Multiple monitors

Hi Theo,

On 8/29/2014 1:37 PM, Theo Markettos wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded Don Y<this@is.not.me.com>  wrote:
>> But the top of that has got to be ~24 inches off your worksurface?
>> I'm fidgetty about the ~18" that I'm thinking of adopting... I don't
>> like looking up.  (My seat is already about as high as my leg length
>> will tolerate, comfortably)
>>
>> How far from your nose to the display?  Up/down and left/center/right?
>
> Nose to display centre: 48cm
> Nose to corners: 64-72cm
> Top of display to desk: 56cm

Virtually my entire display surface is ~28-30" (70-75cm) from my nose.
There *may* be a spot on each monitor that's at 27"...

This (email) machine is also at 28" (though a puny 15" display).

Anything closer and I tend to get uncomfortable/eye fatigue (e.g.,
17" laptop display ends up at about 20 inches (or less) and I
have to physically pull my head "back" at times to get a better
view of the screen.

> Though I might pull back a little from that sometimes depending on chair
> position (eg 64cm to centre).
>
> I have put something under it so it angles slightly downwards towards me,
> which helps a bit with the viewing angles (and reflection) as it doesn't
> have an adjustable stand.

So, you also look *up* into it?  The tops of my monitors (including
this one) are set at "seated eye level".  I.e., everything is a downward
view from there (either by lowering my gaze or lowering my head)

>> The problem I see with "more dots" is putting them somewhere that you
>> can (comfortably) *see* them!
>
> There's a certain amount of eye movement necessary to see the corners, but
> they're still useful - eg you can park your email, datasheet, compile job,
> whatever up there and have it in your peripheral vision.  Compile finished?
> You don't need to read every character of it to know that.  If you do want
> to look in close detail, just move your eyes.  Any multi-monitor setup
> experiences the same issue, only here you don't have a bezel in the way.

If I am laying out a board, drawing a schematic, writing code, etc.
the corners have a proportional interest as the rest of the display.
I.e., I spend very little time focused *solely* on something in a
corner; rather, it's "there" if my attention is drawn there (e.g.,
following a particular foil on a PCB)

Apps never straddle displays, here.  So, if I am interested in an
app on the "right display", my gaze shifts *to* the "right display";
the bezel merely skipped over in transition.  I have an inspection
camera on a gooseneck and a "tootsie-pop" (Logitech Orbit/Sphere MP)
web cam exploiting the presence of those center bezels to "hide in
plain sight".

Moving to 4 portrait monitors would present more opportunities
to "skip over" the bezel(s).  My concern is that the display area
*between* may prove too narrow for the apps I typically run.

I'm going to try a set of smaller (e.g., 21") displays arranged
as 3x1 (landscape) and 4x1 (portrait) to see the practical impact
of each on my work experience.  Trick will be figuring out how
to rearrange the items currently in front of the displays (as
the "wing displays" will end up having to move forward, encroaching
on this space).

On 29 Aug 2014 21:37:36 +0100 (BST), the renowned Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>> But the top of that has got to be ~24 inches off your worksurface?
>> I'm fidgetty about the ~18" that I'm thinking of adopting... I don't
>> like looking up.  (My seat is already about as high as my leg length
>> will tolerate, comfortably)
>> 
>> How far from your nose to the display?  Up/down and left/center/right?
>
>Nose to display centre: 48cm
>Nose to corners: 64-72cm
>Top of display to desk: 56cm
>
>Though I might pull back a little from that sometimes depending on chair
>position (eg 64cm to centre).
>
>I have put something under it so it angles slightly downwards towards me,
>which helps a bit with the viewing angles (and reflection) as it doesn't
>have an adjustable stand.
>
>> The problem I see with "more dots" is putting them somewhere that you
>> can (comfortably) *see* them!
>
>There's a certain amount of eye movement necessary to see the corners, but
>they're still useful - eg you can park your email, datasheet, compile job,
>whatever up there and have it in your peripheral vision.  Compile finished?
>You don't need to read every character of it to know that.  If you do want
>to look in close detail, just move your eyes.  Any multi-monitor setup
>experiences the same issue, only here you don't have a bezel in the way.
>
>Theo

How about a curved 4K TV as a monitor? Not particularly cheap ($1.8K)
but double the pixels of a 30" monitor, and 2160 in the vertical
dimension rather than 1600, so if you're displaying an 11" tall page
or 2-page spread you ought to get a sharper image. Also, it's 55"
diagonal, so better for aging eyes, and the screen is curved so head
motion should be reduced. 

http://goo.gl/J7gcJt



Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Hi Spehro,

On 8/30/2014 12:45 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2014 21:37:36 +0100 (BST), the renowned Theo Markettos
> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk>  wrote:

>> Nose to display centre: 48cm
>> Nose to corners: 64-72cm
>> Top of display to desk: 56cm

>> There's a certain amount of eye movement necessary to see the corners, but
>> they're still useful - eg you can park your email, datasheet, compile job,
>> whatever up there and have it in your peripheral vision.  Compile finished?
>> You don't need to read every character of it to know that.  If you do want
>> to look in close detail, just move your eyes.  Any multi-monitor setup
>> experiences the same issue, only here you don't have a bezel in the way.
>
> How about a curved 4K TV as a monitor? Not particularly cheap ($1.8K)
> but double the pixels of a 30" monitor, and 2160 in the vertical
> dimension rather than 1600, so if you're displaying an 11" tall page
> or 2-page spread you ought to get a sharper image. Also, it's 55"
> diagonal, so better for aging eyes, and the screen is curved so head
> motion should be reduced.

I looked at one of the Samsung models for a "TV" role.  The curvature
isn't significant -- a long radius as expected for use in a living
room, etc.

A curved screen actually *worsens* head motion -- if you locate the
screen such that your eyes are at the focus of the curve.  It's
appeal is that it keeps the focal length constant -- the image
remains in focus without requiring any changes in the shape of
your eyes' lenses (i.e., "focusing power").

For a straight screen, you pick one (center) or two (equidistant
from center) points at which focus is ideal.  Anything farther out
(or in) requires changes to focus.

For the size you mentioned, the chord is about 48".  The angle
subtended (for a "flat" screen) would be, when viewed from center
at a distance of ~28-30 inches (my sweet spot), about 78-82 degrees.
The edges of the screen would be 37-38 inches (the corners a bit
moreso).

If, instead, the screen was curved AT THAT SAME RADIUS (which it
is not), the angle subtended would be 92-98 degrees.  But, the
edges would retain the same 28-30" distance.

This is the same problem that a set of smaller monitors presents:
three 21" landscape monitors (arranged flat) span ~56"; four 21"
portraint would span ~58".  Contrast this to the 48" that the 55"
diag TV spans!  Orienting them at shallow angles to their neighbors
just *increases* the amount of head/eye motion required to take in
the entire field.

A screen that curves -- but with the "wrong" curvature -- doesn't buy
much over a flat screen of the same size (it just eliminates the bezel
interruptions).  Need a flexible OLED screen and lots of double-sided
tape to adhere it to a "frame" of your own requirements!  :>

[I'm not holding my breath on that one!]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:48:36 -0700, the renowned Don Y
<this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi Spehro,
>
>On 8/30/2014 12:45 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On 29 Aug 2014 21:37:36 +0100 (BST), the renowned Theo Markettos
>> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk>  wrote:
>
>>> Nose to display centre: 48cm
>>> Nose to corners: 64-72cm
>>> Top of display to desk: 56cm
>
>>> There's a certain amount of eye movement necessary to see the corners, but
>>> they're still useful - eg you can park your email, datasheet, compile job,
>>> whatever up there and have it in your peripheral vision.  Compile finished?
>>> You don't need to read every character of it to know that.  If you do want
>>> to look in close detail, just move your eyes.  Any multi-monitor setup
>>> experiences the same issue, only here you don't have a bezel in the way.
>>
>> How about a curved 4K TV as a monitor? Not particularly cheap ($1.8K)
>> but double the pixels of a 30" monitor, and 2160 in the vertical
>> dimension rather than 1600, so if you're displaying an 11" tall page
>> or 2-page spread you ought to get a sharper image. Also, it's 55"
>> diagonal, so better for aging eyes, and the screen is curved so head
>> motion should be reduced.
>
>I looked at one of the Samsung models for a "TV" role.  The curvature
>isn't significant -- a long radius as expected for use in a living
>room, etc.

Yes, I noticed that after posting. I couldn't find a number for the
curvature but the whole thing is only 4" deep so it can't be much. 

>A curved screen actually *worsens* head motion -- if you locate the
>screen such that your eyes are at the focus of the curve.  It's
>appeal is that it keeps the focal length constant -- the image
>remains in focus without requiring any changes in the shape of
>your eyes' lenses (i.e., "focusing power").

These days, *what* focusing power? 

>For a straight screen, you pick one (center) or two (equidistant
>from center) points at which focus is ideal.  Anything farther out
>(or in) requires changes to focus.
>
>For the size you mentioned, the chord is about 48".  The angle
>subtended (for a "flat" screen) would be, when viewed from center
>at a distance of ~28-30 inches (my sweet spot), about 78-82 degrees.
>The edges of the screen would be 37-38 inches (the corners a bit
>moreso).
>
>If, instead, the screen was curved AT THAT SAME RADIUS (which it
>is not), the angle subtended would be 92-98 degrees.  But, the
>edges would retain the same 28-30" distance.
>
>This is the same problem that a set of smaller monitors presents:
>three 21" landscape monitors (arranged flat) span ~56"; four 21"
>portraint would span ~58".  Contrast this to the 48" that the 55"
>diag TV spans!  Orienting them at shallow angles to their neighbors
>just *increases* the amount of head/eye motion required to take in
>the entire field.
>
>A screen that curves -- but with the "wrong" curvature -- doesn't buy
>much over a flat screen of the same size (it just eliminates the bezel
>interruptions).  Need a flexible OLED screen and lots of double-sided
>tape to adhere it to a "frame" of your own requirements!  :>

The bezel is a PITA. Three monitors vertically would probably be okay,
and they could be adjusted to whatever angle. 

>[I'm not holding my breath on that one!]

I'm sure they'll be used in the dashboard of our flying cars. 


Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Hi Spehro,

On 8/30/2014 2:17 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>> How about a curved 4K TV as a monitor? Not particularly cheap ($1.8K)
>>> but double the pixels of a 30" monitor, and 2160 in the vertical
>>> dimension rather than 1600, so if you're displaying an 11" tall page
>>> or 2-page spread you ought to get a sharper image. Also, it's 55"
>>> diagonal, so better for aging eyes, and the screen is curved so head
>>> motion should be reduced.
>>
>> I looked at one of the Samsung models for a "TV" role.  The curvature
>> isn't significant -- a long radius as expected for use in a living
>> room, etc.
>
> Yes, I noticed that after posting. I couldn't find a number for the
> curvature but the whole thing is only 4" deep so it can't be much.

I've looked at a few "up close".  I'd guesstimate the radius of
curvature is probably 6 ft (or more?).

>> A curved screen actually *worsens* head motion -- if you locate the
>> screen such that your eyes are at the focus of the curve.  It's
>> appeal is that it keeps the focal length constant -- the image
>> remains in focus without requiring any changes in the shape of
>> your eyes' lenses (i.e., "focusing power").
>
> These days, *what* focusing power?

Well, it seems like it has become "eye crossing power"  :<

I was surprised to find that curving the display(s) made things
worse!  It *felt* like it should improve things.  I had to "do
the math", eventually, to prove to myself that this was, indeed,
the case.

Of course, it then became intuitively obvious!  (D'oh!)

Bottom line:  if you have "young eyes" (great/dynamic focusing
power), you can get away with a LOT more (tolerance).  Once your
body settles (degrades?) into a rut, then your options get limited.

"But, I *want*..."
"Yeah, well... you can't HAVE it!"

>> This is the same problem that a set of smaller monitors presents:
>> three 21" landscape monitors (arranged flat) span ~56"; four 21"
>> portraint would span ~58".  Contrast this to the 48" that the 55"
>> diag TV spans!  Orienting them at shallow angles to their neighbors
>> just *increases* the amount of head/eye motion required to take in
>> the entire field.
>>
>> A screen that curves -- but with the "wrong" curvature -- doesn't buy
>> much over a flat screen of the same size (it just eliminates the bezel
>> interruptions).  Need a flexible OLED screen and lots of double-sided
>> tape to adhere it to a "frame" of your own requirements!  :>
>
> The bezel is a PITA. Three monitors vertically would probably be okay,
> and they could be adjusted to whatever angle.

Four portrait == three landscape (for 4:3 monitors, this should be
obvious  :> ).  The way I use my desktop, I could tolerate moving
to two (or three) "bezel interruptions" in that span (apps don't
straddle bezels).

But, at 1200 dots wide (in landscape mode), I think most of my apps
would feel "cramped".  It would be like using a bunch of 1200x900
monitors  :-/

>> [I'm not holding my breath on that one!]
>
> I'm sure they'll be used in the dashboard of our flying cars.

I've got mine on order!  They keep inquiring about *payment*; in
turn, I keep inquiring about the a copy of the SALES BROCHURE!
(not sure how my insurance agent will like the idea...)

--don

On 2014-08-30, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:48:36 -0700, the renowned Don Y
><this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi Spehro,
>>
>>On 8/30/2014 12:45 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>> On 29 Aug 2014 21:37:36 +0100 (BST), the renowned Theo Markettos
>>> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk>  wrote:
>>
>>>> Nose to display centre: 48cm
>>>> Nose to corners: 64-72cm
>>>> Top of display to desk: 56cm
>>
>>>> There's a certain amount of eye movement necessary to see the corners, but
>>>> they're still useful - eg you can park your email, datasheet, compile job,
>>>> whatever up there and have it in your peripheral vision.  Compile finished?
>>>> You don't need to read every character of it to know that.  If you do want
>>>> to look in close detail, just move your eyes.  Any multi-monitor setup
>>>> experiences the same issue, only here you don't have a bezel in the way.
>>>
>>> How about a curved 4K TV as a monitor? Not particularly cheap ($1.8K)
>>> but double the pixels of a 30" monitor, and 2160 in the vertical
>>> dimension rather than 1600, so if you're displaying an 11" tall page
>>> or 2-page spread you ought to get a sharper image. Also, it's 55"
>>> diagonal, so better for aging eyes, and the screen is curved so head
>>> motion should be reduced.
>>
>>I looked at one of the Samsung models for a "TV" role.  The curvature
>>isn't significant -- a long radius as expected for use in a living
>>room, etc.
>
> Yes, I noticed that after posting. I couldn't find a number for the
> curvature but the whole thing is only 4" deep so it can't be much. 
>
>>A curved screen actually *worsens* head motion -- if you locate the
>>screen such that your eyes are at the focus of the curve.  It's
>>appeal is that it keeps the focal length constant -- the image
>>remains in focus without requiring any changes in the shape of
>>your eyes' lenses (i.e., "focusing power").
>
> These days, *what* focusing power? 
>
>>For a straight screen, you pick one (center) or two (equidistant
>>from center) points at which focus is ideal.  Anything farther out
>>(or in) requires changes to focus.
>>
>>For the size you mentioned, the chord is about 48".  The angle
>>subtended (for a "flat" screen) would be, when viewed from center
>>at a distance of ~28-30 inches (my sweet spot), about 78-82 degrees.
>>The edges of the screen would be 37-38 inches (the corners a bit
>>moreso).
>>
>>If, instead, the screen was curved AT THAT SAME RADIUS (which it
>>is not), the angle subtended would be 92-98 degrees.  But, the
>>edges would retain the same 28-30" distance.
>>
>>This is the same problem that a set of smaller monitors presents:
>>three 21" landscape monitors (arranged flat) span ~56"; four 21"
>>portraint would span ~58".  Contrast this to the 48" that the 55"
>>diag TV spans!  Orienting them at shallow angles to their neighbors
>>just *increases* the amount of head/eye motion required to take in
>>the entire field.
>>
>>A screen that curves -- but with the "wrong" curvature -- doesn't buy
>>much over a flat screen of the same size (it just eliminates the bezel
>>interruptions).  Need a flexible OLED screen and lots of double-sided
>>tape to adhere it to a "frame" of your own requirements!  :>
>
> The bezel is a PITA. Three monitors vertically would probably be okay,
> and they could be adjusted to whatever angle. 

"borderless" montors can be had, they use them for building video walls.
the border is actually something like 1mm and flush which is much less 
than the typical 5mm thick 25mm wide bezel. consumer borderless
displays however typically are only borderless on 3 sides.

-- 
umop apisdn


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Hi Jasen,

On 8/30/2014 3:55 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

>> The bezel is a PITA. Three monitors vertically would probably be okay,
>> and they could be adjusted to whatever angle.
>
> "borderless" montors can be had, they use them for building video walls.
> the border is actually something like 1mm and flush which is much less
> than the typical 5mm thick 25mm wide bezel. consumer borderless
> displays however typically are only borderless on 3 sides.

Ages ago, Pioneer (JVC?) made an edge-stackable monitor.  Stack them
like building blocks.  The "joins" were visible, though.  IIRC, each
monitor had signal conditioning within so you could pump RS170
into the "array" and each monitor within would slice and scale the
portion appropriate to itself.

Around the same time, Sony had a video wall composed of custom, small
~1x3" monochrome (as in Red, Green or Blue) CRT's arranged to mimic
the "stripe" matrix of their Trinitrons.

Of course, you couldn't *see* what was being displayed from anything
less than about 20 feet!  :-/