according to Wikipedia DP 1.3 already does 8k @60fps, now we need 8k gpus and for some reason we don't have any...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.3

...using 4:2:0 subsampling at 60 Hz.

no, not quite, but every supported resolution below that can handle it on 4:4:4, though. I expect it to be addressed in DisplayPort 1.4, however.

Those are terrible analogies, sorry. You are not going to start seeing better or more in 20 years. No I have not. Not everyone has a privilege to use one. But, I wouldn't just blindly trust a seller telling me what I want and need... What I do know is that initial 720p on O.Rift was indeed lacking. I also know that they haven't resolved motion sickness and until they do, that technology is pretty much just a stepping stone and should be used with care. I know they have 1080p version at the moment. Like I said, you can jam whatever display you want in there but until they resolve other issues that technology is not going to be mainstream. Personally I wouldn't buy a product that induces sickening state to my body and O.R. does that atm. this is a very good post that you have made. Yes, MP is not ideal for this example but it was the first thing that came to mind when I was posting since I recently watched a video on this topic and they used MP in most of the video because people are generaly more familiar with MP than PPI or DPI. As for the 2000 PPI, I am inclined to believe doctors but personaly, as someone who works with print industry (I am graphics designer) I challenge you, or anyone for that matter, to take a good magazine and look at the any quality photo or poster inside it and try to resolve dots/pixels in it from up close and from afar. Those are mostly 300 PPI. @2000 PPI I doubt you could see any dots without using a magnifying glass. You would be pretty rare specimen if you could resolve 2000 PPI with a naked eye 🙂 I can barley resolve my phone's 340 PPI, BARLEY, and I might even be lying to myself :3eyes: edit: here is the video I was referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I5Q3UXkGd0 Take from it what you will.

Does that video not say 2 degrees (which ignores distance) of our vision requires 7MP of resolution to be undetectable. Meaning only a small portion of a 7inch screen has to have 7MP also keep in mind its cut in half for VR and the entire screen must have the same (or as close to) pixel density since your eyes can move around to look at different portions. So really we need insane pixel densities to not see it in VR. I have gear VR and i can tell you the pixels are huge. My personal feeling is the sweet spot where it starts to hardly matter (compared to right now) is 2 4kx4k resolution screens (1 per eye) and the wishful thinking is 8kx8k per screen.

And, what's the point? On that size screen, it's not going to look any better than regular HD. It's like my Nexus 7. Does it really need as high a resolution as it has? No, it doesn't.

Exactly. 17" is entirely too small for any pixel resolution, imo. I'm amazed to hear these MacBook folks with tiny 13" screens talk about how "great" their "retina" graphics are. In 1986 I was using 13" monitors with an Amiga and I thought they were way too small even then. 27" to 30" is my sweet spot today, regardless of the pixel resolution and/or density.

For me, 24" is the biggest computer monitor I will use and for a TV, 40" is the limit and more than good enough. My current TV is 29" and it's fine. Hooked up to a computer, it's way too big, even from 8 feet away. Even on my 24" monitor, I don't run a browser full screen because it's too hard to read from side to side. I rarely run more than one window anyway and I never use the snap functions.

Is it safe to assume we will have decent 8k capable rigs after 4 generations of GPU :?

Another tech that is not going to be mainstream for 10+ years. Why? Because money and i'm not talking about how much it would cost but how much companies would lose by not selling current tech.

There are phones with higher PPI. The most impressive thing about this screen is that they got a 2000:1 contrast ratio out of an IPS panel.

How is that impressive?

its funny how everyone limits those things to gaming/tv and crap. how about a surgeon working on your brain. you want him/her to have a 32" in 1080p (cause you dont need more), or a 20" in 8K??

It will be hard to focus on the details with a 17" 8K monitor, put that 8k on minimum 32" and such will be a lot more manageable. If you look at a tablet as instance, you will need to go above 100% display scaling to even be able to see what your looking at. Just look at how surgeon monitors upscale display size dependent on resolution. I can imagine that a monitor like this will have it's use though, like high resolution photo and video editing out in the field and even on some designers desk, it could probably also serve better as many current surveillance monitors.

No I have not. Not everyone has a privilege to use one. But, I wouldn't just blindly trust a seller telling me what I want and need... What I do know is that initial 720p on O.Rift was indeed lacking. I also know that they haven't resolved motion sickness and until they do, that technology is pretty much just a stepping stone and should be used with care. I know they have 1080p version at the moment. Like I said, you can jam whatever display you want in there but until they resolve other issues that technology is not going to be mainstream. Personally I wouldn't buy a product that induces sickening state to my body and O.R. does that atm.

Considering how little you know about current VR and have never tried it, I will now try to inform you: It isn't called motion sickness because there is no motion. It's called simulator sickness. Simulator sickness happens when what you're seeing doesn't quite match up with what you're feeling with your inner ear. This was fixed long ago with positional tracking (translation). In the DK1 days, people got sick because of: motion blur (persistence of the display), low resolution, and a mismatch like I stated above with what you see and what you feel. With the DK2, they added low persistence (no motion blur whatsoever because the pixel only lights up a tiny fraction of the frame instead of being always on), a higher framerate, and positional tracking (a human head has parallax when it turns. The neck doesn't perfectly pivot on it's center), and a higher resolution. When the software is well coded and the latency of the head tracking low enough, there is no nausea because there is no mismatch (unless your IPD - interpupillary distance - isn't setup correctly). The cases where people report nausea are in applications where there is movement of your character (spaceship games, racing games, or when your character moves by walking). This is why VR locomotion will be a tough nut to crack for the next few years. Many developers have remedied this by allowing you to "blink" where you want to (teleport, basically). The consumer version of the Rift and the HTC Vive both have dual 1080x1200 90hz displays, so SDE (screen door effect, or seeing the space between pixels) is greatly reduced and smoothness is improved to a point where head tracking latency is physically imperceptible. Now about resolution. A VR display is magnified. That means that a 577 ppi display like on the Galaxy S6 looks like a 1080p 24' display from very close. Michael Abrash (Oculus VR's chief scientist, worked on Quake for Id Software and was working in Valve's VR lab before joining oculus) stated about 6 months ago that in order for VR displays to look as good as real life in terms of detail, we would one day need a 16K display for our full human field of vision (article about it here). This wasn't just a ballpark figure. In current (Rift consumer version and HTC Vive) VR HMDs, text is hard to read and detail far away is a mess of pixels. Screen door effect is reduced but still present. Resolution will need to improve drastically to get to a lifelike level of detail, but is usable since the DK2. Oculus/HTC aren't trying to sell you a product that will make you nauseous. That's why they've waited this long to actually release something to the public, to make it as perfect as a 400$ easy to use piece of hardware can be. I hope you're (and the other people reading this forum) better informed about current VR tech. 🙂 (For context, I've had a DK2 and been active on the Oculus subreddit since last september and have followed every VR article for a couple of years)

its funny how everyone limits those things to gaming/tv and crap. how about a surgeon working on your brain. you want him/her to have a 32" in 1080p (cause you dont need more), or a 20" in 8K?? a Golf GTI in the mid 70's did 9s to 60, top speed was 118mph and had decent performance to give (other) sports cars the run around. but just because it was good enough (back then) doesnt mean it will be my next car in 2015. why dont we all go back to live in a cave. was "enough" back in the day...

Yup, the reality is how graphics cards, APIs and engines are actually designed and used. Yes, at certain distances versus certain resolutions you can get realistic pictures. But, you hardly ever get realistic pictures in a 1080p game viewport, even though its possible. On the other hand, those same engines can just dump more details onto a 4K viewport without any additional coding effort and look way better. I'm sure there is a technical term for this. I'll call it brute force. Personally waiting for good rec2020 4k next year.

how many arms and legs are needed to afford that? let alone afford a gpu that could feed that

There are phones with higher PPI. The most impressive thing about this screen is that they got a 2000:1 contrast ratio out of an IPS panel.

seeing as there is no industry standard on contrast ratio and everyone make up there own numbers it is not impressive my moniter has or is marketed as having 50,000,000:1:ratio but again that dont mean anything cause every manufacture test this differently cause there is no standard