h a l f b a k e r yTip your server.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Rectangular video formattings are well suited for a few things: reading text, displaying 2D tables, tiling(cartography) and pictures of rectangular objects, but that's about it.
For an application that emulates first-person "looking", ie: movies, entertainment TV, etc. the field-of-view and attention
focus of human eyesight is roughly elliptical: corner elements are so non-sequitur that TV networks often park advertisements there with almost no degradation of entertainment quality.
So that's the idea: elliptical recording/playback devices, and storage-format.
Using pixels, identical in both size and count, an elliptical screen will be almost 13% larger in both height and width than a comparable rectangular display. A 32" rectangular TV's worth of pixels is equivalent to a 36" elliptical TV.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
|
I think it'd make me feel like i'm in Flash Gordon or something. I have thought about spiral scanning in the past. I wouldn't see my field of view as elliptical, even though it sort of is (maybe more movie binocular-style field of view in that sense) because the back of my head isn't a colour. Interesting, [+]. |
|
|
It's not only physical field-of-view of course, but field of perception, which is mostly going to be centered since that's where cameramen put it. |
|
|
And yes, there's a good possibility that the Buck Rogers TV genre did futuristic elliptical screens for the same reason: a larger perceptive field for the same amount of electronic bandwidth. |
|
|
I was sure I had an annotation here somewhere... |
|
|
ah, you did, I went to swat a spider on the screen with my mouse pointer and hit the delete button... something about pork pie hats ? no, wait... |
|
|
"I don't see how manufacturing costs would be more expensive than rectangular unless LCD screens are cut out of immense swaths of tri-pixel sheets" (?). |
|
|
The contested figure 1.128
is (4/pi)œ : the answer to the oft-asked question "How much taller and wider is an elliptical screen compared to a rectangular screen of the same aspect ratio and surface area ?" |
|
|
ie: the 32" >> 36" claim is poetically licensed only in respect unit of measurement (diagonal inches). More precisely worded the resulting ellipse would fit into a 36" rectangle (36.1 actually). |
|
|
// TV networks often park advertisements there with
almost no degradation of entertainment quality. // |
|
|
That's a very subjective statement; once perhaps true, it
now only highlights the trend in animated ads, ads that
take up fully a third of the screen area, seizure-inducing
flashing ads, ads for the program that is currently playing
and, most maddening of all, twitter feeds. Honestly, I
really do not want to know what the tweeting viewer
thinks of a dime-store 'reality' show that's only in
production because it's a cheaper alternative to a test
pattern. |
|
|
In the same way as a soluble computer consisting of small components with LEDs on them (which is an old idea of mine) could shape itself differently, maybe a bunch of optical fibres could be arranged elliptically, rectangularly and so forth. |
|
| |