P3D Re: Computer Displays

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 
>From: GBMars <GBMars@xxxxxxx> writes:
>.............
>
>In response to my post:
>>>I wonder if it is really a problem that LCDs are generally small?  I mean,
>>>people
>>>buy large monitors to get higher resolution, but that doesn't apply (much)
>to
>>>LCDs.  If you could have 1280 x 960 (or 1024) pixels in a 12 inch display
>>>what's
>>>the problem?  I know - those of us over 40 can't focus close enough to see
>>>pixels that tiny!

*****  Higher resolution measured in pixels is one thing. Resolution of the
dot pitch itself is another. Larger screens seldom have a significant
difference in smaller dot pitch meaning pretty much the same problem with
jaggies, and the same single pixel depth equivalance that is generally too
large a step for work with stereo details. No existing CRT screen has a
small enough dot pitch to be comfortable. In painting directly in 3D, this
single pixel size problem is very tough to work around and has nothing to do
with whether or not you can resolve the individual pixels by themselves. The
problem is sensitivity to parallax. The vision, even of 40 something's, is
capable of resolving depth factors much smaller than the current smallest
horizontal pixel dimension.   The resolution that is needed is a
dramatically smaller dot pitch per pixel so that depth palcement in stereo
is controllable to a finer degree. How small a dot pitch is LCD capable of?


>.........................
>My point is that size of a display is irrelevent if you can place the display
>at the correct distance to form the same size image on the retina.  There
>are practical reasons we can't: (1) If it's too close we can't focus on it
>comfortably, and (2) most of us don't have enough room for a large,
>distant display.  "Room" can only be measured in pixels - it doesn't
>matter what size they are.  

****  Correction, *room* is related to visible area and can have any number
of different pixel sizes or densities within that area. An obvious example,
the grain of a photograph, shot with Medium Format, and printed at roughly
10" x 13" provides a greater resolution to the eye than a 17" monitor screen
image, which happens to be about 10" x 13", at the same distance ... 

If I have room for a 17" monitor of the CRT type, I likely have room for a
similar sized LCD panel, which I would hope provides a higher resolution and
smaller dot pitch.

>A larger font will use up more of the available
>pixels (leaving less room for others), but if you could use a small screen
>at a suitably close distance you wouldn't need to increase the font size.

*****  Assuming you put it very close, and used optics to allow the eye to
focus comfortably, I understand your intent. However, overall relative size
in viewing angle is still very relevant to arranging control panels and work
areas. A small screen, up close and magnified, would theoretically allow
design of larger relative work spaces and still be small in overall size.
Without special magnifying optics, which would have to be attached to the
head along with the panel to be practical, one is still dealing with an
average of 18 inches or so as a comfortable working distance. Smaller pixel
size increases the resolution for a given area so a given work space area at
a comfortable distance will have higher resolution.  That would improve the
stereo outlook tremendously making LCD panels have promise of good things.
Now for flicker glasses that aren't polarized...

I don't see the convenience and comfort of a display that is NOT attached to
the head disappearing anytime too soon, despite how suitable it might be for
game play, or miniaturization concerns.

Maybe we need head tracking lenticular optics so the sweet spot follows your
movements?

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


------------------------------