oculus quest 2 lcd panel manufacturer

We got some new clues about how many Quest 2 headsets Meta Platforms is selling. Today, Nikkei Asia reported that Foxconn-owned display maker Sharp is now shipping over 1 million LCD screens for VR headsets per month, which would be a substantial increase on what it was doing last year. Sharp’s reported 2021 VR revenue suggests it only shipped roughly 4 million screens in 2021.

Sharp says its biggest VR customer is Meta. So Sharp’s big boost in shipments is a strong indicator that Meta is ramping up to manufacture more headsets than the 5.3 million to 6.8 million IDC estimates it sold in 2021. That said, it’s hard to gauge how reliant Meta is on Sharp and vice versa.

The big picture: Virtual reality has yet to take off in a big way, but a shift in consumer habits along with the introduction of more affordable headsets like the Oculus Quest 2 have rejuvenated this market segment to the point where Japan Display is betting its future on making displays for VR headsets. It"s a calculated risk that could pay off in the future when the market will be more mature and JDI will have established a strong foothold.

Japan Display (JDI) used to be one of Apple"s main suppliers of LCDs for the iPhone, and over the years most of its business was focused on that. Back in 2019, the company sold its screen manufacturing plant to Sharp for $390 million to repay debt to Apple and avoid further losses from the industry"s growing preference for OLED screens in smartphones.

That said, the Tokyo-based LCD manufacturer believes OLED still are at a disadvantage compared to LCD technology when it comes to achieving a higher yield for high-resolution displays, which in turn makes the latter technology more competitive in terms of price.

According to a Bloomberg report, the lockdowns during the pandemic have created higher demand for VR headsets, with Facebook and HTC both experiencing a surge in sales over the last 12 months. That consumer trend has persisted even as the restrictions eased, and VR headset manufacturers have largely shifted away from OLED on newer models like the Oculus Quest 2.

JDI VR chief Takeshi Harayama told Bloomberg, "it"s hard to find a VR headset maker who doesn"t have a relationship with us," which is why the company feels confident about its strategy. Chief VR headset engineer Yoshihiro Watanabe says JDI is capable of making displays with pixel densities of 1,200 pixels per inch, which is a lot higher that that found on high-end smartphones.

OLED makers like Samsung and LG aren"t particularly interested in the VR headset market, since it"s a lot smaller than the smartphone market. JDI believes it can fill this gap, but not all VR headset manufacturers are opting for LCD screens. For instance, Sony is said to use OLED panels in its next PlayStation VR headset, but JDI still expects revenue from non-mobile businesses, which includes VR headsets, to increase 25 percent this year and reach 70 billion yen ($637 million).

In a talk titled ‘High-PPI Fast-Switch Display Development for Oculus Quest 2 VR Headsets’, Meta display engineer Cheon Hong Kim detailed the headset’s display architecture and discussed the design challenges of using LCD for VR.

It’s essential that displays used in VR headsets only illuminate the pixels for a small fraction of each frame – a technique called Low Persistence. That’s because each frame represents an exact moment in time, whereas in real life as you rotate or move your head the light arriving to your eyes will continuously change. If the pixels were constantly illuminated, your eyes would be receiving light for the original position even as your head turned, and your brain perceives this as motion blur. The original Oculus Rift Development Kit shipped in 2013 had this problem, and it was solved in Development Kit 2 in 2014.

LCD displays were originally thought unsuitable for VR, given the much longer response time. But since the release of the Windows MR headsets in 2017, a new type of LCD panels called ‘fast switch’ have become available. These panels illuminate the backlight for a fraction of the frame, after waiting for the liquid crystal to “settle down”. Quest 2, like Oculus Go and Rift S before it, use such a panel.

The 1920×3664 resolution and 120 Hz max refresh rate were already publicly known, but the talk revealed the panel’s exact 5.46 inch size and density: 773 pixels per inch.

It’s also noteworthy that Meta revealed the panel’s brightness – 100 nits. Keep in mind that figure is when using low persistence, so it would likely be much brighter if used outside a headset.

Meta also revealed some interesting physical properties of the display. Since Quest 2 has three IPD settings and two lenses but only one panel, only a subsection of the panel is used at once. And because the lenses are closer to circular than square, the very corner of the display is never needed – so it was simply cut out to save space.

This approach of using a single panel with an active area subsection means each eye actually gets fewer than the 1832×1920 pixels listed in the Quest 2 specifications on the Meta Store – roughly 1720×1890.

These factors are important considerations when specifying and sourcing panels for VR headsets, but Cheon acknowledged Quest 2 has some of the issues outlined here. Meta still hasn’t released a headset fully free from the screen door effect.

In the conclusions slide, the key display resolution spec of Quest 2 was revealed, the angular resolution measured in pixels per degree. Meta says Quest 2 has 21 pixels per degree. The generally accepted figure for “retinal” human eye resolution is 60 pixels per degree. While VR headsets have been making solid advancements – the Oculus Rift had roughly 14 pixels per degree – there’s still clearly a long way to go.

Japan Display Inc. (JDI), a display conglomerate created by Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi, today announced the mass production of a new high pixel density, 2.1-inch 1,058 LCD display created for VR ‘glasses’ style headsets.

Update (1:25 PM ET): German publication MIXED(German) has confirmed with LYNX founder Stan Larroque that the upcoming LYNX R-1 headset is using the new JDI displays, which like Pico VR Glasses prototype have been clocked to 90Hz. We’ve reached out to Pico for comment as well and will report back when/if we get an answer.

The low temperature polysilicon (LTPS) TFT-LCD panel is said to use a special optical design that is intended to appeal to manufacturers looking to build smaller, lighter glasses-type headsets. Notably, the company says in a press release that its new display is used in VR glasses that have already been introduced to the market.

The company’s new 2.1-inch 1,058 ppi panel boasts a 1,600 × 1,600 resolution in its square format; JDI is also offering variants with corner-cut shapes. Clocked at 120Hz, the panel has a 4.5 ms response time, global blinking backlights, and a brightness of 430 nits.

Although unconfirmed at this time, Pico’s impressive VR Glasses prototype unveiled at CES earlier this year included a 1,600 × 1,600 panel, albeit clocked at 90Hz, which likely has more to do with the constraints of a mobile chipset’s ability to render at a supposed full 120Hz capability.

JDI’s previous VR display, revealed in Summer 2018, was larger at 3.25 inches, but at a slightly lower pixel density of 1,001 ppi. The panel, which was 2,160 × 2,432 resolution and also clocked at 120Hz, did however boast a lower latency of 2.2 ms.

It seems with this downsizing from larger, more conventional display down to smaller ones, JDI is making a significant bet on the upcoming appeal of smaller form factor headsets. A few key trade-offs to VR ‘glasses’ as they are now is off-board processing, either by a dedicated compute unit or smartphone, typically a lack of 6DOF tracking, and a slightly lower field of view. That said, removing user friction by making VR headsets lighter and smaller may appeal to those looking to watch traditional streaming video and browse the 2D web.

Meta is reportedly planning some big upgrades to the displays used in its upcoming headsets, though we expect it’ll be some time before the rumored micro-OLED panel it"s working on will be used.

One issue that most VR headsets suffer from – be they budget-friendly models like the Oculus Quest 2 or a more premium device such as the Meta Quest Pro – is the "screen door" effect. Because your eyes are so close to the display you can start to see gaps in the pixels that make the image appear to have black lines across it (making it look as if you’re viewing the on-screen objects through a screen door).

If true, the high pixel count of the micro-OLED panels should make the screen door effect appear much less noticeable, and may even eliminate it. What’s more, the headsets would also benefit from the better contrast and energy efficiency afforded by OLED displays, compared to the LCD displays currently used by Meta’s Quest 2 and Quest Pro.

Unfortunately, if Meta does plan to adopt this LG and SKHynix-made display, we expect that we won’t see it until whatever headset follows the Oculus Quest 3 appears. Because the Quest 3 is almost certainly releasing later this year – unless it’s hit by a delay – there’s likely not going to be enough time for those display companies to develop a new display for it, let alone manufacture it and incorporate it into the design.

It’s far more likely that we’ll see these micro-OLED displays first appear in either the Meta Quest Pro 2 or the Oculus Quest 4, both of which are at least a couple of years away. That said, we wouldn’t be surprised if the Quest 4 joined in the Quest 3 in missing out on the upgraded micro-OLED panels.

The new displays will likely be pretty pricey – too pricey for Meta’s less-expensive line of Quest devices. Because of this, we expect this will be a prosumer improvement that will stay exclusive to the Quest Pro line for a generation or two – just like the eye- and face-tracking features Meta introduced with its first Pro headset, which it has said won’t be coming to the base models until the cost of the components comes down.

We’ll have to wait and see if and when these improved panels come to light – and which models they’re used in – but hopefully, we"ll see some better screens in Meta"s headsets soon. The screen door effect can be a big obstacle to how immersive VR experiences feel for some, and improving the hardware is the only way to remove it, and make the best VR headsets even better.

The lines of code suggest that the internal prototype, codenamed Eureka865, uses asingle LC display with a resolution of 4,128 by 2,208 pixels, which corresponds to2,064 by 2,208 pixels per eye. In terms of pixel count, that would be a 30 percent increase over Meta Quest 2. The refresh rate was specified at 90 hertz.

Now, Samulia reports that a 120 hertz version of the display configuration has surfaced in the latest beta firmware version 49, suggesting that Meta Quest 3 could support a higher maximum refresh rate.

Meta Quest 2 has already supported 120 hertz by default for a few months, but only for VR apps that are optimized for it. The home environment and the system menus still run at 90 hertz. If Meta Quest 3 does indeed get a faster SoC, these areas, as well as other VR games, could benefit from a higher frame rate.

According to VR analyst Brad Lynch, JDI and probably BOE will manufacture the Meta Quest 3’s LCD panels. Local dimming for higher contrast like in Meta Quest Pro is not expected, Lynch said.Update on Quest 3 displays prediction:

The $1,800 premium headset supports a maximum refresh rate of 90 hertz. That’s a downgrade from Meta Quest 2 that isn’t likely to carry over to its successor. John Carmack said during his last Connect talk that all Meta headsets following Meta Quest Pro will support up to 120 hertz refresh rate. Accordingly, the firmware find is no surprise.

Another change Samulia discovered in the firmware is a change in the codename from “Eureka865” to “Eureka.” The number 865 was a reference to the Meta Quest 2’s SoC, which is the Snapdragon XR2 Gen 1, which in turn is a derivative of the Snapdragon 865 smartphone SOC. Lynch thinks that this change suggests a switch to the next SoC generation, the Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2. A chip that is supposed to be considerably faster.

According to Lynch’s sources, Meta Quest 3 will definitely be based on the (still unannounced) next-gen SoC. The first test chips are said to have already been sent to Meta and other companies.

In his update, the well-informed analyst makes further predictions about the device: that it will feature pancake lenses and that it will ship with VR controllers similar to Meta Quest 2, i.e. tracking rings instead of inside-out tracking (see Quest Touch Pro Controller).

UploadVR’s David Heaney was in attendance and attended a talk by Meta‘s display engineer Cheon Hong Kim titled “High-PPI Fast-Switch Display Development for Oculus Quest 2 VR Headsets.” In the talk, Hong Kim gave insight into the implementation and revealed previously unknown technical details of the display.

The Meta Quest 2 uses a fast-switching LC display. This means that the pixels only light up for a fraction of a second. This avoids an unsightly blurring effect. In technical jargon, this is also called “low persistence.”

First-generation commercial VR headsets like the Oculus Rift, HTC VIVE, and Playstation VR all used OLED displays because this type of display enabled high response times. Only later were much cheaper, fast-switching LC displays invented and mass-produced. These displays are in devices like the Oculus Go, Valve Index, and even the Meta Quest 2.

The resolution (1,920 by 3,664 pixels) and maximum refresh rate (120 hertz) of the LC display used in the VR headset were alreeady known. More details came to light in the presentation: The display is 5.46 inches, has a pixel density of 773 PPIand shines with 100 nits. The screen can be brighter in normal use, but the luminance value refers to the low persistence mode.

Since Quest 2 uses a single display with three IPD settings, only a partial area of the full display surface is always visible. The resolution is therefore lower than the stated 1,920 by 1,832 pixels per eye. The corners have been cut off to save space.

Hong Kim also addressed the notorious “screen door effect.” The Quest 2’s LC display has a denser pixel pattern than the first virtual reality glasses, but the gaps are still visible.

The Quest 2, Hong Kim revealed at the end, has a PPD of 21 (pixel density depending on field-of-view). That’s a decent jump compared to the Oculus Rift (2016), which has around 14 PPD, but nowhere near the performance of the human eye, which is around 60 PPD. Retina resolution is still a long way off. But that is precisely Meta’s goal, according to the presentation.

Meta is reportedly planning some major upgrades to the screens used in its upcoming headsets, though we expect it will be some time before the rumored micro-OLED panel it’s been working on.

One problem that most VR headsets suffer from – be it budget-friendly models like the Oculus Quest 2 or a more premium device like the Meta Quest Pro – is the “screen door” effect. Because your eyes are so close to the screen, you may start to see gaps in the pixels that make it look like black lines are running across the screen (making it look like you’re looking at the objects on the screen through a screen door).

If that’s true, the high pixel count of the micro OLED panels should make the screen door effect much less noticeable and even disappear. In addition, the headsets would also benefit from the better contrast and power efficiency of OLED screens, compared to the LCD screens currently used by Meta’s Quest 2 and Quest Pro.

Unfortunately, if Meta plans to adopt this display made by LG and SKHynix, we don’t expect to see it until the headset that follows the Oculus Quest 3 appears. With the Quest 3 almost certainly coming out later this year – unless it’s hit by a delay – there probably won’t be enough time for those display companies to develop a new display for it, much less produce it and put it in the market. to include design.

It’s much more likely that we’ll first see these micro-OLED screens appear in the Meta Quest Pro 2 or the Oculus Quest 4, both of which are at least a few years away. That said, we wouldn’t be surprised if the Quest 4 along with the Quest 3 lacked the upgraded micro-OLED panels.

The new screens will probably be quite pricey – too expensive for Meta’s cheaper range of Quest devices. So we expect this to be a prosumer enhancement that will remain exclusive to the Quest Pro line for a generation or two – much like the eye and face tracking features that Meta introduced with its first Pro headset, which is said to be won’t come to base models until component costs come down.

We’ll have to wait and see if and when these improved panels come to light – and which models they’ll be used in – but hopefully we’ll see some better screens in Meta’s headsets soon. The screen door effect can be a major obstacle to how immersive VR experiences feel to some, and improving the hardware is the only way to remove this and make the best VR headsets even better.

It"s the affordable price tag, alongside good performance, that may be most compelling about the Meta Quest 2, making high-end virtual reality more accessible than ever. There are some compromises, but I think most VR enthusiasts will easily be willing to look past them.

Editor"s Note (December 20, 2023): This review has been updated with the most current information, including pricing and storage, and to reflect the branding change from Oculus to Meta.

Unlike the original Quest, which came in black, the new device only comes in a gray plastic, but it’s a friendly look. We’ll get into the design a little later.

The headset also has four cameras dotted around the front for things like hand-tracking and environment tracking. The hand tracking in particular is a cool feature (though it also came to the original Quest through a software update), allowing you to essentially ditch the controllers for basic tasks.

The original Oculus Quest looked fine, but in a world of black plastic tech, it’s nice to see the new Quest 2 taking a different approach. The new gray-with-black-highlights look makes the headset a little more approachable and friendly, even if you won’t see the design when you’re actually using it.

The overall shape of the Quest 2 will look immediately familiar to those who have seen or used a Quest before, but there are a few differences to the new headset. Most notably, the Quest 2 is smaller and lighter in almost every way which is, of course, welcome news. At 502 grams, it’s still not the lightest device to wear on your head but it"s nearly 70 grams lighter than the original.

Part of the weight decrease comes in the form of a new soft strap, which replaces the part-plastic strap on the Quest. I found the new strap design easy to adjust, although the first time you do so, you may fumble around a little to figure out exactly where the adjustment points are.

The headset offers a relatively comfortable fit, too. The strap lets you get it set to your head size and shape, and there’s ample padding on the faceplate to allow for hours of wear. If you want an even better strap, you can buy the Meta Quest 2 Elite Strap for $50, which is said to enhance comfort and adjustability. We did not test it for this review.

Apart from the display, which we’ll go into a little later, one of the biggest changes to the Quest 2 is the fact that it now offers a Snapdragon XR2 processor, which is a dedicated virtual reality chipset. That replaces the Snapdragon 835 found in the previous-gen model, which could also be found in smartphones and other devices.

Technically, the XR2 is capable of delivering features like 5G connectivity and 7 concurrent cameras, but the Quest 2 forgoes features like that. Instead, you’ll get faster load times and better graphics processing. Gaming is perhaps the main reason to get a virtual reality headset in the first place, and the XR2 is able to handle more graphics-intense VR games.

Indeed, the improved processing power is pretty noticeable. In conjunction with the better display, graphics just look a whole lot better on the Quest 2 than on the original Quest. Details are clearer, and everything looks more realistic. Playing games like the Vader Immortal series is more immersive than ever, and it"s easy to get lost in a world—until you get jolted out by a dead battery.

While the XR2 platform delivers better-than-ever graphics performance in a standalone VR headset, VR still has a long way to go. The games are awesome, but they’re not ultra-realistic just yet. It’s kind of like a Nintendo Switch, offering super fun gaming experiences, but doing so without the intense graphics performance we expect from the PS5 or Xbox Series X. That said, there isn’t a headset that offers that super realistic graphics performance just yet. There are more gaming-focused headsets, like PlayStation VR, but it’s still tethered to the PlayStation 4 for its performance.

Meta has upgraded the display for the Meta Quest 2, and generally, it looks much better than before; though some aspects of it are a slight step backward.

Let’s start with the good. There’s a noticeably higher resolution, which helps eliminate the pixelated "screendoor effect" that was visible on the previous-generation Quest. It’s not totally gone, and an even higher resolution display would be nice, but we imagine that would present other issues around battery life.

The Quest 2 also supports a 90 Hz refresh rate, though there isn"t any content to explore at the higher refresh rate just yet. At launch, only the Meta home environment and the browser run at 90 Hz, and while those aspects of the Quest certainly look smooth, the feature won’t really come in handy until it’s supported by games. Hopefully, that will happen in the near future. Pretty much everything else you do on the Quest will be limited to 72 Hz for now.

There is a downside to the new display, though. While the original Oculus Quest was OLED, the new headset swaps it out for LCD. The result is black-levels that aren’t as deep, and colors that are less realistic. It’s a trade I’m willing to make if it means higher resolution, but it would be nice to get the best of both worlds in the next iteration.

We mentioned that the Quest 2 has a solid display, and it does indeed have one solid display. That replaces the two displays (one per eye) in the original Quest, and it has some implications for adjustability.

Without getting overly technical, the original Quest allowed users to adjust the headset to their interpupillary distance (IPD)—the distance between eyes—any distance between 59 and 71mm with a slider. With the single display in the Quest 2, adjustments are more limited, allowing you to select from one of three different options.

Speaking of Facebook, the controversial company absorbed Oculus in 2014, and since then it has been integrating Oculus more and more deeply into its own services. The Meta Quest 2 is the first Facebook headset that requires users to sign in to their headset with Facebook, instead of just using an Oculus account. Considering Facebook’s spotty-at-best track record with privacy, that is not good news.

Facebook goes a step further too. If you’re adamantly against Facebook’s use of user data over the last few years, you may be tempted to create a fake profile to use with the headset. But if you do so, be warned that if you’re deceit is discovered, you’ll lose any purchases you made on the Oculus store, and your headset may get completely bricked.

All that to say, Facebook is still in the business of collecting and using data, and you’re going to have to accept that if you want to use the Quest 2.

If you’re able to look past potential privacy issues and the idea that you might not be able to adjust the headset to your exact head shape, the Quest 2 is absolutely worth buying. Its display resolution beats many much more expensive headsets, plus it offers access to a huge range of apps that’s only growing, all for under $400.

It’s even worth considering if you have the original Quest. The Quest 2 is really quite a step up, especially for those who use their headset regularly. It may be worth waiting until developers update their apps to take advantage of the higher refresh rate and resolution, but that’s bound to happen at some point for the most popular apps, and hopefully new apps and games will support those things out of the box.

While not without its quirks, the Meta Quest 2 is the most compelling virtual reality headset to date. Apps and games are getting better and better, and the price is low enough for even casual users to get in. Virtual reality as a whole is still in its infancy, but on the Quest 2—and in 2020—it often beats actual reality.

Whichever VR system you choose could determine how enjoyable the experience. Therefore, it is critical to do the research and find the best VR that fits you. However, you are in luck as we have done most of the work for you. Now, we will describe and compare some of the most popular Virtual Reality Systems. These will include the new Oculus Quest 2which was just released on October 13th. Make sure to read on if you are considering trading in your Rift-S or Questfor the new Quest 2.

The Rift-S is ai5 processor accompanied by a GTX 970-1060 graphics card and at least 5 gigabytes (GB) of RAM. The system requires the user to use a display port rather than an HDMI. So, plenty of space is required on the computer. The Rift-S has a 1x2560x1440 LCD panel at80 Hertz (Hz). These specifications create a better resolution than most all-in-ones, but it is not great compared to other PC VR systems. The built-in speakers are also reportedly not great, but this can be resolved with an external set of headphones. Despite the resolution and sound not being fantastic, the tracking is decently advanced. It uses three forms of inside-out tracking.

The tracking system is similar to the Rift-S including the infraredtracking headset cameras. The Oculus, however, also allows the user to see the outside world through the headset by selecting a viewing setting. But, this feature comes at the cost of a somewhat disorientingdelay. One of the best features of the Quest is its ability to hold guardian spacesin memory. With it, you do not have to measure the same space twice. If you have measured a space before, the system will recognize it and instantly place you into the virtual environment.

Now, for the moment we have all been waiting for, theQuest 2 review. Starting at the same price of$299 as the Quest 1, the Quest 2’s goal is to completely replace the Quest and Rift-S as both are entering retirement, but is the upgrade really worth it for those still using the Rift-S andQuest?

With prices at $299 for 64 GB and$400 for 256 GB, the Quest 2 is certainly an upgrade. However, most have described it as more of a Quest + or Quest Pro rather than a completely new system. The new 50% increase in resolution at 90 Hz, its access to AAA games, its lighter1.12 lb frame, and its new line of accessories, sold separately of course. These new accessories include better head straps to replace the Quest 2’s new, cheaper, and mobile, cloth strap; like the$50 Elite Strap or the$130 Elite Strap which doubles the battery life from 2-3 hours to4-6. Other accessories include Fit Packs which offer swappable facial interfaces.

The Quest 2 also has some subtle differences which came from trial and error with the first Quest. For instance, the Quest has two headphone jacks to cater to Oculus’ duel-headphones, but the Quest 2 only has one due to this previous accessory’s failure. The interpupillary distance (IPD) adjuster is also different. It combines hardware and software to allow the user to push the eye width into one of three settings. These settings can presumably be changed through the software as opposed to the Quest’s simple slider bar. The controller itself is also slightly different from some extra thumb room and a more secure battery cover.

If these features sound like an upgrade worthwhile, go ahead and splurge on the new Oculus Quest 2. Otherwise, as we here at AVT Simulation like to say, save your money for something with a little more bangfor your buck. In our next post, we will cover other popular VR systems as well as MR and AR systems.

Initially, Applied Visual Technology Inc., AVT has been developing modeling and simulation expertise through engineering services since 1998. This is due to our founder who has accumulated over 30 years of military MS&T expertise in aviation applications. Nonetheless, everyone at AVT specializes in making old training systems new again and making new ones for less. Consequently, for 20 years AVT has served our Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine customers by providing the highest quality of service and solutions. Following its inception, AVT’s highly specialized staff of engineers has included some of the top leaders in the simulation industry. With over 20 years of simulation experience, our dedicated team provides specialized solutions for customers with complex problems.