h a l f b a k e r yWhere life irritates science.
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
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.
[link]
|
| |
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. |
|
| |