Nvidia VR?
I just got an email talking about Nvidia VR entry in 2016, through the GTX line cards. I was wondering, what does this mean for 3D vision? VR is basically 3D -- but with the added dimension of being able to move around and see things, right? so would that mean 3D vision would be resurrected for those without VR? and can continue to play using our 3D glasses? what does this mean!?!?!
I just got an email talking about Nvidia VR entry in 2016, through the GTX line cards.

I was wondering, what does this mean for 3D vision?

VR is basically 3D -- but with the added dimension of being able to move around and see things, right? so would that mean 3D vision would be resurrected for those without VR? and can continue to play using our 3D glasses?

what does this mean!?!?!

#1
Posted 01/04/2016 09:10 PM   
https://developer.nvidia.com/virtual-reality-development It just means they're spending a lot of human resources on making VR (via drivers) as good as humanly possible (since it'll sell lots of GPUs if it takes off). Things like removing all the possible latency they can from the pipeline (since, in an ideal world, head motion to photon being drawn on the screen is sub 20ms). In addition to other things like time warping, this latency obsession has resulted in developing VR SLI that ads 0ms of lag to the process (each GPU simply draws one screen). Then there's the very under-rated multi-res shading. VR optics have a much higher pixel density in the center of the screen. It wasteful to render the peripheral at that same resolution. They've recently advanced enough with Multi-res shading that they've been able to add it to Unreal Engine 4 and it's resulting in 50 percent reductions in the GPU power needed. In short, there's a whole mess of things that VR needs to not only be responsive to body tracking, but power games without dropping below a headset's refresh rate (which in VR is a kick in the brain when framerates drop).
https://developer.nvidia.com/virtual-reality-development

It just means they're spending a lot of human resources on making VR (via drivers) as good as humanly possible (since it'll sell lots of GPUs if it takes off).

Things like removing all the possible latency they can from the pipeline (since, in an ideal world, head motion to photon being drawn on the screen is sub 20ms).

In addition to other things like time warping, this latency obsession has resulted in developing VR SLI that ads 0ms of lag to the process (each GPU simply draws one screen).

Then there's the very under-rated multi-res shading. VR optics have a much higher pixel density in the center of the screen. It wasteful to render the peripheral at that same resolution. They've recently advanced enough with Multi-res shading that they've been able to add it to Unreal Engine 4 and it's resulting in 50 percent reductions in the GPU power needed.

In short, there's a whole mess of things that VR needs to not only be responsive to body tracking, but power games without dropping below a headset's refresh rate (which in VR is a kick in the brain when framerates drop).

#2
Posted 01/04/2016 09:47 PM   
SMI recently demoed foveated rendering - see [url]http://uploadvr.com/smi-eye-tracking-foveated-rendering-exclusive/[/url]. This has to potential to enable higher resolution VR displays with much more efficient render processing. Note that this type of render processing was originally suggested by Evans and Sutherland, later acquired by Sun (see Table 1 and paper referenced in link at [url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/809649/3d-vision/please-add-hdmi-2-0-support-to-3dtv-play-/post/4460163/#4460163[/url], MF Deering's "The Limits of Human Vision".
SMI recently demoed foveated rendering - see http://uploadvr.com/smi-eye-tracking-foveated-rendering-exclusive/. This has to potential to enable higher resolution VR displays with much more efficient render processing. Note that this type of render processing was originally suggested by Evans and Sutherland, later acquired by Sun (see Table 1 and paper referenced in link at https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/809649/3d-vision/please-add-hdmi-2-0-support-to-3dtv-play-/post/4460163/#4460163, MF Deering's "The Limits of Human Vision".

#3
Posted 01/04/2016 10:53 PM   
Yeah, that's super exciting. There's clearly a massive need for super high resolution screens, but that brings massive problems with it. This would allow non-super computers to drive high dpi screens. Sure beats the current solution of smearing the optics to hide the screen door effect. Should be an exciting future. Think some people have unrealistic expectations for Gen 1 headsets, but I'm totally convinced, long term, this is the next big platform. Something like the above will just get it here even quicker.
Yeah, that's super exciting. There's clearly a massive need for super high resolution screens, but that brings massive problems with it. This would allow non-super computers to drive high dpi screens. Sure beats the current solution of smearing the optics to hide the screen door effect.

Should be an exciting future. Think some people have unrealistic expectations for Gen 1 headsets, but I'm totally convinced, long term, this is the next big platform. Something like the above will just get it here even quicker.

#4
Posted 01/04/2016 11:22 PM   
This type of foveal render processing has the potential to greatly change the current relationship (including architectures) between CPUs and GPUs - versus rendered VR display resolution. Note that current 3D displays focus upon raster display (rectangular x,y coordinates with convergence offset), rather than foveal processing/display (polar coordinates - distance from center, angle - with convergence offset). Foveated rendering could provide superb 3D immersion with reasonable hardware setups (less money for NVIDIA, however?). But I agree - this offers great possibilities for gen 2 VR (beyond first gen Rift, Vive, and Sony VR releasing in early 2016)! A great gen 2 VR display could also incorporate retinal projection (something like Avegant virtual retinal projection)...
This type of foveal render processing has the potential to greatly change the current relationship (including architectures) between CPUs and GPUs - versus rendered VR display resolution. Note that current 3D displays focus upon raster display (rectangular x,y coordinates with convergence offset), rather than foveal processing/display (polar coordinates - distance from center, angle - with convergence offset). Foveated rendering could provide superb 3D immersion with reasonable hardware setups (less money for NVIDIA, however?).

But I agree - this offers great possibilities for gen 2 VR (beyond first gen Rift, Vive, and Sony VR releasing in early 2016)! A great gen 2 VR display could also incorporate retinal projection (something like Avegant virtual retinal projection)...

#5
Posted 01/05/2016 02:08 PM   
Scroll To Top