Hacker News Reader

Comment by daemonologist | Hacker News Reader

You could do it, but the resolution isn't high enough for it to be a good experience. (2160x2160 per eye sounds like a lot, but with a 110 degree fov it's only ~19 pixels per degree. Which is like sitting very close to a 27" 720p monitor.)

View on HN

Usually the pixel density is higher in the center of the FOV though (more distortion due to the lenses on the sides). It's what set the original Oculus apart from existing headsets at the time: cheap lenses and correct the distorsiin in software. It's also a feature, as the actual density is better in the center :)

I do wish they used micro-LEDs for that kind of display though. I guess that they could be manufactured at the same time as a metamaterial acting as a lens sitting on top.

For comparison, Apple’s Vision Pro has 3660x3200 pixels per eye.

Yep, across a smaller fov too (100 degree horizontal).

Seems like we need one more decade of oled panel and gpu improvements before we can have good enough density with a reasonable size and power consumption.

What hardware are people using to run modern VR?

1440p (2560x1440) is 3,686,400 pixels.

2160p (2160x2160) is 4,665,600 pixels, per eye, so 9,331,200 pixels.

This headset will require a million more pixels to be rendered than 4K. 9 Million pixels @ 144hz is no easy task.

My RTX 4080 (9800X3D) struggles with 4K gaming.

You render lower quality and scale the images up to native resolution, with filters to reduce any jagged artifacts. It's not ideal, and so even running at the "same" resolution, the 2d monitor looks better then it does in the headset.

But the immersion is enough that you forget about it and just enjoy the content, as long as it's comfortable enough

Reply on news.ycombinator.com