Blur Busters Forums

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971

huh?

orik wrote:https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971

huh?

Yes -- wow, that makes Oculus big already.

Just so you know, I like Oculus VR a lot -- I gave Palmer Luckey of Oculus early access to an early TestUFO in late 2012, long before TestUFO launched. He learned a lot about low-persistence monitors including the LightBoost technologies. This was all before Oculus, they later brought in John Carmack whose tweet reply to me inspired Blur Busters to start up. So Blur Busters has some early history intertwined with the people at Oculus!

I am looking forward to the Oculus DK2, which uses low-persitence (strobing) of its OLED.

Hopefully this doesn't change their focus at all and only provides them with more resources.

I just imagined Mark Zuckerberg as Daniel Graystone in Caprica.

I don't think that Facebook will dilute the vision of OculusVR in the short-run. They just invested 2B+ and won't just release a product that serves as a Facebook ad-delivery terminal or a FarmVileVR client. I really don't share the pessimism that floats around in the internet right now.

Hopefully OculusVR will be able to design/produce a custom OLED now, that serves them much better then the alternatives they right now have.

My view is that both fellows, John Carmack and Palmer Luckey, are given strong internal voices to keep Oculus on the correct path.
I understand the mixed feelings out there on the Internet. So, the way I feel, I know both John and Palmer would be quitting Oculus if things didn't go enough of their way, so I feel they are going to make damn sure that doesn't happen.

Still excited to test out the DK2!

I hope that VR comes soon to the mass market. It would force game developers to make sure their games can be ran at high frame rates with current hardware. Since the VR headsets requires 1 frame per eyes (in the same fashion as 3D vision). That means for the Oculus Rift: 2x85fps = 170fps. It requires 170fps stable for a smooth experience.

Haste wrote:I hope that VR comes soon to the mass market. It would force game developers to make sure their games can be ran at high frame rates with current hardware. Since the VR headsets requires 1 frame per eyes (in the same fashion as 3D vision). That means for the Oculus Rift: 2x85fps = 170fps. It requires 170fps stable for a smooth experience.

That sounds about right for the low-persistence, to become visually flickerfree. That said, this being done at about 960x1080 per eye, helps makes things easier. I would hope to see multiple refresh rates for low-persistence operation!

Chief Blur Buster wrote:

Haste wrote:I hope that VR comes soon to the mass market. It would force game developers to make sure their games can be ran at high frame rates with current hardware. Since the VR headsets requires 1 frame per eyes (in the same fashion as 3D vision). That means for the Oculus Rift: 2x85fps = 170fps. It requires 170fps stable for a smooth experience.

That sounds about right for the low-persistence, to become visually flickerfree. That said, this being done at about 960x1080 per eye, helps makes things easier. I would hope to see multiple refresh rates for low-persistence operation!

Oh, 960 horizontal pixels per eyes? I didn't think about that. That just crushed the hope from my previous post.

As for refresh rate I would much prefer at least 120Hz. Actually I wouldn't buy the OR if they keep it @85Hz as I know this is already a lot of eye strain for me on a CRT. And it should be even harsher given there is no phosphor decay to smooth it out.

Makes me think, since you have contacts with Palmer and Carmack, maybe you could warn them about the variations of flicker sensitivities across the population and the risk of having people get eye strain from the low 85Hz strobbing.

Haste wrote:Oh, 960 horizontal pixels per eyes? I didn't think about that.

They are working on 4K, too; as you can see from the Internet rumors of the 4K devices.

Haste wrote:variations of flicker sensitivities across the population and the risk of having people get eye strain from the low 85Hz strobbing.

I haven't talked to any of them recently, but from what I know, I'd bet Palmer is aware. The 75Hz is probably a best-compromise, given the specific OLED technology that they have in their hands. There's numerous rumors that the consumer version will have a higher refresh rate.

That said, when all other light sources are excluded -- and the only light source you see is flickering -- then it's not as big an issue. When you wear the headset, that's what happens. People have been going to film movie theaters for decades with the old 48Hz double-strobe, with very few people ever complaining. 75Hz is still much better than that, and 90Hz even better so. Also, you can turn off the strobe mode easily too.

From what I know, many optionally-strobed displays (e.g. EIZO Turbo240) already include a note about flicker sensitivity and to turn off the mode.

I usually use my computer in a dark environment and it doesn't seem to help with the flicker (at least for me). Something that I find to have a noticeable impact though, is the brightness of the screen itself. The brighter the screen, the more the flicker.

Also 75Hz, really? It's even worse than I thought. :/