or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Oculus Rift VR Headsets
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oculus Rift VR Headsets - Page 3

post #61 of 286

Who is set to retail these guys?  Have they landed Best Buy?

post #62 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post


Please stop.  If we didn't understand your idea from before, we're not going to now.  And if we did, we did.

I'm now looking at, what, 7 feet of explanation on my screen?


:-P

I completely agree with you. I was just going to write the same thing today. Forsureman is way..way off topic here. And really just trolling the OR thread with another completely different idea. That has nothing to do with Flat Panel tech. My suggestion to him is to start a completely new thread about his idea elsewhere. Probably in the 3D tech talk area. his demonstration link may provoke some discussion over there.

 

Well, I can't decide if it's definitively hugely OT or not.  But it's clearly similar to the Wikipedian definition of "original work" and needs to attract the holographic display guys primarily to beat it up perhaps.  Those guys aren't likely to be here as much I'm guessing.  They'll be the ones to iron out and clean up his descriptions as well.  I can't follow any of them as such and to me they're not improving with repeats.  If he's still reading this thread, I wish him well, and suggest he craft a thread dedicated to this (along with links to anything long winded in his own website).

post #63 of 286
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Well, I can't decide if it's definitively hugely OT or not.  But it's clearly similar to the Wikipedian definition of "original work" and needs to attract the holographic display guys primarily to beat it up perhaps.  Those guys aren't likely to be here as much I'm guessing.  They'll be the ones to iron out and clean up his descriptions as well.  I can't follow any of them as such and to me they're not improving with repeats.  If he's still reading this thread, I wish him well, and suggest he craft a thread dedicated to this (along with links to anything long winded in his own website).

I could follow his path somewhat. But it started out with discussion about a Glove. And moved into holography. It is an interesting idea. And I agree that he needs to perhaps start a thread somewhere in the forum on the subject of 3D holographic displays. That could include Microsoft's Illumiroom...his idea and perhaps others. Oculus Rift is 100% about Virtual Reality with lightweight, small/compact, head mounted OLED/LCD/SED type displays. In many ways Oculus Rift will challenge big projector type setups if it really takes off. I know I would rather watch AVATAR type movies on Oculus Rift if possible instead of a projector setup. I think OR is going to cause a lot of people to pause and rethink how they approach & execute home theater and HTPC gaming. Not so sure about the hologram type ideas. They need too much space to execute realistically IMO. EIther way. This is not the thread to debate it. I hope the guy does start the thread. Because I will comment in it.
post #64 of 286
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Who is set to retail these guys?  Have they landed Best Buy?

I saw a site somewhere, that was taking preorders. I don't recall where. Because I dismissed it as bogus. OR has not even mentioned when they will start production. And we don't have any firm announcements from game developers about launch content yet. They continue to say they are planning a mid-late 2014 launch of a retail model. I suspect Best Buy, Fry's Electronic, MicroCenter, Amazon and Gamestop will be prime initial launch targets. In an interesting twist...a few DevKits are being hawked on EBay for over $800. SO this thing already has a "black market".
post #65 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

I know I would rather watch AVATAR type movies on Oculus Rift if possible instead of a projector setup.

 

F that.  :)  All I want is for it to run on an iPad where I can watch the movie from different angles (the pure CGI of course).  Jeezzzzzzz..........................  But you're right in that no matter WHAT Avatar runs on with VR-esque view control like that----I'm buying.  Can you imagine seeing the final battle from Jake Sully's eyes?  Or walk through that forest (for whatever parts are done).  Man o Man o Man.

post #66 of 286
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

F that.  smile.gif  All I want is for it to run on an iPad where I can watch the movie from different angles (the pure CGI of course).  Jeezzzzzzz..........................  But you're right in that no matter WHAT Avatar runs on with VR-esque view control like that----I'm buying.  Can you imagine seeing the final battle from Jake Sully's eyes?  Or walk through that forest (for whatever parts are done).  Man o Man o Man.

Yeah...you really won't need 3D anything with OR. Because you'll be in the middle of it...or at least in the first row. On one of the links I posted on this thread or the one in the HTPC area...they showed a theater demo...whereby they started in a back row seating position. Then they gradually moved the view to mid row-front...and on into the screen. Right then I thought AVATAR...Red Tails...Star Wars...LOTR Trilogy...and everything in my Library I wanted to see over again in this format.
post #67 of 286
You can't view 3D films like that. 3D films are not actually "3D" they are stereoscopic, and only contain two views - a left eye image and a right eye image. You can't look around objects.
You also can't adjust convergence, which is why I have yet to find any pre-baked 3D movie which I have enjoyed watching. It's not set right for how my eyes view the world I guess, and it looks like a popup book or a diorama rather than looking "real".

3D games are 3D however, so you can adjust depth and convergence properly to have a realistic presentation, and look around things as if they were real objects. 3D gaming with my PC hooked up to the Sony headset was quite an experience, but I found the device itself to be uncomfortable and the image quality was poor.

I look forward to when we get OLED panels in the oculus rift, or a new device from another company that has learned from the things they have done with the rift. Even with the good 3D presentation, I don't know that I want to be looking at a low contrast LCD again.
post #68 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

You can't view 3D films like that. 3D films are not actually "3D" they are stereoscopic, and only contain two views - a left eye image and a right eye image. You can't look around objects.
 

 

No, you didn't see the part where I specifically mentioned the "the pure CGI of course".  Once you have access to the objects, CGI can be rendered from any perspective dynamically.  I'm not talking about feeding in the released movie.

post #69 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, you didn't see the part where I specifically mentioned the "the pure CGI of course".  Once you have access to the objects, CGI can be rendered from any perspective dynamically.  I'm not talking about feeding in the released movie.
Films take minutes if not hours to render each frame of animation. It's not possible to do that in real-time, and won't be any time soon.
post #70 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Films take minutes if not hours to render each frame of animation. It's not possible to do that in real-time, and won't be any time soon.
It's getting closer every day with stuff like the 4-way Titans eek.gifbiggrin.gif.
post #71 of 286
Still not nearly enough to do CGI in realtime. Nowhere close.
post #72 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Still not nearly enough to do CGI in realtime. Nowhere close.

 

Chron.  "Nowhere close"?  You understand that we're talking a relative level of acceptance here, and I think you're just wrong if you think we're not there yet.

 

Absolutely no one is saying that we need to render Avatar at Avatar movie viewing quality.

 

I don't want to have the insane rendering issues of the subsurface light scattering (read "stupid") they tried with creature in The Amazing Spiderman movie.  Nor does it have to be in any other way flawless and perfect.  And I don't care if the number of objects are reduced dramatically or if they re-tessellate the water surfaces down to a 1/100th of the triangles.  We have enough power in hardware now to see *something* impressive.  Just look at any modern day FPS.

 

Sitting on a log watching the Na'vi argue.  The battle scene.  Etc.  Sure, on some hardware it'll be rougher than on other hardware.

post #73 of 286

 

HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!  :)  That thing is outrageous!

 

There's always something about engineering and insanity that seems to go hand in hand.

post #74 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!  smile.gif  That thing is outrageous!
There's always something about engineering and insanity that seems to go hand in hand.
I blogged about that system on my Blur Busters Blog Vega bought that system because of LightBoost, a method of completely eliminating LCD motion blur. (LightBoost is a strobe backlight that flashes on fully refreshed LCD frames, and hides pixel transitions in total darkness between refreshes. It greatly outperforms scanning backlights, and has less motion blur than plasma). To do that, you need framerates matching refresh rate, 120 frames per second at 120 Hz, on three monitors simultaneously. That requires quite a lot of GPU to pull this off in grames such as Crysis3.

We can do CGI in realtime -- IF we're talking about yesterday's movies. Games such as Crysis3 renders graphics in realtime at more detail than a 1980's CGI movie (many, many, many times more detailed than Tron), all in real time at >30fps. We are roughly at the level where we could do Toy Story (original) in real time now, with a >99%+ look-and-feel. One needs to play recent games like Bioshock Infinite (at maximum detail settings on a $1000 Titan GPU) as well as games like Crysis3 (likewise), to appreciate we've roughly reached 1990's era CGI quality in certain games.

Now for CGI for today's movies, we'd have to dramatically reduce detail, view distance, and reduce polygon count, but one could argue that some games such as Crysis3 is the "Avatar" of real-time video game graphics, but it's nowhere as detailed as Avatar.

It's a massive, massive, massive jump in computing power to go from 90% of the quality of a CGI movie, all the way to 100% of the quality. Easily more than an order of magnitude of computing power, just to do the last 10%. Technically, could probably do even (70%, 80%) of Avatar on a quad Titan SLI, at roughly 30 frames per second on a single 1080p monitor, but doing 100% of that quality would require a massive (possibly many thousand times) jump upwards. If you've played Crysis3 on a $1000 GPU, you'd quickly recognize we could easily do a 70% or 80% "fascimile" of Avatar today and it'd look just perfectly like Avatar if you were standing 5 feet away from the computer monitor (where you couldn't see the imperfections). But doing the remaining 20%-30% extra of realism, where everything look seamless and perfect, at much higher resolution, requires several, several, orders of magnitudes additional computing power. That extra little bit of view distance, that few million more polygons just to eliminate two or three jaggies, getting the shadows right (taking into account of more light ray physics), etc.

That said...
Demonstration video of real-time CGI at 1990's quality -- a modern video game:
(Low resolution YouTube, but you can get an idea of what's currently being rendered in real-time on a $2000 gamer PC today)

And now, back in year 2007, the Crysis original video game, which pushed the limits of computers and couldn't be playable on most computers -- at maximum detail settings, it started to become slideshow stutter rather than smooth motion.


(Crysis video game, at Maximum Detail)

But today, GPU's have improved since 2007, now Ultra maximum detail (above) is possible in super fluid real time with keyboard, mouse, or joypad controller!
....The above screenshot at 120 frames per second on a Titan SLI! (Two $1000 GPU's running in parallel)
....Or >60 frames per second on a single GTX 780.... (a more reasonable $700)

On my Geforce GTX 680 ($350), I'm able to run the above scene (I have the game, and I can vouch for the exact same graphics) at greater than 30 frames per second, with anti-aliasing enabled.

See, it's certainly graphics many, many, many leagues above TRON (1982).
Grass blades! Individual leaves! Individual leaf shadows! Real-looking forest scenery. In real time! Today!
And that screenshot isn't Crysis3 -- which is EVEN more detailed than the original Crysis.

Graphics vendors such as nVidia lets you buy a $100 graphics card (for entry level gaming at minimum detail settings), or buy a SLI of two, three, or even four Titan's ($2000 to $4000), and run the same games at high-end ultra-detail settings. Titan's are single chip equivalents of yesterday's supercomputers -- more than one trillion floating point operations per second in a massively multi-core chip, running in a parallel matrix-style configuration (there are 2,688 stream processors in a single piece of GeForce Titan silicon) -- benchmarked at over 4 trillion floating point operations per second in a single chip that's more complex than the Intel i7's, thanks to the graphics race between ATI and nVidia over the last 15 years.

However, obviously, moviemaking art will always be done in non-realtime using the best hardware today, so it will always be many steps ahead of real-time. So we will never do the top of the line CGI in real time.
BUT... we can certainly easily do detail-reduced versions already on the top-end GPU's, or match the past's CGI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Still not nearly enough to do CGI in realtime. Nowhere close.

So I agree with both sides:
-- YES, we _definitely_ can do CGI, but at slightly yesterday's level
-- NO, we _cannot_ do CGI to perfectly match today's level

P.S. Some gamers, like us, hate motion blur, and strive for a desktop-sized 24 inch plasma display as a computer monitor. The closest thing to that is a "LightBoost" display (tip for you motion blur haters) -- the raison d'etre of the Blur Busters Blog in my signature.
Edited by Mark Rejhon - 6/25/13 at 8:16am
post #75 of 286
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post


Now for CGI for today's movies, we'd have to dramatically reduce detail, view distance, and reduce polygon count, but one could argue that some games such as Crysis3 is the "Avatar" of real-time video game graphics, but it's nowhere as detailed as Avatar.

 

Correct---no one disagrees there.

 

Quote:
So I agree with both sides:
-- YES, we _definitely_ can do CGI, but at slightly yesterday's level
-- NO, we _cannot_ do CGI to perfectly match today's level

 

Maybe clarify (?) on how you phrase this.  I'd argue that "Both sides" are not what you've apparently agreed with if the sides are

  • Camp 1: Can't do it acceptable levels
  • Camp 2: Can do it at acceptable levels

 

However, I can't pretend to know Chron's position on "acceptable", because his position as such is correct: it can't be done at the current theatre render quality (for whatever "current" is for any given movie).  It's just that it wasn't the premise taken.

 

I'm firmly in the 2nd camp.  Of course it resembles "slightly yesterday's" real-time, but yesterday's real-time is spectacular and *more* than enough to render Avatar in a way that would draw me right to buying the product that produces it.

 

I'm moving this all to a new thread soon.  It stands on its own as a great conversation.

 

As soon as a moderator tells me the right spot for it.  I get lost in this forum tree.

 

EDIT: One to drop it into this very subforum (FP General) until it splits off too far.


Edited by tgm1024 - 6/25/13 at 12:21pm
post #76 of 286

The movie CGI thing has been copied over by me to this thread:

"Will we someday render movie CGI's in real time? Think of watching Avatar from any angle....."

(still within Flat Panel General & New FP Tech).
 

Dunno how far it will go (very likely nowhere if my predictions are correct), but it's worth a shot because I think it's a really nifty possibility.

post #77 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

I could follow his path somewhat. But it started out with discussion about a Glove. And moved into holography. It is an interesting idea. And I agree that he needs to perhaps start a thread somewhere in the forum on the subject of 3D holographic displays. That could include Microsoft's Illumiroom...his idea and perhaps others. Oculus Rift is 100% about Virtual Reality with lightweight, small/compact, head mounted OLED/LCD/SED type displays. In many ways Oculus Rift will challenge big projector type setups if it really takes off. I know I would rather watch AVATAR type movies on Oculus Rift if possible instead of a projector setup. I think OR is going to cause a lot of people to pause and rethink how they approach & execute home theater and HTPC gaming. Not so sure about the hologram type ideas. They need too much space to execute realistically IMO. EIther way. This is not the thread to debate it. I hope the guy does start the thread. Because I will comment in it.

Here is that thread you requested in the 3d tech talk forum; http://www.avsforum.com/t/1478935/holographic-display-idea
post #78 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post

We can do CGI in realtime -- IF we're talking about yesterday's movies. Games such as Crysis3 renders graphics in realtime at more detail than a 1980's CGI movie (many, many, many times more detailed than Tron), all in real time at >30fps. We are roughly at the level where we could do Toy Story (original) in real time now, with a >99%+ look-and-feel. One needs to play recent games like Bioshock Infinite (at maximum detail settings on a $1000 Titan GPU) as well as games like Crysis3 (likewise), to appreciate we've roughly reached 1990's era CGI quality in certain games.
No, video games are still nowhere near CGI quality. CGI uses raytracing and has image quality that is nowhere near possible to achieve in realtime on any computer today. Not even on Vega's amazing setup. (he keeps doing upgrades like this every year or so)

One thing that has improved significantly, is the quality of 3D modelling and the tools used for it.
Character models in today's games are far better looking than they were in 90s CG - even though they still don't necessarily have the same quality as those models. (drastically lower polygon counts)

But image quality is nowhere close, and you still have blocky edges on everything rather than true curved surfaces (tessellation helps but still doesn't come close)
Even with supersampling, you have aliasing in games. "Unimportant" or "background" items in the world are very low detail, and while texture resolution may be high on character models, it's certainly not elsewhere in the world. Most of the polygons in character models still end up in the character's faces, because that's what people focus on, rather than noticing that almost everything attached to their body is just painted on rather than being modelled. (or modelled with very little detail)

And as much as videogame lighting has improved in the last few years, it's nowhere close to CG, and largely baked into the environment rather than being dynamic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post

Grass blades! Individual leaves! Individual leaf shadows! Real-looking forest scenery. In real time! Today!
But they're almost always 2D objects that have no depth - this is very apparent when you are playing a game in 3D. A lot of the tricks to make games look good don't work once you are playing them in 3D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post

And that screenshot isn't Crysis3 -- which is EVEN more detailed than the original Crysis.
It's also not a shot of Crysis, it was a pre-rendered CG trailer.


Don't get me wrong, games look really good on a high end PC these days. But they're still nowhere close to rendering something like Avatar in realtime, and probably couldn't even render 90s CG if you wanted an accurate reproduction of it, rather than an approximation.

P.S. Your '90s CRT projection setup looks amazing.
post #79 of 286
It boils down to semantics of who defines "CGI", and what is defined as "near CGI", and whether or not shortcuts is allowed (e.g. tesselation, using simpler algorithms than raytracing, fewer hair strands, fewer grass blades, etc). Clearly, you have a higher standard of what passes as CGI. But one can easily argue that we've surpassed yesterday's CGI; the cutover point may be debatable (e.g. Did we surpass 1980s; did we surpass 1990's). Even certain games do more raytracing math and more polygons than a hell of a lot of 1980's CGI.

Loose definition, CGI stands for "computer generated imagery" (Wikipedia). If so, all video games qualify. So my argument still stands; when viewed from that perspective. It's the cutover/equivalence point that's debatable, depending on how one defines what passes as CGI. Are we generating realistic wet fur at the original hair-resolution level, including the way light diffuses through it? That's real CGI that can't be remotely done on today's GPU's. But that was obviously not done in 1980's films. smile.gif
Quote:
It's also not a shot of Crysis, it was a pre-rendered CG trailer.
If it is, then my computer's doing a better job than that, even on a lowly GTX 680. Perhaps they had to prerender in 2007, but that's not necessary anymore. The PC version of Crysis can go to much higher detail settings than the console versions. There are real non-trailer versions of Crysis findable on YouTube. I get the same shadow detail as those screenshots, at a full 30-60 frames per second at maximum settings (and with 8x AA enabled).
Quote:
P.S. Your '90s CRT projection setup looks amazing.
It was fun while it lasted. The XG135 had enough bandwidth to do 1080p@120Hz if I wanted it to do that -- or even 4K interlaced! -- something still impressive even today. Though one could only focus the beam spot size to make 720p a preferred resolution, and 1080p a secondary resolution.
Edited by Mark Rejhon - 6/25/13 at 10:57pm
post #80 of 286
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by forsureman View Post

Here is that thread you requested in the 3d tech talk forum; http://www.avsforum.com/t/1478935/holographic-display-idea

Thanks for the head's up. I have posted a reply in your thread. Good luck with the idea.
post #81 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Who is set to retail these guys?  Have they landed Best Buy?

Oh, I truly hope so!
post #82 of 286
So I had a chance to check out Oculus at E3 this year. I played the EVR R&D game that CCP has been playing around with, and I must say I was very very impressed. I went in thinking it was gonna be gimmicky but I must say I can see Oculus working really well for many different types of games.

I didn't play on the HD version but my friend got a look at the HD version and said image wise it looked solid. As far as the headset itself it's pretty comfy even for someone like myself wearing glasses. The only thing they need to do is alter it slightly to allow glasses frames to go into like a slot in the cushion that lines the edge of the goggle, then it would be lovely for us. But overall it's not very heavy and doesn't feel bad on your head.

As far as working it worked really well. in EVR you are in a space fighter, you can steer the ship and fire guns and missiles with a controller. Then by moving your head around you can target other players. And it all worked really well. CCP really programmed the game in full where you can look over your shoulder and it's not like the world is missing behind you.

Bottom line I was super impressed and look forward to seeing more games running on Oculus technology.
post #83 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlomaga View Post

So I had a chance to check out Oculus at E3 this year. I played the EVR R&D game that CCP has been playing around with, and I must say I was very very impressed. I went in thinking it was gonna be gimmicky but I must say I can see Oculus working really well for many different types of games.

I didn't play on the HD version but my friend got a look at the HD version and said image wise it looked solid. As far as the headset itself it's pretty comfy even for someone like myself wearing glasses. The only thing they need to do is alter it slightly to allow glasses frames to go into like a slot in the cushion that lines the edge of the goggle, then it would be lovely for us. But overall it's not very heavy and doesn't feel bad on your head.

As far as working it worked really well. in EVR you are in a space fighter, you can steer the ship and fire guns and missiles with a controller. Then by moving your head around you can target other players. And it all worked really well. CCP really programmed the game in full where you can look over your shoulder and it's not like the world is missing behind you.

Bottom line I was super impressed and look forward to seeing more games running on Oculus technology.

Unfortunately, the success of VR gaming is still at least one generation out. You need a light weight, wireless 2160p 4K screen with flexible light weight long lasting rechargeable battery. Also, a virtual sex app. Still 5 years away at an acceptable price point.
post #84 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Unfortunately, the success of VR gaming is still at least one generation out. You need a light weight, wireless 2160p 4K screen with flexible light weight long lasting rechargeable battery.
And motion blur free. Which requires individual frames that are displayed for short periods. (Either via high-Hz approach or via strobed / flicker / black frame approach.).
post #85 of 286
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post

And motion blur free. Which requires individual frames that are displayed for short periods. (Either via high-Hz approach or via strobed / flicker / black frame approach.).

Wouldn't excess strobe approach add potentially harmful effects that could trigger epileptic attacks...if executed this close to the eye? Especially considering their overlay upon the natural strobing which occurs via framerate shifts in movies and games?
post #86 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

Wouldn't excess strobe approach add potentially harmful effects that could trigger epileptic attacks...if executed this close to the eye? Especially considering their overlay upon the natural strobing which occurs via framerate shifts in movies and games?
1. Strobe at a reasonably high Hz, like a 120Hz CRT. Or even 240Hz. (one strobe per refresh, framerate=Hz, so you need 120fps@120Hz or 240fps@240Hz).
(you may have heard of LightBoost 120Hz monitors, those are strobe-backlight computer monitors)
2. Provide an ON/OFF toggle, for those people who dislike flicker.

That said, shortening the frame display length to 1ms per frame -- for CRT-quality motion -- is much easier with CRT style flicker approach (e.g. 120Hz at 1/1000sec flashes) than without flicker (e.g. native 1000fps@1000Hz). Both provide equivalent motion blur, as motion blur is proportional to the length of the time the frame is displayed for (including all intentional and unintentional effects, including slow pixel transition speed causing a frame to be displayed longer, etc). Strobing is not good for everyone, but it is easy to turn on/off with LED-backlit LCD approaches, as long as the LCD is fast enough to hide the whole refresh between the strobes (e.g. high speed video of motion-blur-eliminating strobe backlight (LightBoost) bypassing the LCD pixel transition speed limit)

I would prefer a strobe-free approach, but that would require either a powerful GPU or lag-adding interpolation to do 1000fps@1000Hz to remove the black periods between short 1ms frames. Even 240fps@240Hz would make a huge difference for VR applications, due to the motion-blur problem during head tracking, but motion blur will still even be visible at that speed. (head tracking speed of, say 960 pixels/second will result in 4 pixels of motion blur -- 1/240th of the amount -- still noticeable because the VR screen expands to a wide field of vision).

There are several LightBoost users who see a difference in motion blur between 1/700sec strobes (LB=10% setting) and 1/400sec strobes (LB=100% setting), so 1/400sec samples is not enough (flicker approach 1/400sec @ 120Hz). There would be an equvalent difference of motion blur via the non-flicker approach -- 400fps@400Hz versus 700fps@700Hz.

For those who aren't familiar with sample-and-hold, see Why Do Some OLED's Have Motion Blur?, the pixel transitions instantly but that does not completely solve motion blur, because the non-flicker AMOLED displays display a frame for a full refresh (1/60sec) . In fact, this is 12 times more motion blur than a LightBoost LCD (1/700sec flashes). Sony Trimaster OLED's solve this partially by flickering at about 7ms per refresh, though.

Yeah, VR problems are fiendishly difficult to solve. Motion blur will be a big problem for a long time, and you must pick your poison (via potentially eye-problematic strobing, or via insane ultrahigh framerate=Hz)
Edited by Mark Rejhon - 7/1/13 at 8:48am
post #87 of 286
Thread Starter 
Excellent response Mark. You encouraged me to read up more on strobe effects. With that said...computing costs will only continue to go down as we continue to develop more powerful GPUs, CPUs and etc. SO what is a really expensive problem to solve today...from a VR standpoint...could be dirt cheap 4-5 years from now. The over the counter cost containment approach used by Oculus in early development is sort of a testament to that.
post #88 of 286
Thread Starter 
Thought I'd post this update over here too. It was written for the HTPC thread. But experts from the market now generally concede that this device could have a huge impact on movie viewing similar to the expected impact on the PC and Mobile device markets. Especially in the gaming category.

"Here is the latest eye candy and news from the "Rift". It's getting closer people! The world of PC gaming is about to get a whole lot more interesting than "Blah" console upgrades IMO. And I am armed and dangerous with my new build. I am a day one buyer of the Rift. Sight unseen. In fact I spent a day this week with a friend who is a major league executive with Best Buy. And we talked generally about Oculus Rift among other things. He did say they plan to get behind this startup in a huge way when they are ready. And he thinks Oculus Rift will positively impact their business across multiple categories. He said it has the potential to drive PC & mobile sales through the roof. And they are already exploring ways to expand Geek squad to handle Game rig "finish" projects from major PC manufacturers to exploit the new VR PC gaming & movie category. While he didn't say they would build their own Rift PCs...he did suggest they would be looking at all avenues to grow the PC business in Best Buy. And he saw Oculus Rift as a major catalyst in that domain. Most telling was his personal view...that he thought VR gaming would become the dominant gaming choice within 5-10 years if Oculus Rift is successful. This is really interesting when contrasted with the absurd discussions going on about the XBox One, PS4 and WiiU. All are just beefed up versions of the current consoles with a new wrinkle or two. In many ways its just fanboy ball busting that sound exactly like the dinosaurs at IBM, Xerox, Digital and etc wailing about a lot of NexGen minutiae...when the real game changers were a couple of kids in garages named Jobs...Wozniak...Gates. Same thing happening here. IMO the real next Gen game changer is a 20 year old kid from the garage named Palmer Luckey. And he has smashed a grand slam Home run so far! The Dev world is really rev'ed up about OR. And appears to be making some really cool stuff for PC. OR's comments about the console makers are insightful in the following articles. They imply that XB1...PS4 and WiiU will be outdated relative to PC gaming Rigs & Android platforms the day Oculus Rift launches. Stay tuned folks."

http://www.slashgear.com/oculus-rift-unconvinced-by-xbox-one-and-ps4-vr-potential-12290202/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-11-happy-go-luckey-meet-the-20-year-old-creator-of-oculus-rift

http://www.polygon.com/2013/7/12/4516714/owlchemy-releasing-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-to-oculus-rift

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2043946/this-is-not-a-toy-oculus-rifts-virtual-talents-could-transform-real-lives.html

http://kotaku.com/tag/oculus-rift

http://www.pcgamer.com/tag/oculus-rift/
post #89 of 286
It seems to me it is very possible Oculus RIft will be more important to gaming than PS4 or Xbox One. That said..." But experts from the market now generally concede that this device could have a huge impact on movie viewing similar to the expected impact on the PC and Mobile device markets"

???

<<< This expert sees no impact on movie viewing. Movie viewing is not a solitary activity for most people. And the visual quality of Oculus Rift is not going to be that spectacular. What's spectacular is the immersive nature of it, which is not applicable to the way most films are even made.
post #90 of 286
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

It seems to me it is very possible Oculus RIft will be more important to gaming than PS4 or Xbox One. That said..." But experts from the market now generally concede that this device could have a huge impact on movie viewing similar to the expected impact on the PC and Mobile device markets"

???

<<< This expert sees no impact on movie viewing. Movie viewing is not a solitary activity for most people. And the visual quality of Oculus Rift is not going to be that spectacular. What's spectacular is the immersive nature of it, which is not applicable to the way most films are even made.

I would generally agree with you on this Rogo, under normal circumstances. But we are looking at movie viewing from the perspective of aging adults. Not from the perspective of 20 year old kids like the inventor and the legion of 15-30 somethings who will embrace viewing movies this way. Just like young people embraced MP3s and headphones over big costly Stereo and audio systems. Highest quality was not important. Reasonable quality and believability was. If I was a young single...living in an apartment in New York or anywhere USA...that thing would be my main device for watching movies except with dates and friends. I'd have a simple...cheap 32"-42"er for that. I suspect you may be underestimating that impact a wee bit. It will actually be very interesting to see how older people react to Oculu Rift. I think we are in for a few surprises on that one too.

And Rogo...I totally agree with you about XBox One and PS4. I think the dev world and retail trade already think so too. But they will not go all in until they see a track record and trend line.
Edited by barrelbelly - 7/13/13 at 2:11pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Oculus Rift VR Headsets