Google and LG Unveil World's Highest-Resolution OLED On-Glass VR Display (androidauthority.com) 55
A couple months ago, Road to VR reported that Google and LG were planning to reveal the "world's highest-resolution OLED on-glass display" for virtual-reality headsets on May 22nd. Well, that day has arrived and the two companies unveiled that very display. Android Authority reports: As expected, the 4.3-inch OLED 18MP display has a resolution of 4,800 x 3,840. The display has a pixel density of 1,443PPI and a 120Hz refresh rate. Google and LG referred to it as the "world's highest-resolution OLED on-glass display." For comparison's sake, the HTC Vive has two 3.6-inch displays with resolutions of 1,200 x 1,080. The higher-end HTC Vive Pro has two 3.5-inch displays with resolutions of 1,600 x 1,440. The Vive Pro maxes out at 615PPI, making this new LG panel about 57% better than HTC's best offering. However, there's already one display that's better than anything on offer, and that's your own vision. A person with great vision sees in an estimated resolution of 9,600 x 9,000 with a PPI density of 2,183. In other words, this new display from Google and LG is about half as good as our own eyes. Unfortunately, there are no plans to use them in any consumer products yet. Google rep Carlin Verri told 9to5Google that the companies started this project to push the industry forward.
So I can get a 4.3" OLED display on a phone (Score:1)
And at the other end of the spectrum I can get a 55" OLED TV.
But if I want something somewhere in the middle, I'm SOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We will be required on pain of imprisonment to watch Hillary (or her successor) win the "20/20" election on any display, glasses, screen, projector or display!
Updated with the more likely scenario should that extremist regime come back to power.
Re: (Score:3)
Er, not a phone. On a VR headset. My bad.
There are several OLED phones available. Also, tablets, laptops, etc.
They have brighter colors, and darker blacks. They are also thinner and lighter. The main drawback is shorter lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I should have been explicit. I want a 32" OLED TV.
You could buy a 65" and cover half the screen with black duct tape.
Re: (Score:3)
You could buy a 65" and cover half the screen with black duct tape.
Or use a magic marker to obscure every other pixel.
Or wear an eye patch.
Or tune it to "Fox" and leave it there. Half the IQ; half the truth; twice the number of ambulance chasing lawyer commercials.
Ok. Enough wise-assities. I have to agree and say I want a 40-ish inch OLED. They say facebook nudes look really nice on OLED.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung do a 9.7" tablet with an OLED display
Impressive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Should be this one: https://www.androidauthority.c... [androidauthority.com]
That links to the more interesting: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co... [wiley.com]
Resolution is half the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an amazing pixel count and density but what is going to be the method of generating those 3-D images and passing them from the computer into the headset?
4,800 x 3840 x 120 x 32bits/pixel = 64 Gbps.
I guess for practical operation, this would be a fibre optic connection but, as I understand it, current single mode fibre optic tops out at 10 Gbps which is a fraction of the speed required.
So propeller heads and prognosticators, how will these VR headsets be connected to their controllers?
Re: (Score:3)
Size of display ie distance to the eye, governs that. Closer the fewer number of pixels but the smaller they need to be and the more complex the lens needs to be to fit it to your eye. A compact curved screen where that curve, together with lenses is match to your eye, correct fitting is going to be quite fussy. Why does this story feel like an ad.
Re:Resolution is half the problem (Score:4, Informative)
So propeller heads and prognosticators, how will these VR headsets be connected to their controllers?
The paper covers this ground nicely.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co... [wiley.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to generate the whole image full resolution, most of the image can be low-res blurred. It's just the fovea that needs to be painted hi-res. They will need eye tracking though...
Re: (Score:2)
They will need eye tracking though...
Yes and no. There's only limited amount of eye movement in VR in general thanks mostly to the thin lenses causing large amounts of CA outside of the sweet spot. Render the edges blurry and people will naturally move their heads rather than their eyes.
Re: (Score:3)
current single mode fibre optic tops out at 10 Gbps
That's a big negative. Common single-lane PHY rates of 10,25,50 and uncommonly- 100 (I think just Juniper, and a draft spec).
Multi-lane (WDM) solutions are more common though, they're cheaper. Multi-lane 100Gbps is commodity now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Resolution is half the problem (Score:5, Informative)
As the original paper [wiley.com] describes, they don't send the full 18 Mpix to the display - they use a foveated transport system, where the displayed image is a much lower pixel density (e.g. 1280 x 1600 pixels, upscaled to fit the display resolution) except for a small window (640 × 640) of high-density pixels located where the eye is actually looking (as determined by an eye-tracking system).
They pack the high-density image data into a few extra scanlines of the low-density image, with a little metadata to describe where it should go, then send the resulting 1280 x 1922 image to the display, where an onboard microcontroller does the bilinear upscale of the low-density image and composites the high-density window in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Original paper (Score:2)
Link. [wiley.com]
Karma whoring like I just don't care.
this is tech reporting? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tech reporting has really, really gone downhill. And Slashdot editors chose to quote it?
57% better than [615ppi]
Let's see. That would be 615 * (1 + 0.57) = 966 ppi, not 1443 ppi.
1443 ppi is (1443 / 615) - 1 = 135% better than 615 ppi. Apparently this author thinks that because 615 is about 43% of 1443 that the 1443 ppi display is 57% better. Wow. Percentages are taught in 5th grade math.
there's already one display that's better than anything on offer, and that's your own vision
WTF? The human eye is a display? Does the author maybe think that some people really can read other people's eyes? Like you look in there and there is a tiny little screen?
Re: (Score:2)
The human eye is a display?
That was so bad. Does that writer even think about what they've written?
Better than 'half as good as our own eyes' (Score:2)
As Google says, a headset using this is expected to have a smaller field of view than the eyes have, so acuity will be 40 ppd vs. 60 ppd for the eyes (just 50% for the eyes). Also, the eyes don't have the same acuity over the entire range of angles.
In short, this is close enough to what's needed.
Wow (Score:2)
> However, there's already one display that's better than anything on offer, and that's your own vision.
Since when is our vision a display?
> A person with great vision sees in an estimated resolution of 9,600 x 9,000 with a PPI density of 2,183
It's not measured this way. First of all I assume we talk about display resolution - which then gets focused onto the retina - rather than density of rods and cones on the retina which is way denser in the fovea. Second, the spatial, temporal and color resolutio
Now what (Score:2)
What good does this do for porn, in the sense of "all the best skin is wrinkled", if all pictures are computer bot airbrushed to the texture of a balloon?
Porn can no longer lead the bleeding edge!
And now, to hit the anonymous check and submit...