×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

A 2560x1440 VR Headset That's Mobile

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the will-only-cost-you-$2-billion dept.

Displays 135

New submitter oldmildog writes: "GameFace Labs may very well be the furthest along in the quest to create a mobile VR headset. It's based on Android, and their latest prototype is the first VR headset (mobile or tethered) to include a 2560x1440 display, with 78% more pixels than 1080p based VR headsets like the Oculus Rift DK2. CEO Ed Mason said, 'The upgrade to 1280 x 1440 per eye is monumental. Individual pixels are hard to detect at first glance, making it a more immersive and comfortable experience in every single game and experience that we've tried. A lot of the ‘presence’ described by devs at the Valve [prototype VR headset] demonstration can be attributed to their use of higher resolution (and lower persistence) panels, which has a noticeable impact in suspending disbelief and tricking the brain."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

congrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700427)

I hope they get $1Bn too :)

Re:congrats (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 8 months ago | (#46700511)

I hope they get $1Bn too

Meh. I would certainly rather get behind this than FB's Oculus Grift.

Re:congrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700625)

This makes FB's Oculus buy a stupidest deal in this century so far. Not surprisingly their shares dropped so much (and caused a global tech shares dump).

Re:congrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46703651)

i dunno whatsapp for 16 billion was pretty stupid too IMO

Re:congrats (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46702451)

in the meantime : WHERE is my cheap 2560*1440 resolution monitor ? i want more than 1920*1024 !

Re:congrats (1)

bumba2014 (3564161) | about 8 months ago | (#46702807)

who wants that resolution nowadays? I want 4k (but 3840x2160 is also acceptable...)

Re:congrats (1)

geirlk (171706) | about 8 months ago | (#46702999)

Is this the point where I turn pedantic and remind you there is no such resolution as 1920*1024? =)

And I guess "cheap" is a relative term. I see the cheapest UHD (4K) monitors now costs less than what I payed for my 27"@2560*1440. The monitor(s) are such an important interface between you and the machine, this is where you should invest. I usually spend about 7000 NOK for a new monitor (atm. about US$1175. This being a high cost country, and with high taxes, this would be the equivalent of about US$850-900 in the US).

A new 28"@4K costs about US$600 and up here. A new 27"@2560*1440 costs about US$500 and up.

Re:congrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46703561)

re: Is this the point where I turn pedantic and remind you there is no such resolution as 1920*1024? =)

I hope not. There might not be TV formats at that pixel count in use, but a display with these pixel counts seem entirely feasible, as they are integers ;-)

Re:congrats (1)

geirlk (171706) | about 8 months ago | (#46703939)

I hope not. There might not be TV formats at that pixel count in use, but a display with these pixel counts seem entirely feasible, as they are integers ;-)

Allthough it does indeed seem feasable, and dare I even say probable, I must unfortunately disappoint you; there is no such thingamabob, dookickey or thingamajig.

Re:congrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46703999)

There's some caveats to your statement

1) You can get Korean branded 27" displays for $300 and under. Some have blemishes, but most don't. I have owned one for about a year, and have been able to run it at 110Hz stable.

2) Those cheap new 4k displays are STILL limited to 30Hz refresh per panel. I don't know about you, but even 60Hz is getting to be a little bit low for a monitor, let alone WAY too low for a TV. The 4K displays that are supposedly 60Hz? Yeah they're not. They're using 2 tiled displays at 30Hz to make your "60Hz" display.

What we need, is cheaper 2560x1440 displays at 120Hz and above, but are ALSO IPS/PLS panels.

Re:congrats (1)

Slizzo (3610599) | about 8 months ago | (#46704227)

Replying just to say that I posted the above without logging in by accident.

Re:congrats (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 8 months ago | (#46703565)

Heck, I'm considering buying one of these 'VR' headsets for use for business purposes. If you've ever taken an 8-hour bus or train ride and tried to use a small laptop screen the whole way, it can be frustrating.

This thing has twice as many eye views as I need (future patent: slightly cross your eyes and interleave double resolution by shifting each pixel off by one for each eye), but the resolution is good enough.

My real preference would be for a bluetooth keyboard and to run my desktop off a cell phone form factor. Good thing the buses and trains have AC mains now.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700459)

their latest prototype latest

As opposed to their latest prototype earliest?

Re:LOL (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 8 months ago | (#46700527)

It's a virtual virtual headset!

Re:LOL (1)

asjk (569258) | about 8 months ago | (#46701233)

It's a virtual virtual headset!

No, it's literally a virtual headset. Virtuous (or righteous)

Re:LOL (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 8 months ago | (#46702013)

It's virtually a real headset.

journalism is dead. I hope you're happy. (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 8 months ago | (#46703779)

but but but...
78% MORE PIXELS!

Done with Oculus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700537)

I purchased the Oculus due to its Kickstarter campaign.

Very disappointed with Facebooks interference, but if that will cause some others to come forward with a better design, I am all for it.

I have banked the funds I had for the Oculus 2 and will be looking toward the GameFace system when it becomes available.

That's pretty stupid (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46700797)

I was on the fence about buying a DK2, but the Facebook purchase convinced me for sure I should do so - because I want to own and program against a prototype of something that is probably going to deliver.

It's kind of dumb to back up a company that is not only still catching up to DK1, but also lacks the financial resources to even keep up with further Oculus advancement going forward.

There's a reason why Facebook bought Oculus and not one of the other VR wannabes. They are years behind.

As for "interference", what the hell are you talking about? There's been none so far, only speculation - the only known thing about interference is they have said there will be none.

Re:That's pretty stupid (1)

Stolpskott (2422670) | about 8 months ago | (#46703291)

I was on the fence about buying a DK2, but the Facebook purchase convinced me for sure I should do so - because I want to own and program against a prototype of something that is probably going to deliver.

It's kind of dumb to back up a company that is not only still catching up to DK1, but also lacks the financial resources to even keep up with further Oculus advancement going forward.

There's a reason why Facebook bought Oculus and not one of the other VR wannabes. They are years behind.

As for "interference", what the hell are you talking about? There's been none so far, only speculation - the only known thing about interference is they have said there will be none.

I think the thing that has most people worried about the Facebook purchase of Oculus is the difference in emphasis between the two companies - Oculus are/were looking to bring a reasonably-priced viable VR display to the market. Facebook are a social media powerhouse which makes revenue by monetizing it's users' details for advertising purposes. There is very little obvious synergy there, meaning it is not clear which direction the Facebook-piloted Oculus ship is going to go, but very few business lay down this kind of money and just let things carry on as they are, so there will almost certainly be some form of redirection.

If Oculus had been bought by a VR competitor, the direction would be largely unchanged; if the purchaser was an OS company - Microsoft, for example, the approach would probably be one of monitor-replacement for the Xbox and also for the Windows OS, other buyers with their own agendas, and so on. If the purchaser was Google, the synergies are again less apparent and the deal would probably be greeted with some skepticism laced with hope/expectation for what improvements might come when paired with Google's resources, but the question is - what is Facebook doing at the moment that makes a VR display the last piece of the puzzle for a killer app? VR Social Media? (Would not really work if the interaction is real-time, as all you will see are loads of people with Oculus headsets on. Not very social...)

Re:Done with Oculus (0)

glasshole (3569269) | about 8 months ago | (#46700901)

Yep. I canceled my DK2 preorder. I'd be more than willing to direct those funds to someone else's preorder while my DK1 collects dust.

Re:Done with Oculus (1)

mellon (7048) | about 8 months ago | (#46701317)

I actually ordered a DK2 after the facebook announcement on the theory that it will be less likely to be broken by facebook than later models. It remains to be seen of course, but July is a pretty early timeframe for Facebook to have completely destroyed the company.

Re:Done with Oculus (3, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 8 months ago | (#46701023)

Except I'm waiting for these guys to get sued into oblivion for copying Facebook's amazing groundbreaking invention.

...no, not the hardware, the word 'Face'.

facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700543)

is like a virus that's spreads everywhere, oculus got infected too - RIP

Transparent OLED (4, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 8 months ago | (#46700577)

These things really aren't going to hit their stride until they start using Transparent OLED displays so instead of cloaking you in VR it's overlays info on the real world.

Re:Transparent OLED (5, Informative)

ensignyu (417022) | about 8 months ago | (#46700641)

Then it'd be Augmented Reality (AR), not Virtual Reality (VR).

Re:Transparent OLED (1)

LongearedBat (1665481) | about 8 months ago | (#46701407)

Would be cool to have them combined. Flick a switch on your AR headset and the outside world is blocked out (with a change in optics?) turning it into a VR headset.

(Don't know how enough about the implementations. I expect they work very differently. But still, it would be cool if they could be combined.)

Re:Transparent OLED (1)

drkim (1559875) | about 8 months ago | (#46701957)

Would be cool to have them combined. Flick a switch on your AR headset and the outside world is blocked out (with a change in optics?) turning it into a VR headset.

(Don't know how enough about the implementations. I expect they work very differently. But still, it would be cool if they could be combined.)

Not particularly hard. Flip an opaque sheet down into the field of view. (This could be display tech dependent, of course..)

Re:Transparent OLED (2)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | about 8 months ago | (#46703807)

I was about to say "Use the Force Luke," and hope GP remembered the blast visor.

Re:Transparent OLED (1)

coofercat (719737) | about 8 months ago | (#46703743)

Not to be confused with Pirate Reality (ARRR).

Re:Transparent OLED (3, Insightful)

catmistake (814204) | about 8 months ago | (#46700739)

These things really aren't going to hit their stride until they start using Transparent OLED displays so instead of cloaking you in VR it's overlays info on the real world.

Nope... that's not going to help them "hit their stride," or become the next radio, TV, iPod, etc. No manufacturer of HMD has yet figured out what they have. They are getting hints from their R&D, but they, and everyone, are so excited about how cool VR is that they are ignoring the mechanism that allows immersive VR to occur, and it has nothing to do with the resolution of the display components. It has to do with the human brain, our capacity for the suspension of belief, not of our conscious mind only, but of the semi-conscious awareness of what ALL our senses (not just the regular suspects) are reporting. In the research and science of brain and mind is where the breakthroughs will occur. Also, as in all technology weighted heavily towards vision, gaming will not drive this forward to manufacturers hopes of a regular, ordinary consumer device that everyone will soon have just like a TV. Only the pornography industry will do that, as only it always has and and only it always will.

Re:Transparent OLED (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 8 months ago | (#46701163)

\o/ internet pr0n is going to be even better!

Re:Transparent OLED (3, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | about 8 months ago | (#46701535)

We need a VR version of goatse

Re:Transparent OLED (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 8 months ago | (#46701927)

noooooo!

Re: Transparent OLED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46703943)

> We need a VR version of goatse

said no one ever.

Re:Transparent OLED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46701181)

and it has nothing to do with the resolution of the display components.

Not really. The first gen Oculus has a very low resolution which makes it very obvious that you're looking at pixels. A sufficiently high resolution and refresh rate might not mean much to the gameplay, but not having it can break immersion.

Re:Transparent OLED (0)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 8 months ago | (#46701245)

Film: Not popularized by porn
TV: Not popularized by porn
8mm movies: Not popularized by porn
VCRs: Not popularized by Porn
Beta: Yes it also had porn just as much as VHS
Video Games Machines: Not popularized by porn
DVDs: Not popularized by porn
Online Streaming Video: Not popularized by porn
Blu-Rays: Not popularized by porn
Bittorrent pirating: Not popularized by porn
Streaming Devices: Not popularized by porn (are there even any legit porn channels, at all, for any device?)

Porn was basically the only thing to use the multi-angle feature on DVDs, so there is that.

Re:Transparent OLED (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 8 months ago | (#46703087)

not of our conscious mind only, but of the semi-conscious awareness

what you're saying is that subliminal advertising is where its at :(

Re:Transparent OLED (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700773)

Your comment shows a complete lack of understanding of the differences VR and AR. You're asking for AR - things like the Epson Movario Bt200 (which is pretty much the product you're asking for) and Google Glass. VR are things like Occulus and this.

The problem with AR are several, but chief among them are:
- Latency. For your eyes to be fooled into correctly overlaying things, the camera needs to capture the image (let photons accumulate on a sensor), then move the image to RAM, the CPU then needs to process it, identify positions/objects, do game logic, prepare items to draw, send the items to draw to the video driver, and the video driver needs to display on the screen. All this in about 6 milliseconds or (preferably) less. In short - technology is nowhere near good enough yet as you're very lucky if you can get each of these steps to work under 6 ms. I believe Michael Abrash had a good post about this a few months ago. You will notice objects swimming around in AR due to latency.
- Focus. Your eyes focus at different depths for different objects. Overlayed text on an object usually creates a depth disparity for the eyes where either the text or the object will appear out of focus. This causes eye strain. Nvidia presented a possible solution prototype at last year's Siggraph, but it is not see through and the current design will not let it be (even with transparent OLEDs).
- Calibration. The smart glasses shifting on your nose change their position in relation to your eyes when compared to the rest of the world. Making sure things line up is really hard. Possible solutions are permanent attachment (though I think you'd agree this might hamper sales), or some kind of fast dynamic eye tracking and on-the-fly re-calibration.
- Field of view - no current AR maker has a huge field of view - the technology used will not allow it.

Currently, do not expect any games that correctly overlay stuff on real world objects. It's completely unrealistic right now. maybe in 10-20 years.

VR is for immersive worlds. It's supposed to be opaque to the world - it replaces the world. Since the're no slow camera input and because your FOV is entirely rendered, the latency requirements are a little lower. The focus issue can be solved when necessary, but it's often not necessary. The field of view can be larger. In short it's designed for gaming. In general, AR is a much tougher problem than AR (though both are very hard).

Don't mix the two - they are as different as they can be for being so similar at first glance.

Re:Transparent OLED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46701085)

Charliemopps writes some really bizarre shit. Don't pay too much attention to him.

Re:Transparent OLED (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46701589)

I suspect AR will initially come in the form of laser-projected image on the retina that is currently being worked on by the military. Seems like I've heard some pretty impressive things out of that corner. Expensive, but it actually monitors your eye and adapts to keep the image always in focus. Then there's the interference-pattern based lenses, of which I remember almost nothing except that I'm pretty sure they had something to do with letting your eye see the focused image at a completely different distance than the lens itself, and that it was extremely computationally expensive. Again though they'd need to continuously monitor your eyes to keep the image in focus. On the plus side that should make it easy enough to also compensate for the glasses shifting around.

As for the camera feedback loop I suspect the situation is not as bad as you portray. A combination of gyroscopic sensors and object motion prediction should make it easy enough to extrapolate several frames ahead of the in-depth video analysis. You may lose some or all of your overlay for a fraction of a second when turning your head too quickly, or when something unexpectedly pops into view, but it should be good enough to overlay relatively stable "virtual billboards" and telepresence "ghosts" on the world. Actually "painting" on surfaces in a non-jittery manner will probably have to wait though.

Re:Transparent OLED (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 8 months ago | (#46700785)

that wont happen for a while. the pattent owner for oleds is being paid to hold onto his patent and not let anyone do anything with it.

Re:Transparent OLED (1)

mellon (7048) | about 8 months ago | (#46701345)

Unlikely. Easier to use video cameras to do the overlay. Less worry about matching light levels. It would certainly be cool if we could get a version of this that was more like a pair of Oakley shades than a giant set of opaque goggles, but I'm skeptical that such a thing will be useful.

Re:Transparent OLED (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 8 months ago | (#46701503)

Let me know when someone starts making OLEDs.

They've all but stopped production. My guess is that there are far too many LCD panels sitting in warehouses to change the tech to OLED.

Re:Transparent OLED (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 8 months ago | (#46703149)

How would you keep the overlay in focus while you are concentrating on objects in the distance?

Why mobile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700583)

I would think that a major concern would be making vr gear as light as possible, making it mobile would mean that you have to include a battery making it unnecessarily heavy. This may seem silly at first, but trust me, if you're going to be wearing it for any period of time every little bit of weight matters.
Also, running out of battery in the middle of my vr session would get pretty old after a while.
The resolution seems great though and should they decide to make a tethered version I'd be interested.

4k (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about 8 months ago | (#46700599)

I don't think this headset is first. I think I recall palmer or cormack talking about 4k when they discussed the headsets they tried prior to developing the rift. That 4k was one of the requirements for some defense application. I suppose this might be the first prototype 2.5k display whose parts cost less than 10 grand.

Re:4k (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46701623)

Didn't Oculus say the DK2 was 1080p, and that specific substantially higher-resolution hardware had already been selected for the commercial version? Seems to me that implies at *least* 2.5k, and presumably they have actually tested the hardware in their own labs and are just keeping quiet about the details, which would put them at least on par with these guys, who it sounds like are only at the early internal prototype stage themselves.

Re:4k (1)

locopuyo (1433631) | about 8 months ago | (#46701817)

Yes, Oculus isn't stopping at 1080p, they said they need at least 1440p, but might go higher, and might possibly have multiple versions that are more expensive but have higher resolution.

Re:4k (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46702127)

Shit. Just when I though I had escaped the upgrade treadmill.

Also: Woohoo!!!

Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (4, Informative)

mgemmons (972332) | about 8 months ago | (#46700651)

Display resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem. This quote from John Carmack sums it up best:

The latency between the physical movement of a users head and updated photons from a head mounted display reaching their eyes is one of the most critical factors in providing a high quality experience. Human sensory systems can detect very small relative delays in parts of the visual or, especially, audio fields, but when absolute delays are below approximately 20 milliseconds they are generally imperceptible.

According to the article

[...]the latest GameFace SDK significantly reduces latency to a point that it is easily comparable to the DK1. The company plans to benchmnark their latency soon to get a quantitative latency figure.

Notice that is DK1 latency, not DK2. DK1's latency was notoriously bad and made many people nauseous. So, while I'm happy to see competition in this space, as far as GameFace is concerned, there is not a lot to see here yet.

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (-1, Troll)

catmistake (814204) | about 8 months ago | (#46700825)

Carmack is closer to the truth, but still misses. Really, it's not that the problem is latency of the device, but of our brain or conscious/unconscious minds' ability to notice the latency. You may think that is saying the same thing, but it is not. Manufacturers are putting their focus on the wrong thing. The device works exactly as it's spec called, exactly as it was designed. It is insufficient because they did not measure this stuff at where it matters, and apparently they are going to continue with this style of trial and error or hit and miss development, and releasing these devices that are insufficient for sensory immersion. What the manufactures are effectively doing is making a shoe for a foot they never see or even try to look at, and never seem to get any feedback from until the shoe is completely fabricated with all the bells and whistles, and then they try to shoehorn it onto a foot... then they start to see what's wrong but in the wrong way, and they go back to making another shoe with the little they learned from the shoe being too tight or too big for the foot.... instead of learning and understanding everything they need to about the foot first to make a shoe that fits and is comfortable and does what they intended it to do.

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (2)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 8 months ago | (#46700879)

This is a lot of words without actually explaining why one problem (display latency) is not a suitable proxy for the thing you call the actual problem (perceptive latency).

They're obviously related, but one of these we can measure directly, the other we cannot. Ergo, we get our proxy suitably low until we find a point where the trade-offs are acceptable.

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (0)

catmistake (814204) | about 8 months ago | (#46700973)

They're obviously related, but one of these we can measure directly, the other we cannot. Ergo, we get our proxy suitably low until we find a point where the trade-offs are acceptable.

You're again making their same mistake. They and you seem to be focused on the product, what your prejudices already tell you what it is and what it should be. I can't make you see the wrong-headedness of your beliefs. And it absolutely is false that we do not have the ability to measure perceptive capacities. Let me put it this way: everyone believes they are trying to design a head-mounted display... but the reality is they are producing a mind-mounted display and ignoring this! That is why they will continue to come up short, forever, until they realize what they are really trying to do.

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46701167)

You're again making their same mistake. They and you seem to be focused on the product, what your prejudices already tell you what it is and what it should be. I can't make you see the wrong-headedness of your beliefs.

There is always someone who thinks everyone else is wrong.

Let me put it this way: everyone believes they are trying to design a head-mounted display... but the reality is they are producing a mind-mounted display and ignoring this! That is why they will continue to come up short, forever, until they realize what they are really trying to do.

What is the difference in concrete terms? What **specifically** would you do differently? I expect an abstract response couched in philosophical garbage which fully avoids providing a useful answer.

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (2)

gozu (541069) | about 8 months ago | (#46701293)

Lol. Are you for real? If you're not , then that was a magnificent way to say a bunch of stuff without actually saying anything, just as grandparent said. Subtle trolling. Solid A.

If you are for real, then can you lay off the empty platitudes and come up with concrete suggestions? These guys are building real stuff. They got real tons of investor money. You are just producing empty words in a useless slashdot post.

The Onus is on you to produce a headset that blows theirs away before you can start shitting on them. Those are the rules of life, you dig?

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (1)

Scottingham (2036128) | about 8 months ago | (#46701397)

Can't speak for the dude, but I think that the single LED w/micro mirror approach painting an image directly onto your retina like an old CRT is going to win. It can fool what we're focusing on. This current approach never gets beyond the 'you are still looking at a screen inches from your eyes'.

The current tech has the resolution at about 320x200 or something like that. Obviously to low for now. But even reviews of that resolution said that it was still eerily lifelike and different from a regular screen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46701669)

What? The optics of the Oculus alter the visual path so that your eyes are essentially focused on a giant screen 80 feet way (40? I forget.). The various technologies that project an image onto your retina do something not altogether different, except that they can adapt to your changing focus so that the virtual screen is always in focus instead of at a fixed optical distance. Eventually they may even be able to project an image with actual focal depth, and that will be really impressive. But that's still a long ways away.

Neither though has you focusing on a screen only a few inches from your eyes. I don't think *any* do, except possibly that one hobbiest design that suspends a pair of tablets in front of your face - I don't recall seeing any lenses with that setup.

Catmistake as an APK sockpuppet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46702263)

With that kind of vapid, yet vehement trolling I half expected catmistake to suddenly "put on his robe and wizard hat" and start talking about how the *real* problem was due to not using his hosts file trojan.

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 8 months ago | (#46701547)

First message I thought you might be an idiot. Second message tied it all together! Stop worrying about decreasing the display lag and just get high so you can't notice it anymore! Or better, you notice it, but you think it's totally groovy, man!

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 8 months ago | (#46701209)

Wouldn't the refresh rate be the greater factor over resolution in reducing latency? I don't see the connection with resolution and latency.

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (3, Informative)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46701763)

I think that's exactly what they said. Resolution is an easy problem to solve. Lots of high-res screens out there. Latency is a far more challenging problem as it involves the entire system from head tracking, to rendering, to projection. And even just for the screen's contribution to latency, refresh rate is only a small part of the equation. A 60Hz panel refreshes 60 times per second (~17ms), but there may well be substantial internal latency between receiving the new frame and actually updating the image.

Think HD TVs where the refresh rate may be even higher at 120Hz, or even 240Hz (4ms), but you may see several hundred ms of latency between when an image change is sent to the TV and when the change appears onscreen - hence the need to calibrate the Rock Band, etc. timing-based games to your TV. That latency is mostly in the image-processing circuitry rather than the screen itself, but it illustrates the point.

And then there's ghosting to consider as well - just because the screen refreshes once every 17ms doesn't mean the previous image is completely gone yet, you may actually see the "remains" of several previous frames on screen at any given time, especially where there's sharp changes in brightness. And that latency in removing previous images can be nauseating as well, even when gaming on a normal monitor.

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 8 months ago | (#46701283)

Finally. Something that gets hardware and software devs to care about latency. For too long, software, mobile phones, games, monitors and tons of other gadgets have often exhibited latency above 50-100ms. I'm hoping the tech will trickle down from VR headets to other devices so we can end the madness once and for all.

10ms would be better by the way as even 16ms can be perceptible [music.tuc.gr] by many.

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 8 months ago | (#46702503)

Human sensory systems can detect very small relative delays in parts of the visual or, especially, audio fields

Funny, I'd have thought the auditory systems were less sensitive to delays. You only have to be 13m away from something for the audio to be "delayed" by one video frame (1/25 of a second) in real life.

Re:Resolution is not the hard-to-solve problem.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46702889)

Which is precisely why we are more sensitive to audio delays :) There is more timing difference to detect, and thus to actually use for positioning (your own, the one of your close ones, and the one of attackers and targets), leading to eventual evolutionary advantages, possibly transmitted.

Skipping Laptops Screens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700681)

I had to manually build a laptop (T60p/T61 parts) to get a screen with that resolution on a laptop. Argh! There's no real point to this post. I'm just complaining about how high mobile screen resolutions are compared to laptop and desktop screens. If only CRTs weighed less.

Re:Skipping Laptops Screens (1)

itamihn (1213328) | about 8 months ago | (#46700733)

There are now a few HiDPI choices in laptops. Writing this from my 3200x1800 laptop...

Re:Skipping Laptops Screens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700919)

What laptop would that be?

Re:Skipping Laptops Screens (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 8 months ago | (#46700887)

For $2k you could get a 3.2k display laptop.

second hit on google: http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-1... [dell.com]

Oxymoron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700737)

"Mobile VR Content."

That's like saying "Supercharged smartcar."

It doesn't make any sense. It's a lot of work put into something incredibly stupid. What's the point of having a minimum of 60fps 3D content at a 1440p resolution when you are running on a mobile chip? That'... that's just... dumb. That's not dumb. That's idiotic, it's pointless.

Besides, it's easy to tell the overhyped article is just bull. "It's almost hard to notice the pixels!" At that resolution per eye right on your face the relative screen resolution would be just above playing the original Doom at 320x240. So, yeah, thanks for the lies.

Re:Oxymoron (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46700853)

There's also the question of what, exactly, the 'mobile' use case for something even harder on your situational awareness than a bag over your head...

Having lived through the era of 21+ inch CRTs, I certainly want any VR headset to be relatively lightweight(especially the part I attach to my face) and nobody likes dealing with devices that require three dongles, an external PSU, a processor box, and a couple of line lumps to operate, so my (perhaps naive) assumption would be that 'non-mobile' would still mean 'fairly lightweight thing you put on your head, probably with a smallish support box that takes the video inputs, handles the motion-tracking camera, if any, and either houses or is connected to the power supply'.

So, um, even the non-mobile units are going to be easy enough to toss into a (suitably protective) laptop bag, which makes them pretty 'mobile' for something that's dangerously useless when actually walking around.

I'm also a trifle baffled about the 'Android' element. What is based on Android? Did they drag a gratuitous smartphone/tablet interface into the firmware that handles location tracking and such because, um, some reason? Is this VR system tied directly to the output of yet another probably-doomed niche Android Gaming Product? I hope it has video-in for when that flops.

Re:Oxymoron (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 8 months ago | (#46701383)

That reminds me of when I was shopping for bluetooth headphones

Some of them were advertised as 'portable'

I wouldn't want to wear anything on my head that wasn't portable.

(remember the Osbourne 1)

Re:Oxymoron (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46701791)

I don't know. You obviously couldn't do pseudo-realistic rendering at that resolution on a current mobile chip, but much more stylized rendering could be possible. Imagine walking through a 3D cartoon world - low detail, but with no obvious pixels to interfere with immersion or create obvious "jaggies"

Re:Oxymoron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46702031)

If you're doing 3D cartoon worlds, then that high of a resolution is absolutely not needed. The solid colours would hide the pixels and antialiasing (FXAA alone would be fine) can be applied to the edges.

Re:Oxymoron (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46702163)

Who said anything about solid colors? Even gouraud shading would benefit from a bit more detail, and there's absolutely no reason you couldn't still do fully textured figures, just using smaller textures and a lot fewer polygons than in Crysis. Plus, even if most of the world were solid shaded colors you still have all the fine detail that would benefit from the resolution. Mouths, hair, stick figures, etc. Also things in the distance - I can't tell you how many games I've played where I've struggled to make out what the 4-pixel tall maybe-horror in the distance is. The difference between a 4 and 6 pixel height cannot be overstated.

Makes a ton of sense to me (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46701873)

It doesn't make any sense. It's a lot of work put into something incredibly stupid. What's the point of having a minimum of 60fps 3D content at a 1440p resolution when you are running on a mobile chip?

The iPad is already running complex games at 2048 x 1536 (close to 1440p). It's not hard to imagine you could do 120FPS (or faster) output of simpler scenes and interleave them between a screen over each eye...

Why? Well, what about airline travel for one thing. I personally would not mind shutting out the whole plane for a few hours and imagining for some reason I'm bound in a small chair on a beach somewhere.

Re:Makes a ton of sense to me (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 8 months ago | (#46702303)

It's certainly possible, but in order to maintain that 120Hz minimum at all times, your scene would have to be extremely simplistic by modern standards. Still leaves room for some interesting games, but it cuts out a lot of others, and it would limit immersion rather more than a lower resolution would, IMHO. Perhaps in a few more years.

Re:Makes a ton of sense to me (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46702321)

I've seen a few arguments that claim a less detailed but more fluid world is more immersive than a very detailed world with any immersion hiccups.

Re:Makes a ton of sense to me (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 8 months ago | (#46702815)

Yeah, I'd agree with that - framerate is crucial. OTOH I find my brain quickly learns to ignore the pixel size and screendoor to a surprising extent, treating it as visual noise, so resolution is less important than I had thought (within reason).

Re:Oxymoron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46704275)

It doesn't make any sense. It's a lot of work put into something incredibly stupid. What's the point of having a minimum of 60fps 3D content at a 1440p resolution when you are running on a mobile chip?

They don't mean mobile like your phone, they mean mobile like not having wires connecting it to the image source. Have a look at CAREN [motekmedical.com] : it's basically a 2-d treadmill inside an iMax. Currently useful only as a physical therapy and research tool, but much easier to do if you can substitute a VR headset for the iMax. Wireless connection between the headset and the image generator lets the user move around in the environment.

Surely you've seen youtube videos of people literally pulling their computers off the desk when they duck or dodge objects in the virtual environment.

Resolution is everything (1, Insightful)

DMJC (682799) | about 8 months ago | (#46700757)

Resolution is pretty much everything with VR headsets. The only problem I see with this headset is that it won't have much content for a long time. Unless they can port CryEngine 3 for example, there won't be a copy of Star Citizen running on it. It's big-name PC titles that are going to drive VR. This headset needs to support getting content from a PC. Not just it's own Android based content.

Do your research first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700833)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-2dQoeqVVo

Re:Resolution is everything (3, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 8 months ago | (#46700865)

resolution is really not even that big of a deal (course you would know that if you have used one... ever) its input lag, poor focus, weight, cables and refresh rate.

After all that you dont give a shit if the image is a bit grainy

Re:Resolution is everything (1)

DMJC (682799) | about 8 months ago | (#46701285)

Actually I did use one last year in July, it was an oculus Rift V1 devkit, and for me it WAS the resolution. seeing large black bars, and not enough detail sucked, Frankly I didn't care about the motion tracking/depth of field stuff because my eyes were too busy trying to get around the giant freaking pixels. They really need to fix the pixel density which is the easy part. The latency and refresh stuff they will naturally solve over time. But if they can't get the pixel density high enough in the first place. The latency won't matter.

Re:Resolution is everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46701643)

You obviously have used one for about 2 minutes.

After 25 minutes playing with a DK1, I almost puked. The lag is abhorrent.

Re:Resolution is everything (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#46700909)

Latency counts: People were happily fragging cyberdemons back in the Doom days; and you could practically cut your wrists on pixels that size; but a nontrivial portion of the population can't, even with nontrivial effort of will, suppress the nausea and sometimes vomiting associated with mismatches between motion perceived by the inner ear and motion inferred visually.

More resolution is better, and with smartphone screens locked in an arms race it can't be all that expensive to provide; but the product that doesn't make you want to vomit will have a certain edge.

Re:Resolution is everything (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 8 months ago | (#46701249)

If a personal gaming device, like a PSP or Genesis, was released built into a VR headset people would buy it. I don't know if it would be the next big thing; but, I can see it being sufficiently successful.

what is different (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700777)

what is different with this technology from the stuff 10+ years ago that companies dropped like a hot potato when they found out that besides giving adults constant headaches, that growing childrens eye-brain development was irrepairably damaged by constant use?

Im sure that the lawyers will be gleeful that these things will be coming back.

Sounds good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46700787)

Keep facebook away from it.

bout time (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 8 months ago | (#46700859)

I hate it when I have to bolt my VR helmet to the floor, now I can get a neck-ache with 78% more pixles while it runs on a phone that has about the same horsepower as a decade old computer!

the future is finally here!

Re:bout time (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 8 months ago | (#46704309)

The next version will have 47% more than 26% neck-ache annually. That's down from last year - hold your applause.

Latency (1)

thisisauniqueid (825395) | about 8 months ago | (#46701103)

Low motion latency (not above half the frame interval) is far more important than resolution. None of these headsets are there yet.

Beats the Glyph... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46701325)

...at 1280x720 per eye, however Avegant is using DLP which won't have the screen door issue. It will be interesting to see which actually LOOKS better. Pixels aren't everything. Persistence and latency also matters. See DK1 vs DK2 for latency upgrade!

http://www.avegant.com/

lol (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#46701737)

Lol, Zuckerberg bought the wrong one.

Shut up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46702035)

and take my money!

Halfway right. (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about 8 months ago | (#46702093)

Excellent idea making a headset with a Display that is HD-res or better per eye, however very bad idea including the computer in the headset too. I wish they would have just made it a display device that had good tracking.

What makes it "mobile"? (1)

Animats (122034) | about 8 months ago | (#46702339)

What's "mobile" about it? Runs on batteries? Plays crappy cellphone games? No. It's cordless.

That's good, but it has nothing to do with mobile phones. Even GameFace uses the term "cordless", not "mobile".

The site is kind of vague on what processing takes place in the headgear, and what takes place on the external WiFi connected device where, presumably, the game is playing. This thing is only worth the trouble if the game behind it is rendering very fast and has very high resolution content, and the latency to the game is very low.

Field of view (1)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | about 8 months ago | (#46702445)

The resolution of these types of devices is a huge factor in whether or not I would find them acceptable to use, but the field of view they have is an even bigger factor. With very inexpensive monitors I can have a combined display that takes up a very large portion of my horizontal vision. I currently have three 24" monitors that give me a combined field of view of 123 degrees in their current configuration, with a 5760x1080 resolution also being a plus. Going to a VR headset with a FOV of only 90 degrees would be a step down as far as I'm concerned, and I would not take that step. The VR aspect of it, while cool in and of itself, would be a non-starter for me if the FOV was well below what I can do with monitors. Getting slightly bigger monitors, like 27" ones, would give me an even larger FOV, and alterations to their physical configuration can also change that FOV value and give me close to 180 degrees if I want.

As far as I'm concerned, if a VR headset isn't giving me something near/beyond a 180 degree FOV I really couldn't care less. I'd rather keep my head stationary and look at a display setup that does give me a larger FOV. Hopefully they get there soon, because everything else that goes along with the idea is pretty damn cool. But I don't want to look at an image where only a small portion of my vision is taken up. The immersiveness of a large horizontal FOV (vertical is less important to our vision, but would still be desirable) is too much to give up. I've lived with this setup for a couple years now, and wouldn't want to go without something similar/greater in FOV capability.

yay, VR isn't dead (1)

Mirar (264502) | about 8 months ago | (#46703129)

And here I feared for a second that Facebook killed VR.

This is good news.

Wow that's pretty cool, what's the killer app? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 8 months ago | (#46704439)

Wow, that's neat, can I buy it and add to my existing collection of VR and AR gear I've been using since Quake and Descent came out about two decades ago?

I mean, I have mobile ready VR already, it's pretty cool, and doesn't have to look like I've strapped a toaster to my face... [vuzix.com] That high resolution is nifty, but how is it on battery life? That's the main thing for me, FoV isn't really that big of a deal since most receptors are concentrated in the center of your visual field anyway. Also, in my albeit limited studies, it's not lag-time but difference between visual and inner-ear inputs that primarily induces motion sickness, so any

I really do hope VR succeeds in the general public this time around. There really isn't much in the way of good 3DUI experiences, so I've been doing some 3D experiments in input / output. I love having a full 360 degree desktop full of text terminals, documentation, issue trackers, tool-bars, palettes, actor models, and widgets off to the side and out of the way of the workspace, etc. Unfortunately, I have discovered that with combinations of two or more [accelerometer | compass | head tracking | eye tracking] I can achieve a different yet cheaper, less strain inducing, nearly as immersive, and somewhat similar feature set to what VR provides, but using any standard 2D screen -- they become 3D viewports into a virtual landscape. Lean in and tilt the head slightly to view surrounding workspaces, combinations of vocal, keyboard, mouse, and eye blink / motion for intuitive (yet easily controllable) focus acceleration and action input, etc. Even my grandma was surprised and grinning saying, "Oh wow, I can actually use this. It's like an actual window. Why isn't this on my TV right now?" So, I think AI + cameras embedded in our devices will be strong competition for the VR market.

IMO, it is Augmented Reality (AR) that's really exciting. However, just like VR, there isn't much in the way of good UI design, and the wearable AR tech is still as expensive and clunky as the UI research itself remains... I have experimented with some brain-blowing concepts when combining my active display UI designs with wearable AR UI, but it makes some of my friends and family instantly puke -- unlike the active display itself, which doesn't induce nausea because it mimics something we're all familiar with, and aligns itself with our perception expectations by augmenting reality instead of enforcing a virtual reality. In other words, AR is not just for goggles anymore, and it's already better than VR in terms of IO ROI and monetary ROI, IMO, but YMMV w/ VR vs AR.

TL;DR: VR is still cool but gimmicky hype that's soon to be obsolete before it even gets off the ground, unfortunately.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?