We were warned we might get sick, and I seem to remember being a bit
whoozy when I visited the Omniversum on a schooltrip in primary school.
Craig Birkmaier schreef op 12-07-2017 13:53:
On Jul 11, 2017, at 10:48 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Back to square one? Last time around, just days ago, you seemed to understand that video games designed for consoles create motion sickness if viewed up close with PCs. Where the game intended for a FOV of maybe 50 degrees is viewed in the range of as much as 100 degrees FOV.]
We're not talking about playing video games on screens 15-30 inches
from the viewer Bert. We are talking about TV and movies screens.
Why do you keep changing the subject to cover for the fact that you do
not understand what you are talking about?
All of that was already forgotten? Here's a most direct excerpt that makes the point, Craig. Followed by two other links you should read, to understand what the problem is.
https://www.howtogeek.com/241285/why-video-games-make-you-feel-sick-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/
TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, as I told you when you wrote this the first time.
And for the record there are millions of gamers who don't get sick.
People watch big screens all the time and do not get motion sickness.
A vague banality.
No. Reality Bert. They don't put motion sickness bags in the seats in
theaters...
The issue is FOV, and motion in the image. When a scene was filmed to be viewed within a certain max FOV, and you attempt to view that scene on a display with much greater FOV, that's when you get sick. Anyone who has ever sat in the front row of a movie theater will most likely have experienced this effect.
I've had to sit in the front rows of theaters, and did so
intentionally several times to experience the limited viewing distance
and to determine if the raster (pixels) could be seen at this
distance.
Sorry, nobody got sick, and one of those movies was a Star Wars
episode with lot's of motion.
You continue to spew garbage and to try to misdirect by using video
games as an example.
So, to get beyond square 1 again:
1. The ratio of FOV, horizontal to vertical, is *not* the same as the aspect ratio of a screen, as Craig assumes. The larger the FOV, the more the difference.
DUH.
But the last sentence is incorrect and meaningless.
For example, if you want to create relatively narrow FOV of 20 deg horizontal and 10 deg vertical, the screen aspect ratio is 2.02:1. Almost the same as the FOV ratio. But if you want to create FOV of, say, 120 horizontal and 60 vertical, the *FOV ratio* is still 2:1, but the screen aspect ratio has to be 3:1. ]
This is unbelievable - how do you come up with this crap?
The screen aspect ratio does not change. It just gets larger.
That's why we like wide screens better than square ones. The wider the horizontal FOV, the more extreme becomes the screen's aspect ratio. Or, of course, you can sit the viewer at the center and create a semicircular screen around him.
This is completely wrong.
IMAX covers the entire human FOV. The screen is 1.4:1
2. With the possibility of much wider screens offered by OLED, with minimal bulk, the issue of motion sickness will emerge. Sitting at, say, 1.5 screen heights, with a 16:9 screen, creates a horizontal FOV of 61.1 degrees. Your average TV or movie material, viewed that close, would very likely cause motion sickness for the majority of viewers. The size of the screen doesn't matter. What matters is the FOV, aka how far you are in picture heights, from the screen.
This information is simply wrong.
Again, please provide a link to a reputable source about the motion
sickness issue.
Just for fun yesterday, I sat at the "designed viewing distance" of
three picture heights from our HDTV. Motion was not an issue - but the
compression artifacts were highly visible. One other minor detail - at
that distance only two people can sit in front of the screen.
I've experienced 4K and 8K at 1-2 picture heights - no problem with
motion. What changes is that you MUST use directed eye movement to
search within the image, just as we do in the real world - You cannot
see the entire screen as a single sharp image - the visual system does
not work that way as I explained yesterday.
This link has a diagram and description of theater design
specifications that provides the exact information we are discussing -
i.e. The H & V field of view at various viewing distances measured in
picture heights. This is for a very wide screen 2.39:1.
http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013314viewing-angles/
Note that the ideal viewing distance is about 3 picture heights, with
the screen covering about a 45 degree field of view.
Visual search - directed eye movement - is essential when you cover
more than 30 degrees of the field of view - only a small portion of
the screen covers the fovea, the rest is covering the low resolution
rods outside the fovea. The ART of film making relies on the ability
of the director and cinematographer to focus your attention on what
THEY want you to watch...then the axe wielding attacker lurking in the
shadows lunges at the victim you are watching.
In any event, viewing at 2 screen heights of distance, which is probably a safer bet to avoid motion sickness, still benefits from more than just HD resolution.
