Prepare to be blinded by Apple's bright headset screens

Display analyst Ross Young claims to have specifications for the screens in Apple's forthcoming Apple AR headset, believed to be announced at WWDC.

Apple hasn't announced any details of its first foray into Augmented Reality headsets, and won't until at least WWDC. But any headset will feature two screens, one for each of the wearer's eyes, and Young says he has the details.

"You want more, I will give you more," begins his tweet as seen by AppleInsider. He goes on to list "Micro OLED specs for Apple's AR/VR headset," which are:

1.41 inches diagonal
Targeting 4000:1 contrast
Targeting >5000 nits of brightness

Ross Young of Display Supply Chain Consultants doesn't qualify his "targeting" word. So it's not clear whether these specifications, if correct, are from earlier plans for the device.

The brightness level Young quotes will be a peak level so it's not known what the level will be in regular use. For comparison, the Meta Quest 2 is reported to have 100 nits brightness on its single Fast Switch LCD screen.

That figure is not quoted by Sony itself, but appears in online discussions about it being too bright.

Similarly, Sony's Playstation VR2 has a stated brightness of 265 nits with its pair of OLED screens.

The use of micro OLED in the Apple AR or VR headset has been rumored for some time, and it's been expected that Samsung Display will produce the screens.

30 Comments

melgross 20 Years · 33622 comments

About 1 year ago

Greater than 5000 nits? That’s awfully bright. What we’re interested in is resolution, frames per second and latency. Unless AI isn’t giving, or first have all of his info, those are the specs that we all want to know.

tipoo 14 Years · 1122 comments

If it's Micro OLED and 5000 nits, why would the contrast ratio only be 4000 to 1? They already boast 2 million to 1 on their phone OLEDs at under half the brightness

Japhey 6 Years · 1772 comments

melgross said:

Greater than 5000 nits? That’s awfully bright. What we’re interested in is resolution, frames per second and latency. Unless AI isn’t giving, or first have all of his info, those are the specs that we all want to know.

Couldn’t agree more. The iPhone Pro’s peak at 2000 nits, and that’s in direct sunlight while being held a few feet from your face. These goggles will seal off the outside light and be an inch away from the retina. Perhaps there was an error in somebody’s reporting because >5000 nits seems unnecessarily excessive.

blastdoor 15 Years · 3594 comments

melgross said:

Greater than 5000 nits? That’s awfully bright. What we’re interested in is resolution, frames per second and latency. Unless AI isn’t giving, or first have all of his info, those are the specs that we all want to know.

Looking over this (https://pointerclicker.com/how-many-lumens-are-bad-for-your-eyes/#:~:text=In%20dark%20conditions%2C%2080%20lumens,luminosity%20of%20over%2010%2C000%20lumens.), I'm wondering if this is some kind of error. It sounds like 5000 nits (aka lumens) is close to being unsafe. (maybe they could call it a 'fried retina' display)

I wonder if maybe it's more like the 'equivalent' of what a monitor would look like in a lit room at a reasonable distance. In other words, maybe the actual brightness is much lower, but because the light is coming from a screen an inch from your eyeball and sealed off from outside light, the experience is similar to looking at a 5k lumen light source, but maybe it's nowhere near actually being 5k lumen??

MacPro 18 Years · 19845 comments

blastdoor said:

melgross said:

Greater than 5000 nits? That’s awfully bright. What we’re interested in is resolution, frames per second and latency. Unless AI isn’t giving, or first have all of his info, those are the specs that we all want to know.

Looking over this (https://pointerclicker.com/how-many-lumens-are-bad-for-your-eyes/#:~:text=In%20dark%20conditions%2C%2080%20lumens,luminosity%20of%20over%2010%2C000%20lumens.), I'm wondering if this is some kind of error. It sounds like 5000 nits (aka lumens) is close to being unsafe. (maybe they could call it a 'fried retina' display)

I wonder if maybe it's more like the 'equivalent' of what a monitor would look like in a lit room at a reasonable distance. In other words, maybe the actual brightness is much lower, but because the light is coming from a screen an inch from your eyeball and sealed off from outside light, the experience is similar to looking at a 5k lumen light source, but maybe it's nowhere near actually being 5k lumen??

My thoughts exactly. Kind of like folks with '600mm lenses' on their camera with a tiny sensor.