
Google and LG creates VR AMOLED 120 Hz at 5500 x 3000 - methyl
https://www.blurbusters.com/google-and-lg-creates-vr-amoled-120-hz-at-5500x3000/
======
xenostar
I'm looking forward to the next generation of VR headsets immensly. A lot of
people have been quick to jump on the "VR is already dead" train, but having
picked one up during Christmas this year, it's obvious how much potential is
there.

There are a few things that need to be accomplished before widespread
adoption:

\- Removal of wires. It restricts movement too much and removes immersion. The
new HTC headset is a step toward this.

\- Higher resolution screens. VR AMOLEDs like this are a step in the right
direction.

\- Prices for GPUs need to go down, and/or a few more years are needed for
average computers to be able to render high frame-rates without breaking the
bank.

\- Headsets need to be lighter and smaller.

\- Removal of sensor placement the room. This will be harder to do, but
cameras/sensors built on the headsets themselves could potentially accomplish
this.

The way I see it, we're in the iPhone 1 stage of VR right now. Imagine the
iPhone X version: lighter, smaller, higher resolution, more colors, higher
frame-rate, less hassle. These are all inevitabilities, and at that point it
will become much easier to adopt the technology. We're also missing a true
"killer app" that will get people to purchase a headset JUST for that. I think
it will take some sort of truly massive MMO the likes of WoW to accomplish
that.

The future is definitely exciting in this field. I hope hardware vendors don't
give up and can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

~~~
CyberDildonics
> average computers to be able to render high frame-rates without breaking the
> bank

High res stereo at 120Hz is never going to have to same graphics as the latest
high budget big game release. Current GPUs are already very powerful, but if
people have the expectations of getting the same graphics when they use VR
they are going to be very frustrated.

~~~
kibwen
I'm all for it if it means that AAA games will finally step off the
photorealism treadmill and admit that pushing polygon counts is not a
substitute for art direction. I'll take a Fortnite look over a PUBG look any
day.

~~~
princeb
you can say this, but if you look at the most popular mods on skyrim they tend
to make the game look more photorealistic, not less. the general trend for
video game consumers is towards realism.

------
zitterbewegung
The specs sound impressive and would truely make VR much more complelling (I
have an oculus rift and the resolution is noticable even on low spec games).
On the other hand I would wait until actual units are out there but it doesn't
seem that outlandish that Google and LG would be unable to pull this off.

I assume this is targeted to the gaming market because at those specs unless
you sell it at a loss the MSRP is going to be at least $500. I wonder if this
signals Google entring into the VR arena as a publisher to compete with
Oculus. I know that also VR is used for Advertisements and they have
engagement for properly setup ads for VR as 5 minutes or more so maybe they
will be pushing on that front. From what I have seen from Google their VR has
mostly been focused on mobile so them focusing on the high end market is
really interesting.

~~~
roymurdock
> their VR has mostly been focused on mobile so them focusing on the high end
> market is really interesting

The one consistent thing about Google's VR/AR strategy so far is that it's
extremely inconsistent. Different groups within Google are taking a lot of
shots on different technologies and form factors with different partners. Some
examples include Google Glass (built by Google X, now revived as Glass X for
Enterprise) which was supposed to be picked up by Tony Fadell of Nest who then
ended up leaving Google altogether, Google Cardboard (a side project by 2
smart Google France engineers for a conference), Google Dream w/ Daydream
View, Google Tango (built by ATAP group and shut down after announcement of
ARCore), and now ARCore w/ Asus and LG.

There is no discernible Google VR/AR strategy other than - let's see what
bubbles up from different dev groups and, when needed, react to market forces
(ARCore was a direct reaction to Apple's ARKit). IMO until Google really
"focuses" on VR/AR with a dedicated group and strategy this new tech will
remain a sideshow without much traction.

~~~
bitmapbrother
>There is no discernible Google VR/AR strategy other than - let's see what
bubbles up from different dev groups and, when needed, react to market forces.

Clay Bavor's presentation at Google I/O[1] and SID Display Week[2] seems to
outline their strategy concerning AR/VR pretty well.

>Some examples include Google Glass

Released in 2013 and pivoted to enterprise use. Now under the control of the
Google hardware division.

>Tony Fadell of Nest who then ended up leaving Google altogether

Yes, he did leave Google, but only after being assigned to the roof.

>Google Cardboard (a side project by 2 smart Google France engineers for a
conference)

A low cost VR solution developed in 2014 by two Googlers during their 20%
innovation time off. I believe it's also the most widely used VR solution in
the world.

[1][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tto90e-DfeM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tto90e-DfeM)

[2][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlADpD1fvuA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlADpD1fvuA)

------
naoru
Everyone says that a powerful GPU is needed to drive this thing, but I don't
think that's a must. Careful art direction based on current hardware
limitations can produce nice-looking virtual worlds — not photorealistic, but
still immersive and fun. Nintendo pulls this thing consistently.

~~~
mbell
You also don't need to render at full resolution.

A significant benefit of higher res VR displays is not being able to
physically see the pixels / screen door effect of the screen. You still get
this benefit by rendering at a lower resolution and upscaling to the display
resolution. Certainly you will be able to see 'render pixels', but that's a
much less significant problem and just reduces the realism of the scene.

~~~
remcob
If you add eye/focus tracking you can selectively render the part in focus in
a higher resolution and use lower resolution for peripheral vision. The end
result is that you are rendering at exactly the bandwidth that the human eye
can handle, which is optimal and probably not that high. Going forwards, this
is IMHO where the real optimization gains are.

~~~
piracykills
That's a really interesting idea, but can you imagine how incredibly annoying
it would be if there were any level of latency? Seems like even a few 10s of
milliseconds of latency would make that rather horrible. Especially
considering how fast your eyes can dart around a screen, could we even do that
today?

~~~
knodi123
I dunno. There are a lot of flaws in your visual perception as it is (blind
spot, nose hiding, differences in light/dark/color sensitivity based on
location in FOV, etc).

The brain corrects for things like that automatically. Might work just as well
here.

------
Jyaif
For the people worrying about GPU usage, it also says "Foveated driving logic
for VR and AR applications was implemented".

~~~
egeozcan
I had to google foveated driving logic: It means tracking the user’s eye
movements and only rendering the most central area to the eye in high-
definition.

Source: [https://www.roadtovr.com/google-shares-new-research-
foveated...](https://www.roadtovr.com/google-shares-new-research-foveated-
rendering-techniques/)

~~~
mnx
Is this foveated as in Field-Of-View-ated?

~~~
gordo4
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis)

~~~
mnx
thanks!

------
Analemma_
Does anyone have the GPUs to drive this tech though? I've been thinking lately
that the main reason why the 2015-2016 hype about VR completely flamed out is
that, on top of the ~$500 headset, you needed a new ~$1500 gaming PC to do
anything with it. As a result, not enough consumers got on board to kickstart
the virtuous cycle of more consumers -> more spending dollars -> more content
developers -> more attractive content -> more consumers. The kind of GPU
you'll need to drive a 5500x3000 display at 120 Hz certainly isn't going to
help with that.

~~~
throwawayReply
Not just GPU but display bandwidth too, 5500x3000x120Hz requires a monstrous
59.40 Gbps according to this calculator:
[https://k.kramerav.com/support/bwcalculator.asp](https://k.kramerav.com/support/bwcalculator.asp)

For that you'd need multiple displayport cables.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
The assumption is that the system would use foveated rendering to keep
bandwidth demands down.

~~~
lev99
Thunderbolt 3 runs at 40Gbps, so it wouldn't require very much foveated
rendering to get the bandwidth to that spec.

------
ksec
Gaming today is big. So big I dont think anyone forsee this coming. And VR is
going to push this into another level.

I would have loved Apple to capture on this, as they stand to be the company
that makes software and hardware well integrated. The problem is Apple has
never gave a damn about gaming. They say they do, but they dont. And It isn't
their priority, it isn't in their DNA. ( I bet none of the VPs are gamers of
any sort ).

Nintendo could be another fit. But they are always lacking in Hardware and VR
is very much hardware limited.

------
jayd16
Everyone is talking about gaming but these are the kinds of resolutions you
need for monitor replacement and more business related tasks.

------
nwah1
Fantastic. I've heard that to truly remove the awkwardness of VR, the refresh
rates need to go as high as possible. 240hz would be better, and I've heard it
argued that 1024hz is optimal.

Also, with high enough resolutions, you don't need anti-aliasing. This is
pretty close to 8K, which is probably around the time that anti-aliasing stops
mattering.

~~~
simias
I've never found the framerate of my Rift to be a problem however I'd gladly
trade it for something with better resolution and improved contrast and
brigtness.

That being said my high-end gaming PC (using a GTX1080) struggles to maintain
native framerate in demanding games without reprojection on the Rift, I can't
imagine what kind of futuristic computer you'll need to drive 5500x3000@120Hz
in VR. Let's hope the cryptocurrency mining gold rush will have subdued by
then.

~~~
Filligree
Foveated rendering should help a lot, but you'll still definitely need a
powerful one.

------
kalkut
The specs are nice but I wonder if it can work well on games with current high
end computers. If they really release it I will most likely buy it though.

I think that this kind of headset is meaningful for both VR power users and
developers but Google and Facebook should focus on non gaming content to
attract a wider audience.

Facebook is in the odd position where they could make a WebVR social killer
app over night but they won't because they really badly want to become the
Apple of VR with their Oculus Store. I think that they will regret this
strategy in the future. That or they will have to cash billions out once more
to acquire a company that found out what to do with this tech.

------
sexydefinesher
Now we just need a decade or two until consumer computing power can actually
power it.

~~~
vbezhenar
Isn't it a very scalable problem? Just put more processors to GPU.

~~~
sp332
Right but "consumer" implies a price point, which is not very scalable.

------
notthemessiah
At this point, I'd be more concerned with improving the optics: lenses that
don't smudge and don't have the Fresnel lens flaring, or perhaps even with a
wider field of view.

~~~
tikumo
this has impact in lenses as well, because with high enough resolution you
could emulate lenses on the screen.

~~~
cornellwright
You can't "emulate lenses on a screen" unless it's a lightfield display (which
it's not).

With higher resolution you could correct for more lens distortion, but you
still need lenses, and you won't be able to fix lens flare on fresnel lenses.

------
walrus01
From a GPU perspective this is going to require some powerful hardware to
drive. If you look at the 3D game benchmarks for the geforce1080 vs the 1080ti
(and slightly overclocked, more expensive versions of the 1080ti), the only
video card that will actually deliver close to a consistent 60 Hz at 3840x2160
on a _SINGLE DISPLAY_ is a 1080ti. Now multiply that by two screens, and a
resolution per screen that is considerably higher than standard 4K.

------
no1youknowz
As a home user who has a passing interest in VR. I would throw down a bunch of
cash to get something like a STAR VR setup for watching TV/movies.

Something that can give immediate immersion when put on, scaled down,
lightweight/comfortable, portable and can last around 5 hours would be a great
first step.

[0]: [https://www.starvr.com](https://www.starvr.com)

------
RubberShoes
We've been working with Google to create content that can harness these new
specs:

[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLL-
lmlkrmJalNqp7Q_dLA...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLL-
lmlkrmJalNqp7Q_dLAzQNjBqZk2FA4)

------
madengr
That’s pretty impressive. The current generation of VR is too pixelated.
Hopefully this will fix that. Now only the GPU needs to keep up. Note 60 GHz
link on the Vive Pro.

~~~
egeozcan
I'm afraid that we'd need to see the performance jump that came with the
latest generation of nVidia cards many times to be able to get there. Even a
single 2160p 144Hz monitor is hard to satisfy unless we are talking about an
SLI configuration, which is extremely costly given the high demand caused by
people after easy money.

------
cov21
I am wondering why all VR device is designed like a glass. Isn't it more
comfortable to the user if we design it like a helmet?

~~~
matte_black
No helmets are heavy and get hot and sweaty very fast.

------
jacksmith21006
Think Google is going to need to develop some custom silicon to drive this
level of resolution and not going to be easy.

~~~
bitmapbrother
It would seem they've already developed it.

 _A custom high bandwidth driver IC was fabricated. Foveated driving logic for
VR and AR applications was implemented._

------
VikingCoder
To be clear, is this per-eye? It's got to be, right?

A single 4.3 inch isn't big enough for VR, right?

~~~
Tuna-Fish
The size of the screen isn't very relevant, because for proper use there needs
to be a lot of lenses between the screen and your eyes, and they can use those
lenses to magnify the screen to whatever field of view they want. Mostly a
smaller screen just makes the headset smaller.

------
lindskogen
I want this so bad

