1080p vs 60fps

[SvennoJ]

JoeTheBro said:

SvennoJ said:

You can ease the rendering load if you have reliable pupil tracking, the human eye only sees sharp in a 6 degree field of view, the rest of your 120 degree visual field is peripheral vision which is more sensitive to motion and flicker but has very poor resolution. So if you render in the highest resolution in a 10 degree field of view with 60fps, and render the rest in low resolution with 240fps, you probably get pretty far in tricking the brain that's it's close to real life. (Assuming the pupil tracking doesn't have significant lag...)

My lips are sealed, but I can post links all I want.

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/11/14/playstations-rd-magic-lab-teases-eye-tracking-on-ps4-partners-with-nasa-for-ps4-content/

To come back to the gaze tracking, if it can work without noticeable lag, rendering 2 x 720p can net you the illusion of full 4K resolution.
Render 1 big picture in 1280x720, upscale it x 3 to 3840x2160. Render a detailed rectangle where you are currently looking, also at 1280x720 and put that at 1:1 pixel mapping on top of the upscaled image in the right place. Add some nice blending around the edges and the eye should not be able to tell the difference as long as you sit close enough to have a 30 degree field of view of the display. Which would be sitting at 1.6 times the diagonal screen size, for example max 8ft from a 60" 4k display, or 3ft from a 24" 4K monitor.

That's still 11% less pixels to render then 1080p (although it involves some upscaling and blending) With eye tracking 4K doesn't have to cost anything over 1080p rendering.

Scale it back to 1080p displays, take 2 640p images to create 1080p60 at the same cost as full 1080p30. And it shouldn't mattter if you sit upto 2.5 x diagonal away from the display. (9 ft from a 42" 1080p screen)

It will look weird to onlookers though, but such a 4k illusion mode is in reach with current consoles.