![]() But then I guess in that respect a circular screen is most efficientĬlick to expand.Its also a fact that you cant cover your vision horizontally even if you have a theoretically infite wide (planar) screen. ![]() By your logic it would be best to make the screen as wide as possible and only a few mm high as that would resemble the human FOV most accurately. If you look at other aspects like the area we can actually "focus" (see sharp) then you`ll see that the shape is more like a circle. If you further look at "high end cinema" (IMAX), you will see that the aspect-ratio 1.44 is somewhere between 1.33 (4:3) and 1.78 (16:9) - given it uses a nonplanar screen of course. ![]() My point here is not to prove that 4:3 is a more natural ratio, but to disprove that 16:9 covers your FOV better (or show "more") and sadly thats what the public was tought through marketing (which is about bulletpoints to sell product). In the end you need to use higher POVs to display more horizontally (or vertically), and on planar displays this leeds to distortions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |