Concave monitors?

I enjoy having a 27 inch (widescreen?) monitor. I think having a
wider monitor is better than messing with two monitors. However,
it can't get much wider and still be easy to view up close. I
suppose there is a formula for how much a concave screen would
increase the viewing surface. Maybe the view increase is
insufficient to promote the technology. Just something I wonder
about from time to time.

John Doe wrote:
I enjoy having a 27 inch (widescreen?) monitor. I think having a
wider monitor is better than messing with two monitors. However,
it can't get much wider and still be easy to view up close. I
suppose there is a formula for how much a concave screen would
increase the viewing surface. Maybe the view increase is
insufficient to promote the technology. Just something I wonder
about from time to time.

There's one here. It's DLP based. Diagonal of 42.4 inches. 2880 x 900 pixels.

http://www.highdisplay.com/wp-conten...er-monitor.jpg

There also used to be some multi-panel monitors. For example, three LCD
panels arranged in a rough U-shape, where the joint between panels
was close to seamless (less dead space than doing it yourself with
three separate monitors.)

Like this, only with less of a gap between monitors.

http://cdn.cbsi.com.au/story_media/3...monitors_2.jpg

Paul

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:00:27 -0500, Paul wrote:

John Doe wrote:
I enjoy having a 27 inch (widescreen?) monitor. I think having a
wider monitor is better than messing with two monitors. However,
it can't get much wider and still be easy to view up close. I
suppose there is a formula for how much a concave screen would
increase the viewing surface. Maybe the view increase is
insufficient to promote the technology. Just something I wonder
about from time to time.

There's one here. It's DLP based. Diagonal of 42.4 inches. 2880 x 900 pixels.

http://www.highdisplay.com/wp-conten...er-monitor.jpg

There also used to be some multi-panel monitors. For example, three LCD
panels arranged in a rough U-shape, where the joint between panels
was close to seamless (less dead space than doing it yourself with
three separate monitors.)

Like this, only with less of a gap between monitors.

http://cdn.cbsi.com.au/story_media/3...monitors_2.jpg

Paul

I would think they are only good for games. I use a VIZIO 42" Hi Def
TV for my main monitor and a 22" wide screen on it's side in portrait
mode to the left. I gave my old 32" VIZIO to my wife for her system
and she loves it. All my other systems have multiple monitors but I
just don't have the room for any more TVs.

Al.

Allen Drake ALDrake Spamex.com wrote:

Paul nospam needed.com wrote:
John Doe wrote:

I enjoy having a 27 inch (widescreen?) monitor. I think having
a wider monitor is better than messing with two monitors.
However, it can't get much wider and still be easy to view up
close. I suppose there is a formula for how much a concave
screen would increase the viewing surface. Maybe the view
increase is insufficient to promote the technology. Just
something I wonder about from time to time.

There's one here. It's DLP based. Diagonal of 42.4 inches. 2880
x 900 pixels.

http://www.highdisplay.com/wp-conten...06/crvd-curved
-computer-monitor.jpg

There also used to be some multi-panel monitors. For example,
three LCD panels arranged in a rough U-shape, where the joint
between panels was close to seamless (less dead space than doing
it yourself with three separate monitors.)

Like this, only with less of a gap between monitors.

http://cdn.cbsi.com.au/story_media/3...g-monitors_2.j
pg

Paul

I would think they are only good for games.

Some theory...
I suppose an ultra-wide concave or multiple monitors is useful for
stuff that you need to have showing at the same time, of course.
If your view is very wide, you still have to look away from your
main view. Of course, you can change the main view. It probably
just depends on what sort of things need to be located in
different positions or have ultrafast access. Maybe an alternative
is to someday be able to somehow switch the view instantaneously
to whatever else it is that you want to see on your main view. If
that could be done instead of moving your head, then they only
concern would be positional (like a driving or a flying
simulator).

Good luck and have fun.
--







I use a VIZIO 42" Hi Def
TV for my main monitor and a 22" wide screen on it's side in portrait
mode to the left. I gave my old 32" VIZIO to my wife for her system
and she loves it. All my other systems have multiple monitors but I
just don't have the room for any more TVs.

Al.

On 30 Dec 2011 21:15:18 GMT, John Doe wrote:

Allen Drake ALDrake Spamex.com wrote:

Paul nospam needed.com wrote:
John Doe wrote:

I enjoy having a 27 inch (widescreen?) monitor. I think having
a wider monitor is better than messing with two monitors.
However, it can't get much wider and still be easy to view up
close. I suppose there is a formula for how much a concave
screen would increase the viewing surface. Maybe the view
increase is insufficient to promote the technology. Just
something I wonder about from time to time.

There's one here. It's DLP based. Diagonal of 42.4 inches. 2880
x 900 pixels.

http://www.highdisplay.com/wp-conten...06/crvd-curved
-computer-monitor.jpg

There also used to be some multi-panel monitors. For example,
three LCD panels arranged in a rough U-shape, where the joint
between panels was close to seamless (less dead space than doing
it yourself with three separate monitors.)

Like this, only with less of a gap between monitors.

http://cdn.cbsi.com.au/story_media/3...g-monitors_2.j
pg

Paul

I would think they are only good for games.

Some theory...
I suppose an ultra-wide concave or multiple monitors is useful for
stuff that you need to have showing at the same time, of course.
If your view is very wide, you still have to look away from your
main view. Of course, you can change the main view. It probably
just depends on what sort of things need to be located in
different positions or have ultrafast access. Maybe an alternative
is to someday be able to somehow switch the view instantaneously
to whatever else it is that you want to see on your main view. If
that could be done instead of moving your head, then they only
concern would be positional (like a driving or a flying
simulator).

Good luck and have fun.

It might be nice watching a movie like sitting in the front row at
the theatre. Cinemascope with Technicolor.

http://ffffound.com/image/b14bf60039...d2bd04568d5a5e

Al.

On Dec 30 2011, 4:15 pm, John Doe wrote:
If
that could be done instead of moving your head, then they only
concern would be positional (like a driving or a flying
simulator).

It's not your head, according to a study I was reading on optimal
monitor placement, but your eyes, or specifically, your eyelids.

Your eyes are ranging peripherally, say, at 160 degrees, side to side,
absorbing stimuli at some unconscious brain level, related to motor
reflect actions coordinating rapid eye movement to points acceding an
actuality of cognitive processing, consciously brain-directed.

What's happening, then, is your eyeballs are dry-socking themselves
into little irritable balls, precluding incessant monitor viewing.
They getting tired, in other words.

Bear with me, now. Optimally, according to the above-mentioned study,
to alleviate this condition there is a corresponding junction between
monitor-to-eyeball placement. This state of conjunction optimally
occurs below a seated chair position in relation to the plane
placement of monitor and keyboard, in actuality, as it were, if the
physical desktop were cut for a hole to place the monitor within.

The purposeful monitor, once so placed, facilitates an importance of
eyelids as they normally, naturally, are conceived to operative by
supplying the eyes a lubricious surface.

When cameras are placed in front of people, aimed from the monitor to
study them, the head is held somewhat in an elevated position for
"raised eyes' staring back in focused concentration. All of which is
unnatural. Normally, eyelids cover nigh a third of the upper eye,
blinking to lubricate the eye at a normal rate within a predisposition
given humankind.

Computer watching, as it's practised, does not follow such a norm and
is an unnatural aspect to the human body, as premature eye fatigue is
to be then expected.