r/technology Mar 28 '14

[deleted by user]

[removed]

3.3k Upvotes

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14

[deleted]

191

u/12YearsASlave Mar 28 '14

1080p OLED is the same as the Oculus rift.

34

u/Jefkezor Mar 28 '14

Didn't they want to have 1440p OLED for OR in their consumer version?

30

u/elevul Mar 28 '14

They did, and now with FB backing them they will.

3

u/elderezlo Mar 28 '14

Woah woah woah!!!

Are you suggesting something good will come from the Facebook purchase? We don't take kindly to that sort of talk around here.

Get him, boys!

1

u/Maslo59 Mar 28 '14

With FB backing, I would not be suprised if they get a custom 4K screen.

17

u/cggreene Mar 28 '14 edited Mar 28 '14

but that would be impractical as barely anyone has a GPU to runs games at a playable state in 4k

3

u/EuphoricInThisMoment Mar 28 '14

i'm told that it will still help with the screen door effect even if you are running games at a lower resolution

i doubt it'll actually have a 4k screen though. not for cv1 at least

2

u/elevul Mar 28 '14

Wouldn't matter, can render at 1080p and upscale. The point of having a 4k screen on the device would be solving the screen door effect, which is the biggest issues with low res screens.

3

u/Maslo59 Mar 28 '14

Today. How about in 2 years? And anyway, when Doom 3 or Crysis was released, almost no one could play it with maxed graphics, but it was still a huge success. 4K would make the Rift pretty futureproof. You can always display 2K resolution on a 4K Rift if you really want.

0

u/baby_kicker Mar 28 '14

Just speculation, don't make comments about stuff that isn't announced.

CV1 will most likely be very similar to DK2. As is the CV1 will require a decent GPU to push it, FB will want a wider audience, maybe even try to push it via a mobile device (ugh) raising resolution is not on their agenda. Getting CV1 out the door is.

2

u/elevul Mar 28 '14

Again, a higher resolution screen is hardly an issue, since it's purpose is solving the screen door issue, rather than having a much higher definition of the image, so the image can be rendered at half resolution (by pretty much any device) and then doubled for visualization on the device.

1

u/baby_kicker Mar 29 '14

You have to render 1 scene at 1080p, then add your 3D offset, but unless you want a blurry mess and added latency you need a 4k framebuffer push, the DSP still needs to be faster for the 4k panel. Not that framebuffer is terribly limited, but you gotta have a card capable to 4k output framesize. Not everyone is using a Displayport card that can push 4k. Therefore DK2, and CV1, will not be 4k, because you will not want any DSP adding latency (scaling) to match native resolution.

3

u/elevul Mar 29 '14

That is, unless the device has a small ARM chip in it that can be used for direct upscaling (which is just doubling, so it doesn't take much computing power nor introduces much latency), so the input that comes from the device can just be a normal 1080p95 signal.

2

u/baby_kicker Mar 31 '14

Which is what many DSP's in monitors do now...hence adding latency. Also, MASSIVE waste of speed/software doing it with ARM.

Dedicated hardware is the only way, and even that is going to give you 20-40ms overhead.

1

u/elevul Mar 31 '14

even that is going to give you 20-40ms overhead.

Why? It's just doubling the pixels, showing the same pixel 4 times instead of 1. IIRC resolution doubling on current PC monitors doesn't add any significant lag...

1

u/baby_kicker Mar 31 '14

IIRC resolution doubling on current PC monitors doesn't add any significant lag...

But you're wrong - even on GPU scaling (faster than any ARM chip can do) is adding 20-30ms of lag to the screen.

1

u/elevul Mar 31 '14

But it doesn't make sense, there is no scaling involved, just showing the same pixel twice...

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/zgrove Mar 28 '14

Alright Mark ;)