When users talk about their recent experience with head-mounted displays, they often refer to image quality. "The colors were great", "the image was very bright" and so forth. Indeed, image quality (lack of smear, brightness, contrast, color gamut) scores very high on HMD requirement surveys, right next to high resolution and wide field of view.
It turns out that the micro-display technology used inside the HMD can critically impact the user experience, often more than other design decisions for a particular HMD.
Many HMDs today using LCOS (liquid crystal on silicon), which has similarities to LCD technology, with the exception the LCD is transmissive - that is, the light source is behind the display, where LCOS is reflective - which means the light source needs to project the front of the display. LCOS displays are a common choice because they come in higher resolution than comparable single-chip OLED (Organic LED) display, and are available from multiple vendors. Unfortunately, LCOS-based designs have some disadvantages:
- They require a light source which reduces the display contrast (the light is on even when a black picture is displayed) as well as substantially increases power consumption.
- They often have limited temperature range, or require somewhat exotic solutions like local LCOS heaters to warm up the display before initial use.
- They typically exhibit motion blur and smear, just like many of us experienced with LCD monitors. This is particularly relevant in HMDs since images inside an HMD constantly change to track user head movements.
- Depending on the specific design, users may experience color flashes or other artifacts during head movement.
OLEDs are also used in several HMDs. OLEDs are self-emitting, meaning that they do not require independent lighting. OLEDs, such as those available from eMagin, offer a larger color gamut, higher brightness, higher contrast and lower power consumption. OLEDs are also faster than LCOS and thus are free of LCOS artifacts. However, OLEDs typically come in lower resolutions that LCOS displays and are available from fewer vendors. To overcome the lower resolution of individual displays, vendors such as my company, use a tiled approach to combine multiple micro-displays into a larger, higher-resolution image.
So... look inside! Next time you look at an HMD, inquire what display technology is inside the display.
Yuval Boger (VRGuy) has been doing VR since 2006. He shares his experience and views on HMDs and VR technologies.
Also, check out the VRguy podcasts where I host industry experts for deeper conversations about VR and AR.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The 2008 HMD Market Study Survey
Sensics released today the 2nd annual HMD market survey. In this survey, conducted in February of 2008, we re-examine the same questions asked last year in the 2007 HMD survey, and then go on to compare and contrast the market needs.
The 2007 survey was titled "Are existing HMDs good enough?". The answer was a resounding "no!", and it helped quantify what we all intuitively know - that HMDs with narrow field of view ("tunnel vision") and low resolution may be sufficient for very early adopters, but are certainly not good enough for widespread use.
The 2008 survey is titled "Are we there yet?". The short answer is also "no", though perhaps without the exclamation point. Requirements have not changed much, and vendors are certainly making progress in working towards what users are asking for - wider field of view, higher resolution, in a light-weight, easy-to-use product. Panoramic field of view products such as those that we make are maturing, and other companies have innovative products (though sometimes curious-looking, such as the "wedding cake HMD") that try to solve these problems. However, the "holy grail of HMDs": panoramic field of view, high def, low cost, easy to use - has not been conquered yet. Look for additional fascinating developments in 2008.
I'll be posting additional insight from these survey from time to time. Stay tuned.
The 2007 survey was titled "Are existing HMDs good enough?". The answer was a resounding "no!", and it helped quantify what we all intuitively know - that HMDs with narrow field of view ("tunnel vision") and low resolution may be sufficient for very early adopters, but are certainly not good enough for widespread use.
The 2008 survey is titled "Are we there yet?". The short answer is also "no", though perhaps without the exclamation point. Requirements have not changed much, and vendors are certainly making progress in working towards what users are asking for - wider field of view, higher resolution, in a light-weight, easy-to-use product. Panoramic field of view products such as those that we make are maturing, and other companies have innovative products (though sometimes curious-looking, such as the "wedding cake HMD") that try to solve these problems. However, the "holy grail of HMDs": panoramic field of view, high def, low cost, easy to use - has not been conquered yet. Look for additional fascinating developments in 2008.
I'll be posting additional insight from these survey from time to time. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)