How come most people put 2 monitors side to side, instead of stacking them?

D

dalearyous

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
1,922
i was just curious. i just bought a 24" dell u2412m and i currently own a benq fp241vw. if you guys know what the fp241vw looks like, putting them side by side isn't going to look nice because of the legs and bezel on the fp241vw. so i figured, i would stack them. the u2412m would fit really nicely below the fp241vw and with a pair of L brackets from the wall i could do it and make them touch. i browsed through people's pictures and most don't have it this way. is there any good reason why?
 
Our visions viewing area is wider than it is tall. The same reason wide screen format came out. Other than ergonomics, you don't need new mounting brackets for side by side. When I had 4 screens, I had them in a rotated L with 3 wide and one stacked. It didn't get much use besides watching videos while doing work on the other 3. In the end just do what works best for you.
 
Mr34727 said:
Because our eyes are side by side
Click to expand...

Our brains don't generate two images from our eyes though, so how they're arranged has little bearing on what's easier to work with. Although having them side by side does allow for a wider peripheral vision, we don't work in that area of our field of view. We still have to move our eyes and heads to focus on different screens, and it's easier to move left or right than it is to move up or down.
 
When working with 4:3 or 5:4 monitors in the CRT age, it was perfect to have two monitors side by side. Now with the 16:10 or 16:9, placing them sideby side is way to long imho for productivity (not gaming). One has to turn his head quite a bit to have proper view of secondary display. The reason why I prefer either 24+20' sidebyside in horizontal, or 30'+20" pivoted.
 
dude the eyes are round. that is 1:1 monitor would be best for the eyes. 4:3 was a good compromise ... 16:9 and 16:10 etc are mainly for special effects or fitting more than one doc on the screen.
 
1:1 per eye = 2:1 for humans with two eyes. Hence 8:3 (2x 4:3) was pretty close. 16:9, 16:10 as single monitors but not in dual setups.
 
not 2:1 but 1:1 2d from one eye and 2d from the other eye overlap to become 3d. thats it. nothing to do with 2:1. it is still 1:1
 
Human visual fields are panoramic.
If you are staring at a fixed point directly ahead of you, your peripheral vision extends out to roughly 90 degrees to each side (ie 180 degress laterally), but only about 60 degrees above and below (ie about 120 degrees vertically).
The fact that peripheral vision extends so far out to the sides makes the human visual field very panoramic. Any flat object further away than your nose cannot exceed your lateral field. The same is not true for vetical field
Click to expand...
&

For the "hunter/gatherer" the horizon is the most important, so the bottom of the trapezoid is wider than the top. We scan up into the trees a bit, establishing the height. The height is sort of a maximum, we may scan up a certain amount to assess predators or prey lurking above, but we will reduce the height of a visual field if the horizon is free of opportunities for predator or prey.
Click to expand...
Though
in the periphery, our vision is mostly a blurry mess, which is very kin on detecting movement rather than detail
Click to expand...
There is a reason why films are made in such wide AR 2.35 etc.
 
drtc said:
There is a reason why films are made in such wide AR 2.35 etc.
Click to expand...

That is nonsense.

Our actual field of view is closer to 4:3 (1.333:1) than 2.35. The reason movies are 2:35:1 is marketing.

If you are using multiple monitors, you will not be using your peripheral vision. You WILL move your head to orient directly on one monitor at a time.

For most people turning your head side to side to switch which monitor you orient on is more comfortable than moving your head up and down.

It is also much easier to setup monitor for side by side than vertically stacked which will usually require a specialized stand.
 
Last edited:
Funny the OP should ask this question...

Throughout my computing life, I have always been a one or two monitor setup guy.
I love the functionality of having two monitors (side-by-side), but I always end up going back to a single monitor because I find the field of view to be a bit too wide with two (especially 16:9) screens.
I also love my music (audio in general) and having two monitors tends to force my speakers
too far out on ether side, which in turn ruins their imaging.

Right now I have two Dell UZ2711's but am only using one for the reasons above.

Just this morning I started thinking of the possibility of stacking both screens as an interesting answer to solve my problem. :)

The only negative I can think of is that I may not like having to look up and down between the two monitors... but we'll see.
 
drtc the eye is 1:1. the placement of the eye from side by side is for creating a perception of depth.

monocular 2D vision of 1:1 of the left eye and monocular 2D vision of 1:1 of the right eye are processed by the brain by overlapping the information received from both the eyes, this creates a 3D 1:1 binocular vision ie depth perception. peripheral vision is equal on all sides because the eye is not oblong but round. you can verify this by opening your eyes wide and noting how widely you can see from left to right and top to down instead of debating here. they are basically focusing on the same 1:1 field of vision.

infact when working at a desk, at a time you can only focus on either the right or the left of a 16:9 screen the remainder being a peripheral distraction.

so if you have something really important to read get a. 4:3 system so there is no bright periphery to distract. 20:30:20 etc are basically useful for cad/cam or gaming spreading out the design over many monitors and working one at a time on each part or gaming using peripheral vision or additional info boxes which again you can focus one at a time.
 
Last edited:
Actual maximum of your eyesight is 3:2 (180/120, some argue 200/120). But, that doesn't mean this ratio is the most comfortable one. 140 degrees horizontal makes the max stereovision, while you have 40 degrees extra horizontal for peripherial vision.

How this affects you practically vs. the aspect ratio of the screen, depends on the distance you have to the screen (since its angle dependent).

As of the "golden ratio" for rectangles, this was already definded thousands of years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Which is: 1:1.61803 or close to 16:10

All a matter of eyesight or taste though when it comes to screens. :)
 
dalearyous said:
i was just curious. i just bought a 24" dell u2412m and i currently own a benq fp241vw. if you guys know what the fp241vw looks like, putting them side by side isn't going to look nice because of the legs and bezel on the fp241vw. so i figured, i would stack them. the u2412m would fit really nicely below the fp241vw and with a pair of L brackets from the wall i could do it and make them touch. i browsed through people's pictures and most don't have it this way. is there any good reason why?
Click to expand...

Its mostly because of comfort when it comes to two screens. Having them in height instead of width gives more strain on neck and requires you to move further away if you wish to keep both screens within your field of view. Optimally, you should look a little downwards on your screens if to be ergonomical correct.
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
Actual maximum of your eyesight is 3:2 (180/120, some argue 200/120). But, that doesn't mean this ratio is the most comfortable one. 140 degrees horizontal makes the max stereovision, while you have 40 degrees extra horizontal for peripherial vision.
Click to expand...

None of this matters for multiple screens and your stereovision numbers seem ultrawide to me and certainly not in an ergonomic range. Consider that the absolute maximum of all viewing angle standards for for viewing theatrical materials (THX) has 40 degrees as the Maximum viewing angle (THX ranges from 28 to 40 degrees, 36 degrees is the recommended).

But again, that doesn't matter for multiple screens.

Ergonomic studies have shown that viewing distance for multiple screens is the same as for one single screen on that type because people orient on one screen at a time.
 
Last edited:
wow i didn't mean to spark a debate. stacking the monitors for me is the ONLY way to have very little room in between the displays. a pair of L brackets will easily allow me to do this, and if i don't like it i will make a shelf.

you guys are probably right on it creating more strain on my neck. i think i will try both and see. i just wish this fp241vw wasn't in this crazy setup.
 
Snowdog said:
None of this matters for multiple screens and your stereovision numbers seem ultrawide to me and certainly not in an ergonomic range. Consider that the absolute maximum of all viewing angle standards for for viewing theatrical materials (THX) has 40 degrees as the Maximum viewing angle (THX ranges from 28 to 40 degrees, 36 degrees is the recommended).

But again, that doesn't matter for multiple screens.

Ergonomic studies have shown that viewing distance for multiple screens is the same as for one single screen on that type because people orient on one screen at a time.
Click to expand...

Numbers quoted are max stereovision for the human eyesight and the post you quoted clearly states "140 degrees horizontal makes the max stereovision". Are you contesting those numbers?

THX standard for cinema has a 36 degress angle as minimum, not maximum. Its taken from the seat furthest behind. All the other seats in front of that, would have a wider angle:

thx-certified-cinema-screen-placement-616x462.jpg

http://www.thx.com/professional/cinema-certification/thx-certified-cinema-screen-placement/

But, this is not a matter of cinematic setup, is it?

Otherwise, the focusing on single screen, depends on usage. If you do trading, you focus on several screens at once and then scans. If you game in surround or eyefinity with 3 screens, you use the center screen for central vision, while the side screens for peripherial vision.
If you do photoshop, you might use one screen as center, while side screen for paletts and/or proofing.

I would be very happy if there excisted a single answer to all this, but it doesn't. :)
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
Numbers quoted are max stereovision for the human eyesight and the post you quoted clearly states "140 degrees horizontal makes the max stereovision". Are you contesting those numbers?

THX standard for cinema has a 36 degress angle as minimum, not maximum. Its taken from the seat furthest behind. All the other seats in front of that, would have a wider angle:
Click to expand...

And the 40 degree number I stated previously is the Maximum.
http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/hdtv-set-up/
seat-distance-display-setup-400x300.jpg


The 140 degree number you quoted seems off the mark, so provide some backing for that. binocular vision requires both eyes overlap in field of view. It seems unlikely.

THX recommendations do also apply to working monitors because human ergonomics come into play in both cases:
http://experts.ergoindemand.com/ergonomic-standards-larger-multimonitor-displays-2/

Point summary:
Looking up is definitely not good from an ergonomic perspective (why monitor stacking should be a last resort).
Bigger monitors require, longer viewing distances, subjects moved them further than the diagonal away (close the the 40 degree ergonomic comfort zone).
Dual monitors OTOH required no increase in viewing distance (horizontal arrangement).

So horizontal works best from an ergonomic point of view, because studies show low monitor position is the most strain free. Adding another horizontal monitor keeps the optimal low monitor position.
Added bonus is that you working distance doesn't change adding second smaller monitor as you orient on them separately, each can be comfortably (one at a time) observed in an ergonomic FOV.
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
And the 40 degree number I stated previously is the Maximum.
http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/hdtv-set-up/
seat-distance-display-setup-400x300.jpg


The 140 degree number you quoted seems off the mark, so provide some backing for that. binocular vision requires both eyes overlap in field of view. It seems unlikely.

THX recommendations do also apply to working monitors because human ergonomics come into play in both cases:
*http://experts.ergoindemand.com/ergonomic-standards-larger-multimonitor-displays-2/

Point summary:
Looking up is definitely not good from an ergonomic perspective (why monitor stacking should be a last resort).
Bigger monitors require, longer viewing distances, subjects moved them further than the diagonal away (close the the 40 degree ergonomic comfort zone).
Dual monitors OTOH required no increase in viewing distance (horizontal arrangement).

So horizontal works best from an ergonomic point of view, because studies show low monitor position is the most strain free. Adding another horizontal monitor keeps the optimal low monitor position.
Added bonus is that you working distance doesn't change adding second smaller monitor as you orient on them separately, each can be comfortably (one at a time) observed in an ergonomic FOV.
Click to expand...

So, now I have showed that 36 degrees THX minimum for cinema's, you have shown 40 degrees THX maximum for HDTV. Can we now agree that the THX recommandations doesn't mean anything for dual monitors and shouldn't even be brought up in this, or do you have a THX max/min recommandation for computer monitors?

As I said, there is no one solution and it depends on usage. But, I don't think THX applies unless the content is movies and he's watching it on TV.

Finding a link for 140 maximum stereo is not so easy as finding for 120 average, but here's one:
The human eyes have nearly a 180° horizontal field of view, but binocular vision only covers about 140° since the fields of the two eyes don't fully overlap.
Click to expand...
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/3d/stereo/3dgallery14.htm

Here's one for the 120 average:
http://www.best-3dtvs.com/guides/best-screen-size-viewing-distance/
Notice that they also speak about your THX, but they use another reccomandation (not that this is relevant either for computer usage, but its interesting that they use 140 as upper bound):

THX recommends that for optimal viewing, the field of view for a home theater setup should be larger than 36 degrees (meaning a total FOV of 36×2 = 72). Thus in any THX certified theater, a viewer in the last row of the theater would still experience a field of view of 36 degrees. While there is no established upper bound on the maximum field of view, it is obvious that a field of view of 180 for a TV screen (squash your face right into the screen!) would be exceedingly uncomfortable and induce nausea and disorientation. The upper bound for maximum field of view is around 70 degrees (total FOV of 140 degrees), which corresponds to the maximum field of view inclusive of peripheral vision that we can typically view.
Click to expand...

In any case, the comfort zone of a TV isn't equal the comfort zone of a computer. Sitting in a sofa is not something I would recommend either for a computer screen. Ergonomically, this is what you want:

goodpcmonitor.jpg


This is what is recommended for computer usage:
The computer monitor should be placed so the top of the screen is at or just below eye level when seated in an upright position. The following suggestions can help prevent the development of eye strain, neck pain and shoulder fatigue while using your computer workstation:
Click to expand...
http://www.uos.harvard.edu/ehs/ih/compergo_equipment.shtml

THX recommandations are worthless for PC, since you need to be able to read text comfortably in most cases.

As I mentioned previously, for multi-mon, it depends on the what its used for. There is no simple solution or THX recommandation that applies.
 
our vision is not more side to side. its that objects around us are generally speaking in a more horizontal plane. so when we walk around we see important things to our side.

the reason films are wide, is because you CANNOT just walk around or turn your head, so information on the side is more useful.
take this pic:
http://dvdmedia.ign.com/dvd/image/widelotr_01.jpg
having a more vertical aspect ratio would not help, because people stand side by side to each other.
this is the reason films are widescreen. not your vision.

when run multiple monitors for non gaming this does not apply, and 100% depends on the situation.
 
dalearyous said:
i was just curious. i just bought a 24" dell u2412m and i currently own a benq fp241vw. if you guys know what the fp241vw looks like, putting them side by side isn't going to look nice because of the legs and bezel on the fp241vw. so i figured, i would stack them. the u2412m would fit really nicely below the fp241vw and with a pair of L brackets from the wall i could do it and make them touch. i browsed through people's pictures and most don't have it this way. is there any good reason why?
Click to expand...

It is getting lost in the noise here, but any ergonomic study of monitor use will show you want a low monitor position. usually the TOP of the monitor is below eye level.

This is nearly impossible with stacked monitors.

You can pretty much stop there. Stacked monitor are not ergonomic, it will lead to strain, discomfort. People only stack monitors when they exhaust the Horizontal options first.
From the testing these folks did, dual horizontal monitors don't change the ergonomic requirements (like a larger monitor would):
http://experts.ergoindemand.com/ergonomic-standards-larger-multimonitor-displays-2/
 
Last edited:
Tamlin_WSGF said:
S
Here's one for the 120 average:
http://www.best-3dtvs.com/guides/best-screen-size-viewing-distance/
Notice that they also speak about your THX, but they use another reccomandation (not that this is relevant either for computer usage, but its interesting that they use 140 as upper bound):
Click to expand...

You are going to use clueless nonsense at a third rate blog to make your point?

Perhaps you should actually read it. He thinks all the FOV numbers everyone is reporting are actually only half the angle. Thus he thinks the 36 degree THX number is 72 degrees.

He then goes on to recommend 70 (which he thinks is 140 degrees) for home theater... :rolleyes:
 
ok i think i will agree with the ergonomics argument and try out side by side first and get them as close as possible.
 
Snowdog said:
You are going to use clueless nonsense at a third rate blog to make your point?

Perhaps you should actually read it. He thinks all the FOV numbers everyone is reporting are actually only half the angle. Thus he thinks the 36 degree THX number is 72 degrees.

He then goes on to recommend 70 (which he thinks is 140 degrees) for home theater... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

My point there was about the human eye vision numbers you asked for, so I took first link and that was just a side point. If they are unsatisfactory, I can find more. As I mentioned, there are many showing binocoluar vision of a total of 120 average, but few that shows the range (maximum).

He recommends 70 as 140 degrees, i see that now, at least he's not using THX recommandations for a home theater setup in a discussion of pc monitors. I hope you see now and we can agree that its not applicable.


dalearyous said:
ok i think i will agree with the ergonomics argument and try out side by side first and get them as close as possible.
Click to expand...

So you gave up the L-bracket? :) If you can get them side by side, I think you will feel most comfortable like that in the long run. You could also try to tuck one screen behind the other to minimize the bezel size.
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
My point there was about the human eye vision numbers you asked for, so I took first link and that was just a side point. If they are unsatisfactory, I can find more. As I mentioned, there are many showing binocoluar vision of a total of 120 average, but few that shows the range (maximum).
Click to expand...

So you will just post anything as long as it agrees with you? If you can find something reputable that says the overlapping binocular FOV is 140 degrees as you first stated, I would like to see that. It seems quite dubious to me as your max left angle is limited by your right eye and vice-versa. You are only left with the central region that both eyes see. 140 seems too wide...
 
Snowdog said:
So you will just post anything as long as it agrees with you? If you can find something reputable that says the overlapping binocular FOV is 140 degrees as you first stated, I would like to see that. It seems quite dubious to me as your max left angle is limited by your right eye and vice-versa. You are only left with the central region that both eyes see. 140 seems too wide...
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The original source is gone years ago and the only reason to show you the numbers, is to show that I didn't take them out of thin air. There are variations like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupillary_distance]pupillary distance which affects this so the number is not equal to all.

As mentioned, finding average is easy, finding the range again is not so easy (other then documenting that there is a range). It being 120 or 140 won't change anything in the discussion otherwise, but I'll make an effort to find documentation of 140 since it seems important to you. ;)

I hope this means we agree that your "THX recommandations for home theater" isn't relevant at all here, so we are at least done with that part and all that remains is you getting some info about binocular vision?
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
As mentioned, finding average is easy, finding the range again is not so easy (other then documenting that there is a range). It being 120 or 140 won't change anything in the discussion otherwise, but I'll make an effort to find documentation of 140 since it seems important to you. ;)

I hope this means we agree that your "THX recommandations for home theater" isn't relevant at all here, so we are at least done with that part and all that remains is you getting some info about binocular vision?
Click to expand...

You are the one that brought the 140 degree red herring into this discussion, and indicated that this somehow mattered to the discussion.

I only brought up the THX 40 degree limit to counter that notion, I further backed it up with an ergonomic study on larger monitor for DESKTOP use where people moved them back until they were at a similar narrow field of view.
 
i haven't given up on the L bracket, ill try both and like i said before ... L brackets may turn into a shelf
 
Snowdog said:
You are the one that brought the 140 degree red herring into this discussion, and indicated that this somehow mattered to the discussion.

I only brought up the THX 40 degree limit to counter that notion, I further backed it up with an ergonomic study on larger monitor for DESKTOP use where people moved them back until they were at a similar narrow field of view.
Click to expand...

No, I talked about the aspect ratio (3:2) of the human vision where the stereoscopic part was a subpart of. This had been discussed earlier in the same thread. In the same post, I brought up the golden ratio of close to 16:10. That post was about ratio vs. eyesight.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037889490&postcount=14

Then I made a post answering OP about ergonomy and stacking screens in height instead of width.:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037889535&postcount=15

Then you brought up the THX which was irrelevant to both posts.
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
Actual maximum of your eyesight is 3:2 (180/120, some argue 200/120). But, that doesn't mean this ratio is the most comfortable one. 140 degrees horizontal makes the max stereovision, while you have 40 degrees extra horizontal for peripherial vision.

How this affects you practically vs. the aspect ratio of the screen, depends on the distance you have to the screen (since its angle dependent).
Click to expand...

You ARE the one that brought it up and it was this post I was answering.
 
Snowdog said:
You ARE the one that brought it up and it was this post I was answering.
Click to expand...

I brought up the aspect ratio of the eyes and the golden ratio.

What THX recommends for home theater regarding where you position yourself according to a screen have nothing to do with it.

You are questioning the numbers, which is fine (as I mentioned, 140 as max stereovision or less doesn't alter this), but you are also missing the point of post.

This is what you quoted and answered from that post:

Actual maximum of your eyesight is 3:2 (180/120, some argue 200/120). But, that doesn't mean this ratio is the most comfortable one. 140 degrees horizontal makes the max stereovision, while you have 40 degrees extra horizontal for peripherial vision.
Click to expand...
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037889580&postcount=16

I am talking about aspect ratio, not field of view relative to viewport as in where to sit given an object of certain aspect ratio watching material with a set fov.

on another part from same post:

How this affects you practically vs. the aspect ratio of the screen, depends on the distance you have to the screen (since its angle dependent).
Click to expand...
Is where I say that viewport matter without going indepth on that part. My point of this post was after all not about viewport, but aspect ratio.

You are making an argument which is not there, and mixes THX for home theater which doesn't matter neither to the thread about computer screens nor about the physical, human vision's aspect ratio from my post.

Please explain how THX for home theater mixes into this. There is no disagreement that there are certain pro's and cons regarding viewport, but as I have stated, the viewport is relative to the content.

If you do trading, you might want to have all screens in your viewport. If to do gaming in surround or eyefinity, you might want to have middle screen in central vision while side screens in peripherial vision etc. as mentioned in previous post. Our only disagreement about viewport, is that I mean its relative to content, while you are stuck on THX.
 
Last edited:
Tamlin_WSGF said:
I am talking about aspect ratio, not field of view relative to viewport as in where to sit given an object of certain aspect ratio watching material with a set fov.
Click to expand...

Aspect ratio doesn't change with viewing distance. FOV does.

So when you brought up 140 degrees of FOV and then said "How this affects you practically vs. the aspect ratio of the screen, depends on the distance you have to the screen "

You are indicating that the "140 degree FOV" (sic) somehow matters in this discussion about monitor viewing ergonomics.

It doesn't, that is the only reason I brought the THX FOV and Ergo studies on Larger monitors. For ergonomic reason you want to limit to a more narrow FOV, which seems to converge around 40 degrees whether it is desktop monitor or theaters. The human limits of FOV don't remotely matter, because you want a much narrower, more ergonomically comfortable range. As much as you like to harp on the THX thing similar FOV ergonomics are at play and is backed by the smaller ergonomic study link I mentioned several times now. 40 degrees is certainly closer to a comfortable working FOV than 140 degrees.

Whether the actual human stereo visual limit is 100 or 140 degrees is irrelevant because it doesn't matter at all. I just questioned the 140 as an aside as it struck me as one of the pulled from someones behind numbers than doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
Aspect ratio doesn't change with viewing distance. FOV does.

So when you brought up 140 degrees of FOV and then said "How this affects you practically vs. the aspect ratio of the screen, depends on the distance you have to the screen "

You are indicating that the "140 degree FOV" (sic) somehow matters in this discussion about monitor viewing ergonomics.

It doesn't, that is the only reason I brought the THX FOV and Ergo studies on Larger monitors. For ergonomic reason you want to limit to a more narrow FOV, which seems to converge around 40 degrees whether it is desktop monitor or theaters. The human limits of FOV don't remotely matter, because you want a much narrower, more ergonomically comfortable range. As much as you like to harp on the THX thing similar FOV ergonomics are at play and is backed by the smaller ergonomic study link I mentioned several times now. 40 degrees is certainly closer to a comfortable working FOV than 140 degrees.

Whether the actual human stereo visual limit is 100 or 140 degrees is irrelevant because it doesn't matter at all. I just questioned the 140 as an aside as it struck me as one of the pulled from someones behind numbers than doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

So, basically you took my description of the human eyesights characteristics, singled out the part with the stereoscopic vision and added a new meaning to that as being a basic for a viewport calculation, discarded then everything else including the 40 degrees peripheral from the same scentence, and then post some THX recommandations to show that they select a more narrow FOV in their Home theater setups vs. the stereoscopic characteristics of a human eye?

Perhaps you should have asked first, if that post contains the actual numbers for a viewport calculation instead of adding it yourself?

Especially considering I said "140 degrees horizontal makes the max stereovision, while you have 40 degrees extra horizontal for peripherial vision. " That makes a total of 180 degrees, but still no viewport calculations have been made. Of either 140, 40 or 140+40.

Perhaps then, you would have taken part 1: The human eye" as characteristics and part 2, how it relates in practical terms (human eye vs. aspect ratio of the screen depends on distance to screen since its angle dependent / as in not dependent on the human eyes characteristics)

Would have been better then you feeding me with THX home theater recommandations when answering my posts. At least you should have started with "I disagree that the human visions binocular sight should be the basis of a viewport calculation". Then we would have saved a lot of time.

Edit: Now its late in Norway and my English is failing me, but I want to make it precise that my post is not when aspect ratio is known and where to sit, but what aspect ratio when its not known. That the aspect ratio of the eyes are 3:2, but thats not nessesarily the most comfortable aspect ratio to view.

Its more important where you sit regarding the aspect ratio is best and at what distance/angle then the human eye. But, there is something called a golden aspect ratio which was determined as most pleasent thousands of years ago and that is close to 16:10.

I have a feeling you are working under the assumption of a "known aspect ratio angle".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top