PROJECT UPDATEFinally we have our large bed laser cutter installed
..and tested...
This means we can build begin building physical prototypes.
I can reveal we've opted for the LUXCINE C7 for our initial test set-ups. As well as being affordable, LED (20000+ lamp life), it features diamond shaped pixels and a virtually invisible grid. The result being you can hardly detect any pixels at all. Another pleasant surprise has been that despite it's 500 ANSI Lumen rating, it's plenty bright enough at the 100" screen-size we envisage for the Infintx D, but also under controlled lighting can drive a MUCH bigger screen if you have the room to spare. For example a 3m diameter, 2.4m high screen- That gives you space for 6 people, or a full-sized car or cockpit.
BRAIN STORMING...
(NOTE: The following is just an idea we would like to discuss, and not necessarily a design proposition.)One or the most obvious challenges with Widescreen set-ups, that everyone runs into, is the "side stretching" of graphics.
It's a widely misunderstood phenomenon and therefor fills considerable pages on this very forum.
http://www.wsgf.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=14082 If you want to see what I'm talking about here's a simple demo.
http://www.strombergindustries.com/newPerspective/...and if you don't have Flash installed here's screenshots.
When you set your FOV for a game to an extreme value (100 degrees plus), you will generally see objects distorted towards the edges. They appear elongated.
This is not an error, but actually because of the mathematical precision of the 3D engine.
If you try the above demo, with your nose up against your monitor (actual distance depends on monitor size), you should notice that the ball looks round from center to extreme left/right, as you are looking at it from the angle it was calculated from. The
camera in the 3D engine, the place where the view is calculated, is at that point in 3D space, not way back where you typically have your favorite gaming chair. So why don't they move the virtual camera out to a more natural viewing position? Because that automatically
reduces the field of view, which is the reason you lashed out on a triple head in the first place. Here's the simple, illustrated explanation.
So why rake over that age old problem?
We're looking for the optimum shape for the infinitx screen. There's nothing to say it has to be a regular arc. There was an idea to make a flat middle monitor with curved "wings". We're already bending the output image so as to appear correct on the cylindrical screen, why not go a stage further and distort the image to look
natural on the screen from a human perspective, rather than mathematically correct, from a flat computer monitor perspective.
It would be possible to build a reflector system that shows a 16:9 area normally in the center of the screen, but then gradually bunches the image up towards the edges, while bending them inwards, compensating for the exaggerated field of view.
In theory at least, that would give you a set-up that shows non-widescreen titles and movies correctly, and super wide fields of view in a more natural looking way.
The screen would look something like this. The checker pattern shows how the wings gradually compress the edges to keep round objects round, when set to the appropriate FOV.
If that makes sense to anyone, I'd be glad to hear about it. Also if it's completely off the mark.
Cheers!
No no no, this is pretty much spot on.
I did some pictures with FOV and POV angle matching with Borderlands a couple years back but never actually made a post about it. I see you already have the 3D software ready to do this.
Might want to use some of these images for the WSGF so we can explain why people need to stop bitching about fisheye.