is the difference between 900D and the new 900F?
https://www.samsung.com/us/tvs/neo-qled/65-class-neo-qled-8k-tv-qn900f-sku-qn65qn900ffxza/
I see claims they added some matte filter, and the max frequency is 4k@165hz - maybe a real one this time compared to the fake 4k@240hz on 900D.
https://www.samsung.com/us/tvs/neo-qled/65-class-neo-qled-8k-tv-qn900f-sku-qn65qn900ffxza/
I see claims they added some matte filter, and the max frequency is 4k@165hz - maybe a real one this time compared to the fake 4k@240hz on 900D.
Last edited:
There are no 8K monitors for PCs beyond the 2017 Dell UP3218K mainly due to the lack of content and the immense performance demands. Even the powerful RTX 4090 struggles to push 8K at high frame rates, particularly in gaming. Additionally, producing 8K OLED panels, especially at 120Hz, is expensive, and OLED screens are prone to burn-in when used for static desktop tasks. While DisplayPort 2.1 supports 8K, the cost, technical challenges, and limited demand mean manufacturers are still focused on 4K and higher refresh rates instead of pushing 8K into the mainstream.
In order to really appreciate 8K screen real estate, you need to come from a multi monitor background, ideally multiple 4K monitors. That kind of disqualifies at least 95% of the people doing maybe one or two windows at the same time in their work day.
Then there is of course "visual fidelity" you can get with something like 4K scaled to 8K on a smaller monitor, but I doubt people would be willing to pay for that, especially at the expense of higher refresh rates etc.
xDiVolatilX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2021
- Messages
- 3,007
So what is the refresh rate of the QN900 displays?
Is it 4K 144hz? In game mode? More or less? What about in 8k mode? Not that any GPU can run it lol prices have dropped significantly on these any good for gaming?
Is it 4K 144hz? In game mode? More or less? What about in 8k mode? Not that any GPU can run it lol prices have dropped significantly on these any good for gaming?
pendragon1
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 63,174
product page say 120