Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon
An interesting discussion comes up with FOV. Sometimes FOV is confused with PFOV, etc.1. Is FOV the amount of image you can stare directly at (eyeball tracking area)?
2. Is FOV the amount of image you can see while eyeballs looking at center?
3. Is FOV the amount of image you can scan/glimpse from all peripheral vision?
Remember, you gain some extra peripheral vision if you stare far-leftmost or far-rightmost. There is not much upwards/downwards peripheral vision. You have much more horizontal peripheral vision, even if you can't track your eyeballs to stare directly.
You will observe FOV conditions (1) roughly resembles 4:3, but FOV condition (2) roughly resembles 16:9, and FOV condition (3) is wider than 16:9 -- even resembling 21:9 ... So the answer is not as simple as it seems. A good test is a very wide wall. Walk up to a wall staring at the middle, until the floor/ceiling disappears below the top/bottom of your vision field. Now, you can easily measure approximate aspect ratios of (1), (2) and (3) by marking the leftmost/rightmost part of walls you are able to "see" under conditions (1) vs (2) vs (3). You will notice that they are each progressively wider aspect ratios.
But FOV condition (1) is applicable to computer monitors, since you do need to be able to stare directly at all four corners of the display.
No, I'd actually argue that regardless
of the field of view, we have a set of tasks that are important to us. It's all related to the eye of course, but paper, for instance, is most easily handled in a portrait fashion. Probably because it shortens the burden of L/R tracking. And so it follows that content is easiest that way as well. Our websites for instance, follow that same model. So having a taller screen AR matches the vertical bias of the task at hand
, not the AR of the eye.
So many people prefer 4:3 displays for computers; which is understandable. A 16:10 display is often a good compromise; while others of us prefer 16:9 displays for the standardization of everything (computer, gaming, videogames, television, etc).
Ok. Couple questions. Here's the 3 scenarios you've outlined, along with the AR you suspect it to approximate in bold:
- (4:3) The amount of image you can stare directly at (eyeball tracking area)?
- (16:9) The amount of image you can see while eyeballs looking at center?
- (21:9) The amount of image you can scan/glimpse from all peripheral vision?
First, this is curious: why is your scenario 2 wider than scenario 1? If there's no tracking path, and you're indeed staring at the center, then you're locked at periphery only. Shouldn't that be narrower than 1?Edit:
Or are you saying that given the eye movements, the ability to point the eyes up and down bring us to 4:3? As I read what you're listing out, either 1 and 3 seem the same, 1 and 2 are the same, or 2 and 3 are the same. I guess I can't ferret out how all 3 are unique.
Second, with human vision, strict FOV aside, there is a field weighting of what we can physically perceive (the rods & cones vary in density) and further the neurological apparatus has an additional weighting, presumably from the evolutionary imperatives of dealing with motion. What do those do to the aspect ratios?Edited by tgm1024 - 1/16/13 at 6:40am