This and that | Ripple's Web

(Credit:
Nic Healey/CNET Australia (right), Reuben Lee/CNET Asia (left))

Both Samsung and LG, two of the biggest players in the burgeoning world of Organic Light Emitting Diode televisions, have announced (or depending on where you live, are selling) curved OLED screens to go along with traditional “flat” OLED screens.

Curved screens have been used in theaters for decades, and more recently in some high-end home theaters too. In a TV though, it’s nothing more than a gimmick.

Here’s why.

(Credit:
LG)

Let me say up front that I am a huge fan of OLED. So much so that it pains me to write this article. OLED promises better picture quality than plasma, better energy efficiency than LED LCD, while being both thinner and lighter. You can sort of buy an LG model right now, and Samsung’s version seems perpetually on the horizon. We saw prototypes of 4K OLED TVs from Sony and Panasonic (they’ve teamed up), but nothing else so far. The issue is, and long has been, making them cheap enough to manufacture.

Curved screens have been found in many theaters, the most famous probably being the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. It’s not a new idea, but the benefits still hold true today…in certain circumstances. With really large screens, one of the biggest advantages is being able to “focus” more light towards the audience. Another is reducing optical distortions when using certain projection lenses. There’s also a potential “naturalness” to an image that has every part equidistant to your eyeballs. But perhaps the most notable benefit is the ability to fill a massive percentage of a viewer’s field of view. Sitting in the right seat, one could have the image practically wrapped around them.

This is how Samsung describes the benefits of a curved screen: “the curved panel allows the distance between the user and TV screen to be the same from almost any angle.” And LG’s take: “With a gentle inward flex, the entire screen surface is equidistant from the viewer’s eyes, removing the problem of screen-edge visual distortion and detail loss.” So by their own definitions, one of the main reasons to have a curved screen is so every part is the same distance from the viewer’s eye.

Radius, radii, radiuses
The problem is not with the idea of curved screens, but a curved screen TV. To get the benefit of a wraparound image, or even the benefit of a more natural image that has every part equidistant from your eye, you need to be sitting in a pretty specific place. With a theater screen, that place is an area big enough in which a lot of people can sit. Sure, people off to the sides aren’t getting the best effect (if any), but the folks in the middle are. With a smaller curved screen, that sweet spot is a lot smaller. 

(Credit:
LG)

Small TVs don’t have a very large sweet spot to being with. (I’m counting 55-inch TVs as small in this context, as they are small compared to theater screens.) Let’s take the curved aspect out for a moment. What’s the ideal seating area for a 55-inch, 1080p TV? That’s actually pretty easy. You should be sitting close enough so that you’re able to see all the resolution. Not so close that you can see individual pixels, but not so far that the TV could be 720p and it wouldn’t look any different. You also want it to fill your field of view enough so that it’s not like looking at a postage stamp from across the room.

I covered this from the other side in How big a TV should I buy? and we can use similar math here. THX recommends the TV fill 40 degrees of your field of view. So for a 55-inch TV, they’re recommending you sit 66 inches away. This is also about where people with 20/20 vision are seeing all the resolution possible with 1080p. SMPTE recommends 30 degrees, so they’re saying you should be 88 inches away.

So ideally, a curved OLED screen should have a curve whose radius is somewhere between 66 and 88 inches. Since most people still sit about 108 inches from their TVs, we could even accept this as an outside number.

(Credit:
Samsung)

Thankfully, Dennis Burger of HomeTechTell did some math and research on the curved part already. He figured that at a distance of 90 inches (well within our range), the TV would need a curve of about 3 inches between the center and the edges. The LG is not nearly this deep. According to LG, the OLED’s curve is 5 degrees, not the 7.5 needed for a 90-inch viewing distance. How different is that? Well, the LG’s “sweet spot,” based on its curve, is 134 inches away. Over 11 feet. Not only is this farther than most people sit from their TV, but it also means it might as well be 720p. In other words, in order to get every part of the screen equidistant from your eye, LG’s stated goal, you have to be sitting so far away that the screen will look tiny.

But this is all getting into the weeds. Even if a new curved OLED screen comes out, it effectively requires the owner to sit at a rather precise distance from the screen. Too close or too far, and the curve loses its major benefits. And let’s not forget, this is for one viewer. With several people on the couch, all the claimed benefits are lost.

(Credit:
Samsung)

Bottom line
Look, the fact that a “flat” screen TV can be curved at all is pretty amazing. But since OLED is barely off the ground (arguably, not off the ground at all), it’s disappointing to see finite resources going into something of little value beyond “hey, neato” which, also arguably, OLED inherently has already.

However, this won’t always be the case (we hope). The beauty of OLED is that, in theory, it’s scalable in size and resolution. So projection-screen-size, or even wall-size OLED screens are theoretically possible. In that case, a curved screen could be pretty awesome.

And while we’re dealing with this far off future, how about a flat, wall-size OLED screen that, at the touch of a button, curves in at the edges for movies? Flexible OLED screens. That’s a thing, too. Hurry up future times.

Got a question for Geoff? First, check out all the other articles he’s written on topics like HDMI cables, LED LCD vs. plasma, Active vs Passive 3D, and more. Still have a question? Send him an e-mail! He won’t tell you what TV to buy, but he might use your letter in a future article. You can also send him a message on Twitter: @TechWriterGeoff.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cnet/pRza/~3/4jksV3WlRiw/

The Emerald City is part of a Wizard of Oz display built by 12 members for Brickworld 2013.

(Credit:
Captain Redstorm/Flickr)

We’ve seen plenty of crazy Lego re-creations over the years, from landmark architecture to vintage computers, but we can’t help but be impressed when an entire movie is redone in bricks.

That would be 1939 classic “The Wizard of Oz,” which a team of 12 Lego builders has turned into a marvelous 3D plastic diorama that includes just about every scene in the film, including a rotating tornado.

The collaborators from VirtuaLUG recently showed off the result of their teamwork at Brickworld 2013 Chicago, a display of spectacular Lego builds.

VirtuaLUG has done displays including portrayals of “Alice in Wonderland” and “The Lord of the Rings.” For its “Wizard of Oz” set, the 12 builders in three different countries worked on their components separately and then assembled them in Chicago.

The display, at least 10 feet long, begins with a sepia-tone re-creation of Kansas, complete with a spinning tornado carrying Dorothy’s house off to Oz.

It then turns into a brightly colored array of bricks to simulate Munchkinland and the Yellow Brick Road, which leads away to show minifigs of Dorothy meeting the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion.

The road leads through the poppy fields to the Emerald City, an eye-popping build of the green metropolis.

The display continues into the dark forest, which lights up with ultraviolet lights for an eerie glow, to the witch’s castle, which has a detachment of Winkie guards on the bridge. It concludes back in Emerald City as Oz’s balloon is about to launch.

Check out Beyond the Brick’s walk-through video of The Wizard of Oz display, which was named best collaboration at Brickworld, below.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cnet/pRza/~3/88azmdfZf7s/

Resident Evil: Revelations Review

Developer: Capcom
Publisher: Capcom
Platform(s): 3DS, PC, PS3, Wii U, Xbox 360
UK Price: £20
US Price: $35

Typical criticisms don’t seem apt when levied onto Resident Evil: Revelations. There are more than a few instances where what would be unacceptable faults elsewhere seem almost integral to the experience here. Well placed intent doesn’t forgive poor design, but it does suggest that any criticism doesn’t matter. Capcom have created the game they intended to make and many changes for the sake of perfection would likely detract from the overall impact.

Revelations is a classic Resident Evil game, which is something that should conjure up knowledge that it controls terribly, is filled with laboured backtracking and nonsensical objective design, contains cutscenes that are camp to the point of unashamed ridiculousness and has limited connective tissue in the plot solid enough for any of it to make much sense at all. It’s carried through by ridiculous voice acting and dialogue, deus ex machina moments and huge logic holes. You also get the impression that all of this is functioning as intended.

The single concession that’s been made to live up to modern standards is, like in RE6, you’re able to walk while aiming now. Unlike RE6 it’s far shorter, much less concerned with spectacle over substance and mostly contained in one location, save for a few short playable vignettes elsewhere.

In this instance, Series Mainstay Jill and partner Parker are sent to the Queen Zenobia, a cruise ship that’s also host to an outbreak of a human mutation virus that turns people into varieties of shambling grey things. Along the way you’ll also play as Other Series Mainstay Chris and a variety of other newer cast members. Jill’s sections are the main course containing all the exploration, key finding and item management as is expected.

The inventory management here isn’t the traditional space-finding Tetris-mechanic. Here it’s filled by a weapon customisation system that swaps out attachments for others. Some have standard uses like increasing clip size or fire rate, others make the weapons more interesting, like firing two bullets with each trigger pull or charging before each attack for more damage at a slower pace

Interestingly, though Revelations does take place largely in recycled locations you’ll wander through over and over, mid-way through the story a great portion becomes flooded and you’ll have to swim through previously accessed areas. It adds a slight bit of variety in a game that’s largely about revisiting the same locations over and over.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bit-tech/gaming/~3/lpcF_E4A0Zk/1

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GamingRipplesWeb/~3/_AZGofWrtXk/

Resident Evil: Revelations Review

Developer: Capcom
Publisher: Capcom
Platform(s): 3DS, PC, PS3, Wii U, Xbox 360
UK Price: £20
US Price: $35

Typical criticisms don’t seem apt when levied onto Resident Evil: Revelations. There are more than a few instances where what would be unacceptable faults elsewhere seem almost integral to the experience here. Well placed intent doesn’t forgive poor design, but it does suggest that any criticism doesn’t matter. Capcom have created the game they intended to make and many changes for the sake of perfection would likely detract from the overall impact.

Revelations is a classic Resident Evil game, which is something that should conjure up knowledge that it controls terribly, is filled with laboured backtracking and nonsensical objective design, contains cutscenes that are camp to the point of unashamed ridiculousness and has limited connective tissue in the plot solid enough for any of it to make much sense at all. It’s carried through by ridiculous voice acting and dialogue, deus ex machina moments and huge logic holes. You also get the impression that all of this is functioning as intended.

The single concession that’s been made to live up to modern standards is, like in RE6, you’re able to walk while aiming now. Unlike RE6 it’s far shorter, much less concerned with spectacle over substance and mostly contained in one location, save for a few short playable vignettes elsewhere.

In this instance, Series Mainstay Jill and partner Parker are sent to the Queen Zenobia, a cruise ship that’s also host to an outbreak of a human mutation virus that turns people into varieties of shambling grey things. Along the way you’ll also play as Other Series Mainstay Chris and a variety of other newer cast members. Jill’s sections are the main course containing all the exploration, key finding and item management as is expected.

The inventory management here isn’t the traditional space-finding Tetris-mechanic. Here it’s filled by a weapon customisation system that swaps out attachments for others. Some have standard uses like increasing clip size or fire rate, others make the weapons more interesting, like firing two bullets with each trigger pull or charging before each attack for more damage at a slower pace

Interestingly, though Revelations does take place largely in recycled locations you’ll wander through over and over, mid-way through the story a great portion becomes flooded and you’ll have to swim through previously accessed areas. It adds a slight bit of variety in a game that’s largely about revisiting the same locations over and over.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bit-tech/gaming/~3/lpcF_E4A0Zk/1

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GamingRipplesWeb/~3/_AZGofWrtXk/

(Credit:
Geoffrey Morrison)

Recently we took a poll where we asked “What’s stopping you from getting a plasma?” A majority of voters rebuked my premise, picking “I love my plasma.” The other responses were fairly evenly split among the choices.

However, there was a surprisingly common reason given in the comments that baffled me, and it’s so bizarre it’s clearly worth debunking, or at least shining the light on the facts.

So how much do TVs weigh?

Though mostly made of plastic, all TVs have some metal parts, and usually some glass as well. Compared with TVs from a few years ago (or the CRT “tube” TVs of yore), all TVs are light. Or at least, lighter.

There are two main reasons why the weight of a TV is worth considering: where you’re placing/mounting it, and the initial post-purchase box-wrangling and setup. Weight shouldn’t be an issue with shipping, as it’s far too easy to find places that offer free shipping.

When it comes to TV stands, all but the flimsiest will support pretty much every TV on the market (we’ll cover the specifics in the Weight section).

If you’re planning on wall-mounting your TV, there’s a wall mount that can support it. I checked several wall-mount manufacturers, like OmniMount, Sanus and Monoprice. TV size and weight are the two deciding factors for what mount you can get. Every size/weight I checked was available in flush, tilt, and full-motion designs.

Here’s the most interesting bit: Mounts designed for a certain size TV (50 inches, say) can support nearly every TV of that size. As in, if you have a 50-inch LCD, you’re going to be buying the same mount that someone with a 50-inch plasma can get. Most (though not all) of the mounts that I checked out for this article designed for 50-inch TVs handled 125 pounds, far more than even today’s 65-inch plasmas.

So again, I’m not sure why the weight matters, when you’re getting the same mount regardless of weight.

The OmniMount NC125C, for 37- to 70-inch TVs, up to 125 pounds (i.e. every TV below 70 inches in this article).

(Credit:
OmniMount)

This is with the typical two-stud mounting. Personally, I would never hang anything expensive on a wall without finding a stud, but that’s me. I checked with Zach Eyman, senior product manager for OmniMount, maker of TV mounts:

Me: Do you have a general rule like “max this weight for single stud mounting?”

Zach Eyman: “A good rule of thumb is 80 pounds for a single stud, but a specific mount’s specifications should always be followed.”

Eighty pounds, as we’ll see later, is pretty much everything below 60 inches.

Me: “What’s Omnimount’s general take on drywall-only mounting (i.e., no studs)?”
ZE: “If designed and engineered correctly, drywall mounts allow the most flexibility of mounting locations since you are not limited by stud placement. Since safety is a top priority, OmniMount’s drywall mounts are reserved for lighter-weight panels, under 40 pounds.”

You’d be pushing that limit with any 50-inch panel, by the way.

Unpacking?
This was another common reason given for why a lighter TV is better. I don’t get this one, either. As far as unpacking and moving the TV from the store to your home, you always need more than one person.

Unless you’re getting a cheap 32-inch TV, get some assistance. Seriously. Even if the TV isn’t heavy, the pressure and torque you’ll be exerting on the frame and bezel can be enough to damage the tiny wires that let the TV do its TVing. Trust me, I’ve destroyed TVs before doing nothing but normal unpacking/setup myself. Not dropping them, mind you, just hefting them off the Styrofoam and placing them on a table stand.

I don’t quite understand the desire to purchase a lighter TV and deal with worse picture quality for the life of the television just because someone can’t ply his friends with beer for 10 minutes worth of light labor.

The weight
OK let’s look at some actual weights of different size TVs. All weights were from the manufacturer’s Web site or Amazon, and show the weight of just the panel. (Check out this article to find out what the model numbers mean). I chose these brands, as they make both plasma and LCDs (plus Sharp, as a maker of uberbig LCDs). Not every manufacturer makes the same screen sizes, and for fairness I kept the screen dimensions as close as possible. In some cases, there was a screen size available, but the weight wasn’t available.

42 inches
LG 42PN4500 (plasma) – 40.6 pounds
Panasonic TC-P42S60 (plasma) – 35.3 pounds
Samsung PN43F4500 (plasma) – 30 pounds

LG 42LN5700 (LED LCD) – 21.2 pounds
Panasonic TC-L42E60 (LED LCD) – 29.8 pounds

Plasma average: 35.3 pounds; LED LCD average: 25.5 pounds
Difference: 38 percent

The Sanus XF228, for TVs 42 to 84 inches, and up to 175 pounds (i.e., every TV mentioned on this page).

50 inches
LG 50PN6500 (plasma) – 54.5 pounds
Panasonic TC-P50ST60 (plasma) – 49.6 pounds
Samsung PN51F8500AF (plasma) – 46.1 pounds
Samsung PN51F4500AF (plasma) – 39 pounds

LG 50LA6900 (LED LCD) – 38.1 pounds
Panasonic TC-L50E60 (LED LCD) – 38.6 pounds
Samsung UN50F5500 (LED LCD) – 28.7 pounds

Plasma average: 47.3 lbs; LED LCD average: 35.1 pounds
Difference: 35 percent

60 inches
LG 60PN6500 (plasma) – 76.1 pounds
Panasonic TC-P60ST60 (plasma) – 69.5 pounds
Samsung PN60F8500 (plasma) – 64.4 pounds

LG 60LA8600 (LED LCD) – 61.1 pounds
Samsung UN60ES7550 (LED LCD) – 45.2 pounds

Plasma average: 70 lbs; LED LCD average: 53.2 lbs
Difference: 32 percent

65 inches
Panasonic TC-P65ZT60 (plasma) – 90.4 pounds
Samsung PN64F8500 (plasma) – 72.3 pounds

Panasonic TC-L65E60 (LED LCD) – 64.2 pounds (“Item Weight” via Amazon)
Samsung UN65F7050 (LED LCD) – 50.8 pounds

Plasma average: 81.4 pounds; LED LCD average: 57.5 pounds
Difference: 41 percent

Even bigger
Samsung UN75F8000 (LED LCD) – 79.1 pounds
Samsung UN85S9AF (LED LCD) – 151.5 pounds
LG 84LM9600 (LED LCD) – 150.36 pounds
Sharp LC90LE745U (LED LCD) – 141.1 pounds

It’s worth noting even the heaviest TV here, the Samsung, has multiple wall mounts available. For perspective, RCA’s 38-inch, 16×9 tube HDTV from 10 years ago was 212 pounds.

So yes, technically plasmas are heavier than a similarly sized LCD. On average, based on this sampling, they’re about 36.5 percent heavier. But to say that’s the whole story is as specious as me saying “The heaviest TVs on the market today are LCDs!” which, in the narrowest sense, is just as true.

One commenter said he liked being able to haul his TV over to his friend’s house for gaming. A pretty specific, but definitely valid, consideration.

Bottom line
There are plenty of reasons not to get plasma, but weight seems to me the most absurd. Making a decision about a purchase based on such a trivial aspect is completely bypassing the vastly more important aspects, like picture quality, features, price, energy efficiency, and so on.

Got a question for Geoff? First, check out all the other articles he’s written on topics like HDMI cables, LED LCD vs. plasma, Active vs Passive 3D, and more. Still have a question? Send him an e-mail! He won’t tell you what TV to buy, but he might use your letter in a future article. You can also send him a message on Twitter: @TechWriterGeoff.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cnet/pRza/~3/jZRe-fGMFQ4/

The Moon Orbiter has a flying tourbillon at 9 o’clock and a power reserve at 6.

(Credit:
RJ-Romain Jerome)

Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield recently joked about getting a gold watch for his retirement. But this hunk of spacetime would be far more appropriate.

RJ-Romain Jerome’s deluxe Moon Orbiter is a tribute to “the conquest of space,” just in case you were confused about who’s in charge of the cosmos (not Canadians, I can assure you).

Previewed at Baselworld 2013, the Orbiter is a massive, three-quarter-inch-thick chunk of steel that looks as though it will either fire missiles or jump off your wrist and transform into an angry robot.

But the theme here is all about feel-good rocket adventures and moon vibes.

The black dial contains moon dust, and the steel case, like several other Romain Jerome watches, incorporates “elements from the Apollo 11 space shuttle,” whatever that is (Romain Jerome did not immediately respond to a query seeking clarification).

Meanwhile, “pneumatic lugs” secure this weighty machine to its black alligator strap for an optimal fit.

The time functions are pretty straightforward: hours and minutes at 3 o’clock; a 42-hour power reserve gauge at 6; and a flying tourbillon at 9 that recalls a rocket in flight.

Sapphire crystals on the back and sides provide an interesting 3D view of the mechanical self-winding movement. The watch has 32 jewels and is water-resistant to 98 feet.

The ultimate luxury wristwatches (pictures)

Only 25 Moon Orbiters, which are part of Romain Jerome’s Moon DNA line, are being made. A cool capsule-like case that opens at the touch of a button makes the $115,000 price tag a tad easier to swallow.

That’s about half the price of a Virgin Galactic ticket. The conquest of space doesn’t come cheap.

(Credit:
RJ-Romain Jerome )

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cnet/pRza/~3/dBKXLFx_-5I/

Maybe you should wait on building that 3D-printed house.

(Credit:
Screenshot by Amanda Kooser/CNET)

We’ve been hearing about the possibility of 3D-printed, full-size houses for some time. We may even get our first one sometime this year, thanks to the efforts of a couple of different architectural firms. Now you can get an idea of what it would take to create your own home from 3D-printed blocks.

Real estate blog Movoto has created a “3D Print your House” calculator to give you the daunting numbers involved with using a 3D printer to make your abode. The numbers are based on the time and cost of materials of using a MakerBot Replicator 2 to print out plastic bricks.

The calculations involved working out how long and at what cost it would take the Replicator 2 to produce a brick measuring 8 inches by 3.5 inches by 2.75 inches. It would also cost $12 in plastic to make each of these theoretical bricks. The rest is about determining how many bricks it would take to build a house.

A typical 2,500-square-foot, two-story house would take 220 years to print out and use more than $330,000 in plastics. I ran the numbers on my own home and it would only take 120 years and $182,000 to make it with a MakerBot printer. That doesn’t even include extras, like windows, wood flooring, or heating. Good thing I bought the place already built.

This doesn’t meant 3D-printed homes won’t become a reality. The architects looking into building these are using industrial-size printers that can handle much larger pieces in a much shorter amount of time than a regular home 3D printer. It just means we won’t be printing homes from home anytime soon.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cnet/pRza/~3/Ed7jd6-pIwQ/

(Credit:
Joystiq)

I don’t get it. I’m gone an entire week and there’s not one show. I get back, Justin’s gone, but I still have to do one. What’s up with that? Luckily it’s a non-issue. Today we’ve got CNET HDTV editor Ty Pendlebury on the program to help me wrap up the chaos that was
E3 2013 and filter out some of the new-found disgust I have for videogame fanboys. You know, the worst kind of fanboy.

– Check out Jeff’s most exciting games of E3 slideshow

– Play catch-up by looking back at the rest of CNET’s E3 2013 coverage

– Follow Ty on Twitter

– ESPN drops 3D, four years after rest of world have already given up on it

Episode 1285

Subscribe:

iTunes (HD)
| iTunes (SD)
| iTunes (HQ)
| iTunes (MP3)

RSS (HD)
| RSS (SD)
| RSS (HQ)
| RSS (MP3)

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cnet/pRza/~3/A3OoRkezupw/

Which one do you fancy?

(Credit:
Image by Christopher MacManus/CNET)

Even if you’ve seen a plethora of images and videos showing the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 from every possible angle, the following high-quality 3D renders, with 360-degree pan and zoom, give you a fuller impression of each console.

Using modeling programs like Blender and Maya, designers JC Volumic and Sylvain Bernard created very accurate 3D renders of the
Xbox One and
PlayStation 4. The interactive experience, hosted on Sketchfab, lets you check out just about every conceivable angle of the two highly anticipated gaming devices. Most modern smartphones should be able to view these renders, too.

Here’s the PlayStation 4:

And the Xbox One:

On a related note, don’t miss some of the better size comparisons starring the Xbox One, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3. The PlayStation 4 slanted design looks sleeker and smaller, but the Xbox One also has an aesthetic appeal, yet it’s unappealing that Microsoft built such a big console. When standing upright, the Xbox One even trumps the height (but not the thickness) of the original gigantic PlayStation 3.

Readers, what do you think about the designs of the Xbox One and PlayStation 4?

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cnet/pRza/~3/85d3xtb3ByA/

A hawk’s-eye view of the Place Vendome.

(Credit:
All Eyes on Paris)

Let’s say you’re a cat touring Paris, and you swing by the Place Vendome. What does it look like? Well, a lot like what humans see, it turns out, only much greener. That’s because cats are dichromats and don’t see the color red.

I viewed the Place Vendome from a feline perspective while scrolling around All Eyes on Paris, an interactive 3D digital simulation that shows the City of Light through the eyes of common critters.

Now on display at the Futur en Seine international digital festival in Paris, the project aims to teach about animal vision by letting you see a bit of the world as a cat, dog, bee, hawk, or rat would. And let me just say that rats don’t have Paris anywhere near as gorgeous as they do when Pixar takes them there.

They don’t see colors at all, All Eyes on Paris reminded me, and what they do see is a total blur, which is why we often spot them scurrying along walls. Their vision is good up to about 6 inches in front of their noses. Hawks, it turns out, have much better detail perception than humans, and bee eyes also trump ours in some respects.

The digital project, developed by user interface design firms Current Productions, Dassault Systemes, and Octarina with the help of a veterinary ophthalmologist, has users facing urban situations such as exhaust pipes and rain to find out how animals move around and perceive the city. It also includes games in which players have to circumvent the constraints of animal vision to get the best score.

Do note, however, that enjoying the 1st arrondissement as a dog requires having the 3DVia player for Windows installed.

Rats are at a distinct visual disadvantage when touring the Place Vendome. They do get free admission, however.

(Credit:
All Eyes on Paris)

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cnet/pRza/~3/Ezj9LVc5PgA/