Recently I was reading a post on projectorcentral.com, where they were discussing proper screen size - and referring to 2.35:1 screens and such, as well. In the article (and I've heard this point/argument made before) they mentioned that too large of an image can cause eye-strain, due to your eyes having to move back and forth across the screen to track the action (and uses the "tennis match" analogy) - inferring that a smaller image keeps your eyes more "at rest", with less need for excessive movement.
I DON'T GET THIS AT ALL!!!! Infact, if anything (and I've never heard anyone EVER complain at a tennis match that they're eyes hurt, nor anyone at a movie theater sitting in the "nose-bleeds"), our eyes are constantly moving around CONSTANTLY in our day to day lives. I actually find that sitting with your eyes "fixed" in one position (like when you're staring at a computer all day) IS WAY MORE STRENUOUS, and that keeping eyes moving in a sitting like this, would be LESS straining!
Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with their position.
I have heard that movies are usually shot with much less camera motion (largely), as compared to tv programming. And that that excessive motion can give you a head-ache, and such. But I 've NEVER EVER heard anyone say their eyes are tired from having to pan back and forth across a large screen image!
Anyone else have any feedback on this, or opinions?
I think it's an important enough topic to helping people consider their PJ setups, screen sizes, proximity to screen, etc. |
