[02:30]

I've been thinking over my options all day, and even scanned over Panelook to see if there were others I hadn't considered. I'd like to think of something else like the PCB of #Tetrinsic [gd0041], but it seems I sold the solution too well to myself and now my subconsious won't let it go.

Anyway, the screen options:

• Single 2560 Si OLED 
  • https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/SeeYA-1-03-inch-2560-2560_1600425378462.html
  • https://mansky.co.uk/assets/uploads/pdfs/seeya_SY103WAM01_specification_v1-0_20210415.pdf
  • Leaves the option to upgrade to a second screen for AR or the next option below.
  • 2560 square could also fit dual FHD desktops with a bit of padding around them.
  • The visual area of content will not change for 16:9 content. I'm both limited by comfortable ppd, which I believe is between 80 and 90, closer to 90, and the area I can look at without subconsiously moving my head, since the entire view will move along with.
  • I imagine that the hat would look like it has a somewhat fat antenna on one side.
  • Framerate is less than 90Hz (1920x1920 is 90Hz) according to seller. I think it's 75Hz but would have to confirm.
  • I tried 48Hz -> 60Hz to get the same kind of expected feel as 60 -> 75Hz and it's still a welcome framerate bump.
  • It's small, it's OLED and it's very bright. I can use a beamsplitter cube and I'd still have a bright image to be sent to the rest of the optics.
  • So far, the compute believes that using this would have the lowest decimal odds of success. 
  • (decimal odds: 1 = 100% chance, 100 = 1% chance, lower is better)
  • Assuming that they'd actually courier it over, it'll cost $320 (£280).
• Dual 2560 for a 4550 * 2560 desktop
  • Highest resolution and most expensive option.
  • Only does 60Hz according to seller.
  • Most versatile. Since the ppd and viewing distance is kept constant, the only thing that can change with a lower resolution is a lower image size. It also means that there's enough pixels to potentially do some head movement corrections
  • The icons for other screens will be one the left / right sides of the destop area.
  • Requires dual antenna-looking things.
• Dual 1440 LCD for a 2560 * 1440 desktop: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33030720934.html
  • Similar to the above but uses the 120Hz 1440px square LCD panels. It's seemingly the only 120Hz panel available at a usable size.
  • Unlike the 2160 edition, the 1440 ones sport a 300 nit brightness, so a beamsplitter will cut that into 150 nit images sent to the rest of the optics.
  • It's on AliExpress for under £180 (2 screens + 120Hz controller).
  • The icons on the left and right would be 128px, which should be servicable but can't be anything fancier like a preview of the window.
  • The desktop will be the same size as a 15.6" screen at a distance of 70cm. Whilst mentally simulating what it'll be like, I noticed that 1) even at distance, it's kind of small and 2) 16:9 is suprisingly wide.
  • To further talk about that second point, whilst it's fine for watching videos, I think I really want more vertical pixels and portrait mode. I think the main reason why I don't usually use portrait mode is because:
    • It's physically cumbersome to mount my current screen in portrait.
    • 9:16 looks team extreme for an aspect ratio. Now I'm starting to realise why I liked the look of Oppo's folding phone.
    • Websites don't agree with the low resolution caused by portrait mode.
  • There's so many situations though where the aspect ratio in landscape is nothing but wasted space. Exhibit A:

  • I did some scrolling on Aliexpress on my 60Hz monitor and 120Hz phone, and yeah that would be a very nice bump to go with 120. Considering that I may be able to use my PC much faster with #Tetent [gd0090], it might even be necessary. I haven't yet figured out a way to compare 90 and 120Hz on mobile yet though.
  • Unlike the OLEDs, the 2 "antennas" is likely to just look like 2 cubes on top. 
  • I'm not sure if viewing angles of +/- 80 XY means that there's less light pointing at 0 degrees than the OLEDs which are +/- 30 degrees, but I may also need to collect light over an even wider area than the 52 * 52mm active area. The image will then need to be shrunk to 30mm or less before going into the beamsplitters.
• 2160 LCD
  • This is the current proposed solution, but since there isn't a board that splits the MIPI output to 2 displays, the only solutions are to cough out my own board or buy 2 control boards. I'm not sure why, but the controller board looks the same as the ones used for other screens but seems to cost £50 more when the respective screen's price has been deducted. 
  • Thus, the price is something like £210. I'm going to have to ask about that controller price discrepancy.
  • The visual image would only be the height of the body of my 15.6" monitor, which is 223mm, if viewed from 70cm away.
    • (Mmmm 3 different units in the same sentence)
  • Thus, 16:9 videos would look even smaller than they do now. 
  • 100 nits makes this the dimmest option out of them all
• 2880 MiniLED: https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/3-2inch-2880RGB-2880-LCD-Modul_1600539433491.html
  • Another Alibaba exclusive that runs at up to 90Hz.
  • Only has 190 nits of brightness. It might be possible to beamsplit it for 95 nits.
  • Currently seems to be £170, driver not included.
  • Would have the largest FOV. 
  • Has the exact same amount of pixels as UHD.
  • (added [17:45]) It's a Mini LED panel with a focused 20 degree viewing angle. I haven't seen a driver board for it though, so this panel might not even be an option.
• Quad 1440 for 2880 * 2880 (added [13:45])
  • The ultimate in "Could it be done??" technology.
  • Likely would require 2 cables.
  • As nits = candelas per square metre, preceived brightness should be higher, as the images of individual panels would be focused to a smaller area. 
  • Fitting so many screens (and related optics and electronics) might be an aesthetic challenge.
  • Blacks not as deep as OLED, and I wouldn't be suprised if colour accuracy is lower too. 
  • Obtains a larger image and framerate than the 2560 OLED.
  • Costs £340

My initial thought is to make the CAD design somewhat option agnostic, so that if I initially planned to use one and then decided to use something different instead, I haven't hard-coded myself hours of rework. I'm also thinking of eliminating the 2:1 ratio options in favour of being able to switch from landscape to portrait desktops.

I have also finally found a video that has the black PLDC film option against light:

I've been worried for a few days now that the film was going to be too dark, but this seems to be fine. I also looked around for electrochromic glass that (eventually) tints, but I can't find any purchase locations: