Multiple monitors

Street cleaner bristles and a spring steel (e.g., from a "feeler gauge") and a few minutes with a grinding tool...

In some jurisdictions, mere *possession* of tools (without "cause") is regarded as /prima facie/ evidence of intent to commit a crime.

and

Mine cost me about $400. A bit better price point.

?-)

So, is the outside just (effectively) a veneer (facade)? I.e., are there still bellows and air moving through pipes? Or, just a set of speakers hidden amongst everything??

(When I was a kid, a nearby church had a large selection of various sized bells in the bell tower. They could be rung individually to "play music". Many years later, this capability was replaced by a loudspeaker and tape player! :< )

But, that's a soft limit. Transparent work surface, or a transparent section set into a worksurface, is sometimes useful.

Yeah, but I'd need transparent piles of paper and transparent feet to be able to use it. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs 
Principal Consultant 
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC 
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 

160 North State Road #203 
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 

hobbs at electrooptical dot net 
http://electrooptical.net

I've seen desks with "windows" to allow monitors to be inconspicuously located below the worksurface. But, then you can't put anything *on* the worksurface -- papers, keyboards, etc. -- without risking interference with that display.

Ideally, you'd want something that would keep your sight-line clear and lower the display(s) *behind* the (edge of the) worksurface.

I built one of those for a customer many years ago. It started with a standard 3x6 ft wood table. I cut the table lengthwise about 1ft from the back edge and re-attached the cut section at a shallow angle. I added a "lip" on the back edge to keep things from sliding off. The tilted back table section held a CRT and some books. The viewing angle was quite low and little of the debris on the table seemed to get in the way. I'll see if I can find some photos.

I did some Googling for something similar. I didn't find anything, but did find these desks, that might be of interest:

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Can be either way. In many installations the console is fundamentally an industrial controller that operates valves throughout the wind/pipes system. In others (probably somewhat fewer) it's completely electronic simulation. Synthesis is more cost-effective, but well-set-up pipes are the gold standard for sound. Badly set-up pipes are complete misery. Some organs combine natural pipes with electronic simulation for exotic ranks that nobody can afford: 32 foot or even 64 foot deep bass ranks are very expensive to build, even if you can find room for them in the building, or the municipality. My old client produced a very nice CD with a concert organist playing an all-electronic organ of theirs. We had a scheme for mapping organ controls onto the MIDI standard messages that that organist used to integrate synthsized harpsichord, harp, and various chimes into the organ performance for a killer rendition of Handel's Aria con Variazione.

Mel.

Still pipes. That's fundamental - you could certainly build something that sounded more-or-less like a pipe organ with speakers, but it would be as distinct as a recording (or generation) of any other musical instrument.

Modern(?) pipe organs typically use electrically powered* blowers for the "wind", and as mentioned all the valves and stuff tend to be electric.

*Sadly, calcants have largely gone the way of buggy whip makers...

I use solid core wood doors. Too much weight for a regular table (I used to have several 24" wide-screen *CRT* monitors... like 90 pounds, each!)

SWMBO needs her monitor "as low as possible" (bifocals/reading glasses -- apparently, cataract surgery is delightful at restoring

*distance* vision... but, at the permanent expense of NEAR vision!). So, I keep a few monitors what have "stands" that can lower the display *onto* the worksurface. She just has to keep stuff out of the space in front of the monitor if she wants to be able to see the bottom portion of the display!

(sigh) I think I am going to try the three (landscape) monitor approach. Perhaps downgrade to 21" monitors in the process to try to shrink the overall width of the assembly. Four in portrait mode just seems like it will be an annoyance, eventually.

If this works well, I may decide to *add* monitors and expand the "side workstations" (recall: U shaped work area) to also have triple monitors -- but, *one* workstation per set-of-three (instead of the current *two* workstations per set-of-two monitors).

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.

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

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.

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)

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).

I use them, also. I tried a hollow-core door once and it wasn't stable enough. The skin cracked under the weight of the monitors (concentrated on the rubber pads). I replaced it with solid core doors, shortly after.

I use a separate set of progressives set up for the distance of the monitor. Works great, though I have to keep two pairs handy.

Not sure that's true any more, though I don't understand the physics. My boss just had his cataracts done. He can see perfectly at distance (20:15) and is just fine, now, down to 18", anyway. He doesn't need glasses for reading or monitor work.

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.

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

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!]

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.

These days, *what* focusing power?

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

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

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

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!"

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'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

"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 ---

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! :-/