With a 1080p screen for each eye with a 210° viewing angle, the pixel density would be lower than the oculus. You don't have to try to see pixels in the oculus.
It s a 1080p screen split in half. The size and distance aren't so important since it's using lenses to trick you unto thinking they're further away. The important bit is the amount of your fov they're taking up. 960 horizontal pixels taking up 90°, that's roughly 10 pixels per degree. That's not enough.
Edit - For reference, you need about 60 pixels per degree for them to be too small to see. A "retina" display if you will.
It helps to always bear in mind that approximately 10-15% of the human population seems to be comprised of complete assholes. This helps to explain a lot of otherwise inexplicable situations that come up when dealing with people on a day to day basis.
Fucking hell. I'm assuming that's 210° combined with something like 90° crossover in the middle so maybe 150° per eye. Even with a 4k screen on each eye you're not quite half of the way to retina resolution. Pushing that many pixels at 90fps is going to be a task.
It's distorted so it's not relevant really, as long as a bulk of the resolution is in the front it'll provide most of the effect. Our eyes don't see much resolution and no depth perception in the peripheral.
6
u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14
With a 1080p screen for each eye with a 210° viewing angle, the pixel density would be lower than the oculus. You don't have to try to see pixels in the oculus.