Japan Display Inc. (JDI), a display conglomerate created by Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi, today announced the development of a high pixel density, 3.25-inch 1001ppi LCD created specifically for VR headsets.

JDI says in a press release they plan to start commercial shipments by the end of March 2019, and will accelerate the design of even higher resolution displays for VR headsets in the future.

JDI announced a 803ppi (pixels per inch) LCD last year, but says that “even more compact-size LCDs and higher magnification lenses are required to decrease the size and weight of HMD devices.” High pixel densities are critical to reducing screen door effect and pixelation.

Image courtesy JDI

JDI’s upcoming 1001ppi low temperature polysilicon (LTPS) TFT LCD is said to feature an improved latency of 2.2 ms while operating at 120Hz refresh rate. 60Hz is widely considered the bare minimum for VR headsets, although many PC VR headsets including HTC Vive and Oculus Rift function at 90Hz—a necessity in reducing motion blur and screen flicker.

The new display is slightly more compact than the previous 803ppi panel, which featured a 3.6 inch, 1920 × 2160 resolution display running at 90Hz. The new 1001ppi display is said to feature a 2160 × 2432 resolution packed into a 3.25 inch size format at 120Hz. Current gen VR headsets tend to pack in panels around that size, making JDI’s panel ideal for future headsets with similar field of views.

SEE ALSO
Samsung's New VR Display Has Nearly 3.5x More Pixels Than Rift & Vive
Image courtesy JDI

For comparison, both the Vive and Rift use a pair of 1080 × 1200 displays with a ppi of ~456. Currently the market leaders in pixel density are Samsung Odyssey and HTC Vive Pro, both with the same Samsung-built panel at ~615 ppi. So the new JDI display has around a 120% higher ppi than Rift/Vive, and around 60% more than HTC Vive Pro/Samsung Odyssey.

The group will be showing off a pre-production model of the 1001ppi LCD at JDI’s booth at SID Display Week, which takes place May 22th – May 24th, 2018, in Los Angeles, CA.


A special thanks goes out to Matthias Bastian of German VR publication VRODO for pointing us to the news. Vielen Dank, Jungs.

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. See here for more information.


  • Raphael

    “Current gen VR headsets tend to pack in panels around that size, making
    JDI’s panel ideal for future headsets with similar field of views.” <<< What a bizarre statement. The number one feature VR fans want is BIGGER FOV than the current 105 diving goggles.

    A higher density display giving similar FOV is therefore a waste of time.

    • dk

      and bigger fov needs even more pixels if u don’t want it to look like crap

      • Raphael

        Pretty obvious no? I mean why would you think I meant bigger fov without increased density? I’m kind of shocked at the level of stupidity here.

        • dk

          lol just saying
          …..and it sounded exactly like u were saying that doubling the pixel density of the displays in the rift or any other headset is worthless without increasing the fov too….and that’s just nonsense

          • Raphael

            Increasing density at the same fov IS useless. 105 degrees is far below human FOV capability. The reason people are going mental about pimax is because of the FOV and pixel density. VR doesn’t need another year of 105 or lower FOV VR headsets coming to market. It seems that RoadtoVR might have an unsual/odd bunch who are perfectly happy with 105 degrees or lower but they don’t represent the wider field of public opinion.

          • dk

            xD haaa so u still don’t get it ….producing displays with higher and higher ppi is good for everyone including the companies wanting to make headsets with big fov

            the rift and vive should have at least matched the gearvr resolution…the resolution they launched with is a joke ….even the resolution of the headsets with “higher res” that r out today is a joke but that’s what we get without foviated rendering and without other optimisations like that

          • Raphael

            Producing higher res displays is never a bad thing. But the consumer VR market demands increased FOV so there is a limited time-frame for new displays at low FOV. While a percentage here are very happy with 105 degrees or less… a larger percentage of VR users are excited about pimax for obvious reasons.

            And NO… CV1 and Vive should not have launched with a resolution matching a 3dof mobile phone VR system. They launched with the most practical displays at the time. Your using mobile phone VR as the yardstick for desktop VR is laughable.

            CV1 and Vive were the culmination of a lot of R&D and time and not simply dropping a mobile phone into a plastic shell.

          • dk

            lol so u got this right
            rift/vive ———-1080×1200 per eye
            1440p phone—-1280×1440 per eye
            the res of the original rift/vive is a joke precisely because the daydream/gearvr had much better angular resolution since before the rift/vive were on the market………but they had plenty of reasons going with a shitty resolution like that

          • Raphael

            You basically have the mental capacity of a 5 year old. You keep using the word “joke” and “shitty” to describe Vive and CV1. Twats like you shouldn’t be given the opportunity to use VR. In 2006 I owned an IO-Systems PC3d. It was 800×600 with zero contrast LCD and colours that changed randomly when the unit heated up. No head-tracking, no software and no VR controllers. DK1 was a big step up, DK2 was a bigger step up. CV1 and Vive are massive steps-up. If you love gearVR so much because it has higher res then fuck-off and play with it.

            You keep crapping on about mobile VR as if it represents the ultimate just because the screen res was higher.

            CV1 and Vive were built on the best available tech at the time based on supply constraints. Custom VR displays instead of mobile displays with lower refresh. Grow the fuck-up and drop the “joke” and “shitty” because it just makes you look like a stupid cunt.

          • dk

            got it cunt :P …so u did realize that gearvr had much better angular resolution since before the rift/vive came to the market ….and they should have at least met that level of pixel density
            I am not saying mobile vr is great …I am saying the choice to go with lower angular resolution than mobile vr is a joke…..and it’s obvious why I’m using that word…because it is

          • Raphael
          • dk
          • GunnyNinja

            Once you guys devolve into insulting each other, nothing else you have to say is interesting any longer.

          • dk

            well I’m just repeating the same insult he is spewing…..it’s a neat way that he might realize what he sounds like

          • GunnyNinja

            He doesn’t care what he sounds like. He lives in his own little bubble where HIS opinion is the only one that matters. If you play in the mud with him, you come out just as dirty…I simply blocked him. I’d rather use my fingers picking blades of grass than to keep engaging him. THAT would be a bigger waste of time…

          • Raphael

            Knobhead.

          • GunnyNinja

            lol, water, duck’s back. I hope you know the rest…

          • GunnyNinja

            Based on your argument, snipers would want scopes with no magnification but the ability to see more people to shoot…

          • Raphael

            You’re a retard eh? So you also think I’d suggest wider fov without increasing pixels density? You brainless mong.

          • GunnyNinja

            You said one without the other is a waste of time, yet all of these years snipers have done so well without EVER needing a wider fov. When you get to where you are going, ask those who received the headshots how that worked out for them…

          • Raphael

            So your sniper argument is applicable to VR and all entertainment systems eh? Imax movie theaters with 30 degree FOV? My jaw drops at the level of stupidity on show here over the past few days.

            A sniper scope has fuck-all relevance to VR you twat. VR hardware developers are aiming for natural human FOV. Oculus is projecting a 140 over the next few years and pimax 8k is close to human FOV.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      I think it’s split, a major part of the VR fans want a bigger fov, but another major group rather wants a higher resolution.. But as long as the current crop of GPU’s aren’t good enough to even easily drive the current headsets it’s a bit mute.. Only a small group will buy the very expensive highend GPU’s to even be able to drive the current headsets with decend framerate/visuals..

      • Raphael

        Current gen VR isn’t relevant to new developments in higher density display. So that is irrelevant. 3d stacked GPU dies and foveated rendering will bring massive performance increase. Foveated rendering will be handled by the GPU in hardware. The reason people go crazy about pimax is exactly because of the massive FOV. The idea that “i’m ok with 105 degrees so long as I get 20,000 pixels per inch” is really cute and all but rather silly.

    • GunnyNinja

      I disagree. I would gladly trade FOV to be able to clearly see what IS in view.

      • Firestorm185

        agreed. I’m totally fine with the current fov.

        • Raphael

          Bleating about how fine you are with 105 puts you in a small minority. Bigger fov is the most common request from VR users. So your personal preference for small fov isn’t typical at all. Nice try though.

          • Rogue Transfer

            70% “Same FOV, double the resolution”

            30% “Same resolution, double the FOV”

            Source: https://www.strawpoll.me/15598956/r

          • Raphael

            Ahhh… a 112 vote poll. Well I have to hand it to you flappy… impeccable data harvesting. Clearly those 112 votes paint an overwhelmingly accurate picture of VR user’s thoughts. Makes you wonder why pimax is getting any attention/excitement/interest.

          • Sandy Wich

            I’m amazed myself.

            I shook my head and now I need to get drunk tonight.

          • rabs

            I’m in the same boat as most people, except what seems to be a vocal minority: density first, then FOV.
            And no upscaling: addressable pixels because the goal is to have more detail.

            We’ll get everything down the road, it’s only about current priorities.

            Anyway, we won’t decide anything here. Hardware manufacturers are hopefully doing market studies instead of reading comments on websites.

          • GunnyNinja

            Why is it so hard for you to be disagreed with. A 112 vote poll with 70% of the respondents saying what the MAJORITY of people here are saying doesn’t make your claim better. Having a wider fov with SDE is not a great tradeoff. The number one thing that makes sense is to get rid of SDE before you improve anything else. “A higher density display giving similar FOV is therefore a waste of time.” Not a waste of time for me. That’s why people are buying the Vive Pro. Otherwise, what’s the point of it?

          • Raphael

            Missing the point flappy…the poll is fucking retarded. Look at the poll question…. “Would you choose wide fov at same resolution?” – well it’s utterly stupid. Why would anyone choose wider field of view at current resolution. Anyone voting for that is too dumb to live. Thus it does not need to be stated that increasing fov requires a pixel density increase to go with it. The fact that so many idiots here would even think I meant wider fov without increasing pixels is proof beyond all doubt that some of you are too fucking dumb to be using any vr.

          • Firestorm185

            I mean, if we could get both higher resolution and higher FOV I’d be fine with that, I’d just rather have higher resolution before higher fov. And I don’t really care if my preference is a small minority, it’s my opinion.

          • Raphael

            I’d rather move on to higher resolution and fov…hence pimax. If they can solve the issues.

    • sfmike

      Not particularly as we want both better FOV and pixel density. A blurry wide FOV is just as lame as a blurry small FOV.

      • Raphael

        Missing the point? Where did I state that people wanted bigger fov without increased density. Don’t act stupid.

        • Harry Cox

          me-ow! This cat’s got claws

      • kool

        Your talking about field of view, foveated rendering is super high resolution rendering where ever your eyes are focused like how your eyes work in real life.

  • Justin Davis

    Wrong 3rd sentence? “For comparison, both the Vive and Rift use a pair of 1080 × 1200 displays with a ppi of ~456. Currently the market leader in pixel density is HTC Vive Pro with ~615 ppi. So the new JDI display has around a 45% higher ppi than Rift/Vive, and around 60% more than HTC Vive Pro.”

    • Thanks for the message, Justin. I noticed shortly after publishing that my math was a bit wibbly and tried to update before I was ousted. :P

      Thanks again for keeping an eye on us! Your keen eye is greatly appreciated.

  • Arium

    Having 120hz is quite a big deal though

  • gothicvillas

    Sony ramping up for ps5 and psvr 2 announcement

  • David Herrington

    So it appears that this will be showing the same week as Google and LG’s ultra high density panel as well. While the Google/LG panel has a reported 1443 ppi to the new JDI panel’s 1001 ppi.
    I’m guessing this JDI panel will be going into the PSVR 2.0 after PS5 releases.

    • Who’s this?

      Also price and deployment is a factor. If JDI can roll out more displays for less, they still win in spite of a lower PPI. Of course if the LG display is proportionally higher then there is a market by far, but that would be for business and professional markets.

      • David Herrington

        I agree wholeheartedly. If JDI’s new display really is going into PSVR 2.0 then that would be amazing. I hope both of them end up being amazing.

  • GunnyNinja

    It’s just wrong to say the current market leader is Vive Pro instead of Samsung Odyssey. Give the credit to the people Vive got it from…

    • MarquisDeSang

      Oculus Go has the highest resolution if you count subpixels. 20% more than vive pro or odyssey.

    • Raphael

      Vive pro leads nothing except as a piece of hardware alienating Vive users by pricing the hardware beyond their reach. Samsung Odyssey offers the same displays at lower cost.

  • brubble

    As long as new lenses arent crap, no more Vaseline goggles.

  • cataflic

    Screen ppi is a secondary problem…they will fit it with incredible density…the actual problem is the rendering!
    For many years no device will have enough gpu power to render a such wide number of pixels at 120hz and only fovetead solution will be possible.
    Meachanical ones, software, mixed ones…there is the answer! or…wait for gpu to scale up 4 generation.

    • Raphael

      GPU rendering isn’t a problem. People can’t think past current gen GPU when discussing pixel density of VR displays. 3d stacking of GPU die together with GPU hardware foveated rendering will deliver much greater bandwidth.

      • cataflic

        We are not talking about “problems”, but only about how, when and costs.
        To render a foveted central image in somewhat “human eye resolution” display you must basically have a 8k minimum per eye and render only the central fov in an area about 3000×3000 with maximum clarity end than the rest blurred.
        You must add 2 super ppi screens, a complete system of no latency foveting and a pc to hold that monstre bandwidth….a stuff for dreamers…too many expensive components…many years to deliver.
        1/2 years for screens
        2/3 years for foveted systems
        3/4 years for gpu
        This will be an enterprise system…no retail…2 years more…2023?
        And more realistic ones must have 16k per eye…

  • kontis

    You forgot to mention that Vive and Rift have LARGER screens (~3.6 inch), so this won’t offer similar FOV, but smaller. This is a useless piece of tech.

  • MW

    Great. But customer care about time and price. We have private Jets and space ships but for average Joe it’s pointless information.

  • 2.2ms GtG is sufficiently low to allow blur-reduction strobing at 120Hz. This is fantastic news — a VR-form-factor strobeable LCD! Like ULMB. 120Hz normally only halves motion blur over 60Hz, so you have to do additional persistence-lowering techniques, which Oculus/VIVE already does.

  • Sandy Wich

    Hurry up dammit I want a proper large FOV headset so my neck don’t hurt and I don’t get scurd while playing Skyrim in some stupid ass’d scuba goggles.

  • Raphael

    Having 120hz at higher resolution would clearly (pun) be a step-up from 90hz 1280. The issue is that this tech may not appear anytime soon and people do want increased fov !!!!!!!AND!!!!!!!! Pixel density at the same time for GEN2. So this tech at “current fov” would only be viable in the short term. A significant percentage of vr users and potential vr users are getting impatient for gen2 consumer vr. This is the reason pimax is creating a stir. If pimax can fix the lens issues and release over the next few months then 105 degree high density VR might have a problem. On the other hand it looks like pimax is really struggling with decreasing display HZ. Started at 90 and is now creeping down towards the 60s.

    In any case…if this 120hz display tech is another year from release in a commercial product then 120hz may be it’s only selling point. Clearly some of you are happy with 105 fov for the rest of your lives but that’s just because you’re weird. Very weird.

  • Kenji Fujimori

    Of course we Japanese produce the best, never buy Chinese!