4 ms·

Since head-mounted displays put the screen a mostly fixed distance from the eye, I wonder if resolution is best described in terms of solid angles[0]. [0] http

Since head-mounted displays put the screen a mostly fixed distance from the eye, I wonder if resolution is best described in terms of solid angles[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle

jaywalk 6y ago
No, not at all. Solid angles could describe how big the display looks, but absolutely nothing about its resolution.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  What I meant was to provide both of the following measurements: (1) Solid angle of each individual pixel. (Assuming that typical screens and optics are used, I'd expect this value to vary depending on the location of a given pixel. So something like (average(solid angle of each individual pixel in the display)) could be advertised. (2) Solid angle of the overall virtual image.
  - Ruthalas 6y ago
    In the enthusiast community, I've seen reference to 'pixels per degree' to define fidelity. This changes a bit based on how close the eye is to the lens/screen, but is a useful general measurement that also takes into account lens effects.
TooSmugToFail 6y ago
You're confusing resolution and virtual image size. Virtual image size of an immersive display system (video headsets) is the equivalent of the diagonal of a standard scren. Virtual image size is typically quantified by the Field of View (FOV), and is typically expressed as an angle your eye closes with the diagonal edges of the virtual image. Pretty much what you describe. Another way people express virtual image size is by saying e.g. "a screen with a diagonal of X cm (in) at a distance of Y m (ft)". This may seem more intuitive at first, but problem with that is you can use different combinations of X and Y to express the same virtual image size. This is why FOV is a far superior way to quantify virtual image size.

4 ms·

Since head-mounted displays put the screen a mostly fixed distance from the eye, I wonder if resolution is best described in terms of solid angles[0]. [0] http

by DoofusOfDeath 6y ago

jaywalk 6y ago
No, not at all. Solid angles could describe how big the display looks, but absolutely nothing about its resolution.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  What I meant was to provide both of the following measurements: (1) Solid angle of each individual pixel. (Assuming that typical screens and optics are used, I'd expect this value to vary depending on the location of a given pixel. So something like (average(solid angle of each individual pixel in the display)) could be advertised. (2) Solid angle of the overall virtual image.
  - Ruthalas 6y ago
    In the enthusiast community, I've seen reference to 'pixels per degree' to define fidelity. This changes a bit based on how close the eye is to the lens/screen, but is a useful general measurement that also takes into account lens effects.
TooSmugToFail 6y ago
You're confusing resolution and virtual image size. Virtual image size of an immersive display system (video headsets) is the equivalent of the diagonal of a standard scren. Virtual image size is typically quantified by the Field of View (FOV), and is typically expressed as an angle your eye closes with the diagonal edges of the virtual image. Pretty much what you describe. Another way people express virtual image size is by saying e.g. "a screen with a diagonal of X cm (in) at a distance of Y m (ft)". This may seem more intuitive at first, but problem with that is you can use different combinations of X and Y to express the same virtual image size. This is why FOV is a far superior way to quantify virtual image size.