AVS Forum banner

Oculus Rift VR Headsets

32K views 428 replies 59 participants last post by  digitalsafari 
#1 ·
#102 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/90#post_23757674


It sounded like this is a high FoV option. VR Sunglasses is a nice idea, but the problem is that you have a lot of peripheral vision with sunglasses. For VR to work really well, you need to block out ambient light - this was already a problem with Sony's HMZ headsets, and something I think the Oculus Rift solves quite well. The problem with the current Oculus design is that it's still huge.
That's true. Eyes have to be completely enclosed, so maybe sunglasses form factor should be left for plain 3D TV experience while VR would require something resembling swim goggles.
 
#103 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23759888


That's true. Eyes have to be completely enclosed, so maybe sunglasses form factor should be left for plain 3D TV experience while VR would require something resembling swim goggles.
I think the "ski goggles" design of the Oculus Rift is good - it's just too big. Fit it into the size of a regular pair of ski goggles and I think that's going to be pretty good. Swim goggles would be uncomfortable for long periods of time due to the smaller area of contact.
 
#104 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23760051

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23759888


That's true. Eyes have to be completely enclosed, so maybe sunglasses form factor should be left for plain 3D TV experience while VR would require something resembling swim goggles.
I think the "ski goggles" design of the Oculus Rift is good - it's just too big. Fit it into the size of a regular pair of ski goggles and I think that's going to be pretty good. Swim goggles would be uncomfortable for long periods of time due to the smaller area of contact.
 

There used to be something that had a very brief [stupid] popularity run in the 80's out here called glacier glasses (sometimes called glacier goggles, though those were usually more industrial looking).

 



 

Maybe something like that someday.  Shutting out the outside, plus larger displays.  Still sunglasses light.
 
#106 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/90#post_23756616


An interesting demo from Nvidia that I had not seen until now:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deI1IzbveEQ

Thanks for that demo Chron. It is fascinating. Looks like we might have an arms race of sorts going on...with 4k-8k/OLED leading the display industry to ultra HD in huge sizes. And Virtual Reality/4k/3D/OLED leading a charge to micro displays sizes, with Big screen impact. Nvidia joining this battle is a very big deal. Especially when viewed in context of their new Handheld video/Gaming/Controller Handheld device. I will post your link over in the Oculus Rift HTPC thread also. Great stuff!


@tgm1024: I'm with you on the curved OLED. I bet second gen Oculus Rift actually has it.
 
#107 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23764679


@tgm1024: I'm with you on the curved OLED. I bet second gen Oculus Rift actually has it.
 

Yeah, but I'm not sure myself.  In theory that would be ok per eye, but I don't think they could pull it off, not even single axis.  I'm fairly sure they'd have to have each pair of glasses so perfectly tailored to the user's facial structure that the curve was an exact larger diameter circle with the same center as your eye.  IMO, move that to the side a millimeter and you'll likely have distortion out the ying-yang.  It's not like a curved TV on your desk.
 
#108 ·
This article is right on point:

http://news.msn.com/science-technology/strap-on-your-computer-wearable-tech-taking-off


The marketplace is moving fast in the direction of "wearable" technology. Audio is already the de facto standard in this explosive youth genre with headphones. Next up is HD video and gaming IMO. Cell phones have already made a huge impact in HDTV viewing. Many of today's youth do most of their HDTV viewing on their Cellphones! The link with mobile technology, along with emerging flat panel display technologies like OLED, 4K and 3D, Smart TV will continue to merge. But with its perfect growth engine to accelerate this trend, growth could be explosive. That engine will be "Virtual Reality" viewing and interaction, IMO.


VR with devices & systems like Oculus Rift, Valve (SteamOS, SteamBox & Games...HL3?) and Sony's upcoming VR display will hit the market place like lightening bolts in late 2014. Video gaming will be the early beneficiary of this convergence of revolutionary technologies. All sectors of videogames (PC, Consoles, Mobile) could experience explosive growth because of Oculus Rift and Sony's innovations. Seeing the full potential...others will join the fray. Companies like Samsung, LG, Toshiba, Microsoft, Apple, Google will form unique development alliances to "Jetstream" this profitable new category. Electronic Retail will love it because of its storewide category impact. The "Big Screen" display niche will see accelerated growth as people who adopt immersive VR micro displays like Oculus Rift, will want a rough facsimile of the experiences for normal, non VR viewing. Blu-Ray, DVD and Streamed HD movie viewing will experience a renaissance because people will finally see, for the first time, what immersive, IMMAXX like, 3D, Ultra HD movie really looks like on its grandest stage (potentially). Ironically that world will be the micro display world of Virtual Reality. I can even foresee the day when blockbuster movies like Avatar 2 will be produced and released for digital Distribution/Blu-Ray release into the VR World first. Which ultimately could force all standalone theaters to go the Full 180 degree IMMAXX route just to survive.


I can't wait for this launch to happen. I have zero early adoption interest in the new consoles launching in 2013, because of Oculus Rift. I have built a massively over powered new PC to take full advantage of OR/VR. I'll buy the first console that integrates with my PC, offers VR compatibility and can link to my Oculus Rift display. Otherwise, its a no go. Sony could be the exception because they are already "rolling their own". Nintendo ironically could be number 1. Because I would bet the ranch that Nintendo will license with Oculus Rift to link their mobile devices and WiiU to OR in 2014. If for no other reason than to support the Oculus launch and defend their game space. If Nintendo does that, they could totally upstage & disrupt the Xbox One, PS4 launch momentum in 2014. While giving Oculus Rift proprietary access to Nintendo's huge game library. Along with their army of youth. I would immediately buy a WiiU in 2014 if Nintendo did such a bold move. That would be a next Gen game changer IMO.


Bottom line...Virtual Reality viewing and gaming is here to stay. Its imprint will ultimately stretch into many future worlds and platforms like Medicine, engineering, deep sea exploration, upper atmosphere exploration and etc, For us consumers the technology will be wearable, transportable, ultra mobile, flexible, compatible and accessible across all social media. And I predict it will be take your breadth away cool to youth of the world.
 
#109 ·
All in which you have said and then some.

Another part you left out is price.

I bought my LGPA75U projector back in August because I got frustrated that no companies that produce projectors are coming out this year with a affordable LED 1080P projector.

None, many on here at AVS have been waiting and talking about hoping in the pasts years that maybe, this year might be it but left disappointed.

I got frustrated at the end of summer that nothing has come out yet with the knowledge of the Oculus Rift.

I know the short coming of the DK1 and it's lower resolution and was waiting on the consumer version.

That was what my thinking was all the way up to August because it was now or never to get another LED projector for me for I don't know when a financial crises would come for me this year as I would need money to fix my car or something else.

So I bought the LGPA75U thinking that either I wait for some LED projector to come out next year and this projector would hold me over.

That was until ? LG introduced the new LG PF80G and the LG PF85U.

The problem is ? it's still not available here in the USA yet.

And that was that until ?

I learned a few weeks ago that Oculus Rift relented that they would not be coming out with a 2nd dev kit.

So now ? they will be coming out with a 2nd HD DK2.

So now ? do I go with the higher resolution 1080P LG projector ? or use the one I have now and wait for the Oculus Rift HD DK2 ?

The LGPF85U we don't know what the street price will be, and I can only guess that the new HD DK2 will be around $ 400.

If LG does not release that projector soon I might as well wait a few more months for Oculus Rift to offer their HD DK2.

If I go that route then ? I save $ 200 with my current projector and the HD DK2 and I will have the best of both worlds.
 
#111 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23931526


No intention to be anal but could Oculus Rift be now looking overhyped in view of new development ?
Sounds like a picoprojector for each eye. After vague claims like "80 inch screen at 8ft" I'll wait and see for myself.

Sony sounded like there was a big screen with their headset, but in reality the 45 degree FoV was tiny. The "glasses" style rather than "goggles" style means it's not going to do a good job blocking out your surroundings.

And I don't see a price - part of why Oculus is a big deal, is that it's cheap and you get a huge FoV.
 
#112 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/90#post_23931772


Sounds like a picoprojector for each eye. After vague claims like "80 inch screen at 8ft" I'll wait and see for myself.

Sony sounded like there was a big screen with their headset, but in reality the 45 degree FoV was tiny. The "glasses" style rather than "goggles" style means it's not going to do a good job blocking out your surroundings.

And I don't see a price - part of why Oculus is a big deal, is that it's cheap and you get a huge FoV.

Avegant claims were verified by the story writer test. What is appealing in the Avegant system based on the report: invisible pixel spacing, vibrancy of pictures, eye relaxation. There seems to be no issues with getting this system to consumer level pricing since it does not require very high resolution imagers. What they were showing was lab prototype, putting this into goggles is obvious next step. CES should be checking milestone for this system since consumer version show is promised.
 
#113 ·
Ok I'll admit it that you sold me on this new Avegant VR device over the Oculus Rift.

Now I was wondering ? will this has more resolution per eye over the new HD 1080P Oculus Rift with Avegant's WXGA resolution.

So ? this is 1,280x768 per eye compared to the Oculus Rift's half of 1920×1080 per eye.

My major concern with this is long term effects on the eyes and retinas.

Would there be any damage to the eyes ?

Also the price is another factor.
 
#114 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/90#post_23931526


No intention to be anal but could Oculus Rift be now looking overhyped in view of new development ?

I don't see anything special about the Avegant. "an 80-inch panel viewed from eight feet away" tells you that it doesn't fill your vision like the Oculus Rift is designed to, and is easily a lesser FoV than what you can get with a front projector. It's "a bit like the Oculus Rift" which is probably accurate. A bit!
 
#115 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by DLPProjectorfan  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/90#post_23937962


Ok I'll admit it that you sold me on this new Avegant VR device over the Oculus Rift. Now I was wondering ? will this has more resolution per eye over the new HD 1080P Oculus Rift with Avegant's WXGA resolution.

So ? this is 1,280x768 per eye compared to the Oculus Rift's half of 1920×1080 per eye. My major concern with this is long term effects on the eyes and retinas.

Would there be any damage to the eyes ? Also the price is another factor.

According to the report, the advantage of Avegant is that projected picture looks completely seamless, no pixel spacings are visible and moreover the picture is fabulously detailed & vibrant. There thus seems to be no need for the resolution higher than the XGA 1024x768 used in the prototype. Light level is so low there can not be any damage to the eyes. More concern for me is the optics, focusing system, and potential eye/eye muscle/brain fatigue from prolonged viewing. Perhaps there are other issues as well. This should be clarified at the CES where they are promising to demo an almost ready consumer product. Thus in less than 2 months the proof will be on the table. Since the concept is based on digital micromirror chips which are readily available and affordable I do not see any problem with price or increasing the resolution if needed. Custom made micromirror chips for matching to the eye reception area could also be possible.
 
#116 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/90#post_23938424


According to the report, the advantage of Avegant is that projected picture looks completely seamless, no pixel spacings are visible and moreover the picture is fabulously detailed & vibrant. There thus seems to be no need for the resolution higher than the XGA 1024x768 used in the prototype.

Reading the report, this didn't sound believable to me. How can you get great looking, detailed images out of low resolution? The information just isn't there.
 
#117 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/90#post_23938473


Reading the report, this didn't sound believable to me. How can you get great looking, detailed images out of low resolution? The information just isn't there.
Yes, this the question. But eye projection it completely different from normal viewing. I believe 100% that pixel spacing was invisible and that pictures were vibrant. That could be contributing to the overall impression of high resolution. This of course is speculation, real clocks are counting down to the CES
.
 
#118 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23938424


According to the report, the advantage of Avegant is that projected picture looks completely seamless, no pixel spacings are visible and moreover the picture is fabulously detailed & vibrant. There thus seems to be no need for the resolution higher than the XGA 1024x768 used in the prototype. Light level is so low there can not be any damage to the eyes. More concern for me is the optics, focusing system, and potential eye/eye muscle/brain fatigue from prolonged viewing. Perhaps there are other issues as well. This should be clarified at the CES where they are promising to demo an almost ready consumer product. Thus in less than 2 months the proof will be on the table. Since the concept is based on digital micromirror chips which are readily available and affordable I do not see any problem with price or increasing the resolution if needed. Custom made micromirror chips for matching to the eye reception area could also be possible.
There is far more to resolution than simply being able to see the gaps between the pixels. Take anything you read on the big mainstream tech press sites with a giant grain of salt.
 
#119 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/90#post_23938424


According to the report, the advantage of Avegant is that projected picture looks completely seamless, no pixel spacings are visible and moreover the picture is fabulously detailed & vibrant. There thus seems to be no need for the resolution higher than the XGA 1024x768 used in the prototype. Light level is so low there can not be any damage to the eyes. More concern for me is the optics, focusing system, and potential eye/eye muscle/brain fatigue from prolonged viewing. Perhaps there are other issues as well. This should be clarified at the CES where they are promising to demo an almost ready consumer product. Thus in less than 2 months the proof will be on the table. Since the concept is based on digital micromirror chips which are readily available and affordable I do not see any problem with price or increasing the resolution if needed. Custom made micromirror chips for matching to the eye reception area could also be possible.


Avegant method is clearly superior. No eye strain or fatigue, superior image with seamless structure, cheaper components. The chief hurdle is improving the field of view for gaming. The current prototype for Avegant only has a 45 degree FOV, while the Occulus Rift has around 90-110 FOV. Supposedly Avegant can eventually get it to 100 degrees FOV, with improving the focusing and eye tracking. If they actually can, I think their method would be the one to win out.
 
#121 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by DLPProjectorfan  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/90#post_23945879


I always thought that the higher the resolution the better.

The higher the resoultion turns into more detail, more pixals, better color, less eye fatigue.
From the hands-on report : prototype virtual retinal display (VRD) delivers insanely sharp definition and a realistic image even with low-resolution sources by projecting directly into each eye using an array of two million micromirrors.... We watched a few minutes of Life of Pi in 720p 3D, played a bit of Call of Duty and poked around a 360-degree video filmed at a traffic circle in Italy. It all looked great, and that latter clip, which was streaming from a smartphone, was a mere 360 x 180 pixels.


It looks thus the Avegant gear may have 720p micromirror chips inside. Apparently its projection method delivers ultrasharp pics which compensates for any lack of pixel resolution and there is no screen-door effect. Perception of super-PQ may also strongly depend on a method how they generate color pictures. With micromirrors it is possible (or even necessary) to generate in color-sequential way: the array displays R,G,B sequentially in fast succession. Then, effective resolution as compared to standard RGB display is increased three-fold. Even the lowest resolution 1024x768 micromirror would have effective resolution of 1080p.


So the Avegant looks very promising but as usual with such new things, pessimistic question is: Where are the weak points?
 
#122 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23946333


It looks thus the Avegant gear may have 720p micromirror chips inside. Apparently its projection method delivers ultrasharp pics which compensates for any lack of pixel resolution and there is no screen-door effect. Perception of super-PQ may also strongly depend on a method how they generate color pictures.
You are confusing sharpness with resolution. They are not the same thing. Resolution affects the amount of detail and the smoothness of the image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23946333


With micromirrors it is possible (or even necessary) to generate in color-sequential way: the array displays R,G,B sequentially in fast succession. Then, effective resolution as compared to standard RGB display is increased three-fold. Even the lowest resolution 1024x768 micromirror would have effective resolution of 1080p.
You are mistaken. It will give you a higher fill-factor, it will not give you a higher resolution. Having subpixels increases your resolution, as you can take advantage of subpixel rendering.


When you have sequential color, there is the potential for improved motion handling if each subfield were independently addressable, but that's very unlikely to happen.
 
#123 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/120#post_23946360


You are confusing sharpness with resolution. They are not the same thing. Resolution affects the amount of detail and the smoothness of the image.

You are mistaken.

The point is different. Imagine high resolution device showing bit unsharp picture and opposite, low-res display showing sharp picture. The high resolution device will be classified as worse. Same might with Avegant due to the claim of preceptually ultrasharp picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/120#post_23946360


It will give you a higher fill-factor, it will not give you a higher resolution. Having subpixels increases your resolution, as you can take advantage of subpixel rendering.

You are apparently mixing sharpness with rendering quality. Origin of the ultrasharpness of Avegant might be tracked, at least partially, to the sequential color. In the sequential color, each color subpixel comes from the same place, while in standard display subpixels are in slightly different positions. This normally is of no significance since the distance to the pixels is much larger. But Avegant is projecting to the eye so even slight differences in subpixel locations could be detrimental. One good way of seeing the issues here is by comparing imaging chips in standard digital cameras using Bayer filter with Sigma camera using Foveon chip. Foveon is known from delivering ultrasharp pictures /though it has its own problems/.
 
#124 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23947291


The point is different. Imagine high resolution device showing bit unsharp picture and opposite, low-res display showing sharp picture. The high resolution device will be classified as worse. Same might with Avegant due to the claim of preceptually ultrasharp picture.
But you cannot make up for a lack of resolution with sharpness. You still have a low resolution image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23947291


You are apparently mixing sharpness with rendering quality. Origin of the ultrasharpness of Avegant might be tracked, at least partially, to the sequential color. In the sequential color, each color subpixel comes from the same place, while in standard display subpixels are in slightly different positions. This normally is of no significance since the distance to the pixels is much larger. But Avegant is projecting to the eye so even slight differences in subpixel locations could be detrimental.
I agree that eliminating subpixels is better for image quality, though you replace it with temporal artifacts that can be especially problematic in HMDs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23947291


One good way of seeing the issues here is by comparing imaging chips in standard digital cameras using Bayer filter with Sigma camera using Foveon chip. Foveon is known from delivering ultrasharp pictures /though it has its own problems/.
That's a completely different issue. Bayer sensors work by reducing a monochrome sensor's resolution to create color images. You take four photosensors and split them up into one red, one blue, and two green elements.


This means that a Foveon sensor with 1/4 the image resolution of a bayer sensor has the same red/blue resolution. So a 6MP Foveon sensor has the same red/blue resolution as a 24MP Bayer sensor, but half the green resolution.

Because Bayer sensors are spread out in the way that they are sampled, interpolation will get you more useful information than the number of photosensors would suggest. Really, a 6MP Foveon sensor produces images closer to a 12MP demosaiced Bayer image than a 24MP one most of the time.



With displays, it's not like that at all. We don't count the subpixels when determining the resolution of the display. If it was done like cameras, a 720p display using RGB subpixels would really be 3840x720, and a 720p DLP would be 1280x720.

So you don't gain any resolution from eliminating the subpixels on a display, you gain a better fill-factor, and lose the ability to use subpixel rendering to increase your resolution.

If you were to replace each subpixel with a full color pixel, that would be a huge increase in resolution, but so far that has not happened, nor is it likely to.
 
#125 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23949323

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/100_100#post_23947291


One good way of seeing the issues here is by comparing imaging chips in standard digital cameras using Bayer filter with Sigma camera using Foveon chip. Foveon is known from delivering ultrasharp pictures /though it has its own problems/.
That's a completely different issue. Bayer sensors work by reducing a monochrome sensor's resolution to create color images. You take four photosensors and split them up into one red, one blue, and two green elements.


This means that a Foveon sensor with 1/4 the image resolution of a bayer sensor has the same red/blue resolution. So a 6MP Foveon sensor has the same red/blue resolution as a 24MP Bayer sensor, but half the green resolution.

Because Bayer sensors are spread out in the way that they are sampled, interpolation will get you more useful information than the number of photosensors would suggest. Really, a 6MP Foveon sensor produces images closer to a 12MP demosaiced Bayer image than a 24MP one most of the time.
 

In some of the raw modes available on many cameras, you can get independent readings for each of the green, but generally you still get 1 pixel comprised of both greens even if the edge of an object only strikes one of them.  It's the entirety of the square that matters, not the fact that there's an extra green horizontally or vertically.  If only one of the greens is struck, then the pixel is showing half-green, no different from a magic sub-pixel free sensor would when only half covered by the object.
 
#126 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/120#post_23949323


But you cannot make up for a lack of resolution with sharpness. You still have a low resolution image.

I agree that eliminating subpixels is better for image quality, though you replace it with temporal artifacts that can be especially problematic in HMDs.

There is more to the perception of resolution than pixel count. So sharpness is part of the perceptual impression of resolution. The question about temporal artefacts reamins to be seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist  /t/1459592/oculus-rift-vr-headsets/120#post_23949323


That's a completely different issue. Bayer sensors work by reducing a monochrome sensor's resolution to create color images. You take four photosensors and split them up into one red, one blue, and two green elements.

This means that a Foveon sensor with 1/4 the image resolution of a bayer sensor has the same red/blue resolution. So a 6MP Foveon sensor has the same red/blue resolution as a 24MP Bayer sensor, but half the green resolution.

Because Bayer sensors are spread out in the way that they are sampled, interpolation will get you more useful information than the number of photosensors would suggest. Really, a 6MP Foveon sensor produces images closer to a 12MP demosaiced Bayer image than a 24MP one most of the time.

It is not like this. Bayer sensor has 4 color subpixels

RG

GB


But they are utilized twice through the moving window concept by one subpixel in the mosaic:


RGRGRG

GBGBGB

so that at one position a pixel is made by

RG

GB

but at the next position it is made of

GR

BG

Due to this, equivalent resolution of Bayer sensor is 12 MP since Foveon produces perfect RGB pixel.

Bayer obviously makes small distortions but they are normally tiny. But they can be seen as small loss

of resolution when comparing to pure RGB. With the exception of very high resolution cameras which

become limited by optical resolution. For example the new A7r camera by Sony with 36 MP and no low

pass filter.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top