[jl123]

Was wondering if this topic had ever been covered. And the topic is, what ratio is considered the most seemless for a human to be able to visually process without eye or mind strain? Mind, that I am not only speaking about simply ratio but size.


As an example I refer to a comment I've made in another post, and that is the fact that I find the very short/long aspect of 16:9 on a 34" 16:9 monitor to be simply to straining to watch for long and much prefer watching a 32" 4:3. Did anyone ever do any studies on this? Opinions?


Thanks.

 

[jakehall]

I don't know the specifics in terms of degrees of visibility, etc, but I know that the human brain/eyes are inherently "widescreen". Even if you don't consider peripheral vision, we see a much wider view than tall. This actually makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. We are built to scan the horizon and not worry too much about things coming from above or below (they are less threatening).


Empirically (sp?), I know this because when I move my face closer to my (4:3) computer screen until the picture height just fills my comfortable vision, I notice a good amount of room on the sides that would otherwise be in focus and usable. conversely, when I allow the screen to fill my vision left/right, I lose focus on the top and bottom.


So, if the question were 2.35 vs 1.78(16:9), I'm not sure, but 16:9 is definitely more natural than 4:3(1.33).


jake

 

[jl123]

jake,

I cerainly agree with you. However I think that there is a size of screen at which the 16:9 becomes no good, and I think that size is around the 34" that most direct views seem to be- unfortunatly. After all a 34" inch 16:9 is only 16. someting inches high- way to short to watch for long!

 

[Savageone79]

Yes but our vision is much shorter then it is wide. I think if the material you are watching is widescreen and shown on a widescreen tv it is better any size compared to a 4:3 tv.

 

[AJSJones]

It depends a lot on how far away you sit! It's the angular field of view that determines how big the image is perceived to be and there is consensus that the brain can accommodate a wider angle horizontally than vertically so 16:9 is "more natural" than 4:3.


jl123, if your 16.something high image is too small from where you're sitting, just move closer to increase the vertical angle of view (to make it look bigger)..... in general move as close as you can until the technical limitations of your system become apparent (e.g. dot-pitch on a direct view etc)


AJ

 

[rogo]




For me, that logic doesn't work. I can only move as close to the point where the motion doesn't make me kind of ill. That happens -- in most cases -- well before I can see dots or scan lines or whatnot.


Mark

 

[Bill Schmeling]

There is an extensive literature regarding visual processing, and I will not go into specifics--if you are really(and I mean really interested) go on Medline, Library of Congress has an access point I believe, and do a lit search on the specifics you are interested in.


Very simply, the eye has an area called the macula, which is "hi tech", hi resolution processing with extensive cones(color and shape). Much of the retina has a proponderance of rods(BW and shape, as well as "edge"detection and motion). All project to the Calcarine cortex in the occipital lobe( back of head). Here there are extensive arrays for processing and recruitment of adjacent cortex(via loops from relay areas deeper in the brain) that interpret the proceesed neuronal image. Much of the way we view the world is based on early experience. I do not know of whether studies have addressed the vertical vs horizontal experiential aspect of visual delineation, but I have never really looked at the Lit for that question. Our perceptual thresholds for motion, are, by some studies, better horizontally and our field of "normal" vision is better horizontally without extraocular muscle meduiated eye movement.


I guess I should check lit for the real answer re 16:9 4:3, however, perception( ie can you see it), is far different from the questions: how do you like it and how do you perceive it--it gets kinda metaphysical--ie psychooptics( I know there is psychoacoustics but this word??)--when you deal with questions like this scientifically. Enough. I will post after Lit search.



Bill