
Sony Develops 4,032ppi OLED Micro-Display - phonon
https://tech.nikkeibp.co.jp/dm/atclen/news_en/15mk/062202182/?n_cid=nbptec_tecrs
======
ksec
Out of all the improvement needed for OLED, higher PPI is like the last on the
list?

And it seems Micro LED will be better fit for these type of application, where
you have 0.5" of screen space.

~~~
refulgentis
MicroLED has been 5 years away for 5 years.

What improvements are needed to increase OLED sales? PPI is at the top of my
list because it's a necessary condition for VR to go mainstream.

~~~
ksec
OLED can already 1000 +PPi, that is good enough for most VR. The Vive Pro is
615 PPI, and that is pretty damn good, if you do 4K on that it is still only
825 ppi. ( We likely run into Hardware Rendering problem with high framrate
and high res before we hitting OLED limit )

>What improvements are needed to increase OLED sales?

Too expensive. Along with colour accuracy over time, burn in etc. All of them
are not really solved ( yet )

------
Kaibeezy
Articles I just looked at say ~400ppi is "retina" density at 12" away. If
these are for VR or viewfinders 3" from your eye, what PPI is needed? Still
looking...

Here's one: _The US Air Force has estimated that a computer screen would
require 10,300 pixels per inch to simulate these so called "hyper acuities"._
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/16/human_limits_of_vr_...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/16/human_limits_of_vr_and_ar/)

Actually, that's a pretty interesting article, posting a bit more:

 _But in one respect VR still lags far behind our biological limits: we are
nowhere near a pixel density that mimics real life._

 _In theory, in our fovea, we need about 120 pixels per degree of view to
match reality (although Meese_ [Tim Meese, professor of vision science at
Aston University] _says in practice, people generally can 't see in finer
detail than around 80 pixels per degree). Currently, the best headsets manage
about 10 pixels per degree horizontally. Given the need to scale up by a
factor of about 10 – on both axes – the increase in resolution required is
enormous. "I don't think the technology is there yet for those display pixel
densities," says Bryan William Jones, a retinal neuroscientist at the
University of Utah._

 _And for VR obsessives who will settle for nothing less than a perfect
replica of reality, even 120 pixels per degree might not be enough. Put two
lines above each other and move one slightly to the left or right, and it
turns out we are "extraordinarily sensitive" to even the tiniest differences
between them, says Meese, even to movements smaller than the width of a cone
in the eye._

 _To match this sensitivity on a computer monitor would require a pixel
density that "beggars belief", he says, and well beyond 120 pixels per degree.
The US Air Force has estimated that a computer screen would require 10,300
pixels per inch to simulate these so called "hyper acuities". This is more
than 30 times that of an iPhone 7 (and 12 times the density boasted by a new
Samsung VR display, revealed in June, which has a display of around 850 pixels
per inch)._

 _Such fine-grain vision is rarely used in the real world, says Meese. "The
closest example you can think of is threading the eye of a needle, or
something like that," he thinks. But it serves as a reminder that imitating
the look of real life in VR remains a technological pipe dream – don't expect
to do any VR sewing in the next decade or two._

~~~
vokep
This is talking about right at the fovea though. Thats a pretty small space.

I'm thinking we will see VR sewing in the next decade, because we'll find
shortcuts to making it work. Sure hyper-acuity is hard, but its virtual
reality, as long as you can make it look real it may as well be.

What I mean by that is - perhaps we could use tricks like stacking high-
density screens which capture different portions of the pixels. Say you've got
3 high res screens _somewhere_ in the headset, and _somehow_ they are routing
to the eye. With optics a high resolution screen can be made even higher
resolution but smaller. It still is a very difficult problem to solve for
sure, but I think if there are multiple difficult problems to choose from,
chances are we'll find ways to partially solve some, combine that, and have
something like a solution as a result.

With 3 screens you could have full scene for one, focused region on another,
and fovea on another, and then optically stack that...somehow.

------
Jaruzel
I don't want this. I want a 100 inch OLED screen, so I can finally ditch my
projector, and watch films with the lights on.

~~~
sschueller
Being able to cram this amount in such a small space also helps improve a
'normal' density display as processes improve and fever dead pixels allow for
larger displays.

The primary issue with large displays is the failure rates during
manufacturing.

------
eboyjr
This must have applications for VR as well.

