You are not but the way you suggest to do it digitally can only be done optically/physically by doing those steps. I tried to explain why but either I can't explain it as I've tried several times or I'm wrong, but you are yet to be able to explain to me how I'm wrong here as well, for because of...
I know it can be controlled in software, I was just replying to Tom that it is not what we want (because he was suggesting how we can get that effect) but rather something we want to avoid instead.
All along you don't seem to understand that unlike in software you cannot cut a physical pixel in...
hi-res image is not meant to be in the center of attention or standing out, quite the opposite, the brightness of foveal and peripheral displays have to be as close as possible to merge together as seamlessly as possible.
Your LCD approach is problematic the same way as projection because of low...
Go on. I don't understand what difference it will make to combine rear and front projection.
I can alo have them be different polarization, but not sure what to do with that either.
What's an LCD with partially transparent front surface?
Save your sarcasm.
You don't move the "image", you move the projection which displays the image, and the projection has "physical" pixels, not digital.
I've explained all there is and even shown an animated diagram. If you mention Photoshop its clear you don't get that simple thing, the same way...
As I said once already,
we are not moving them digitally.
This is not comparable to a digital program like Photoshop that works with digital pixels and only when finished with the digital filters on the digital pixels converts the results to be viewed on fixed size physical pixels.
You are not...
I'm sorry but it's hard for me to follow some of your post because of some terms I'm not sure what mean in this context.
No, because we are not moving them digitally.
You have physical, fixed position pixels in the lower resolution projection. Those pixels are fixed, you can't move or resize...
I think there are two issues.
We assume the pixels of the detailed section are small enough to fill in a rectangular size axactly the size of the bigger lower-res section pixel, not more, not less. And we also have to position the optics exactly where those pixels would align with the other...
I haven't seen a sheet or film made of a material which can change its transmittance, refractive index or reflectivity when reacting with IR,UV light or light of specific polarization myself, but doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that's why I'm asking others if they have.
Maybe I should be...
Am I here to argue?
I am using video projectors and moving a projection beam with mirrors, there's already optical part to this project.
Not to mention with digital keystone correction you are adding extra work to the software part of the project instead.
Keystone correction is not done...
Are you talking about tilt or shift lens?
Shifting lens allows to not have a keystone distortion to beign with as far as I know becaus you don't have to have the projector angled to have it project down, up, left or rigth from "center".
My bigger projectors have lens shift.
I was talking about keystone correction being a digital thing, not keystone distortion.
Yeah, for sure galvo scanner or 2d mirror will introduce distortion but like I mentioned I'm thinking of having a third, bigger off-axis parabolic mirror after the scanner to help with that distortion...
Keystone correction is a term describing digitally correcting an angled projection, I've never heard of the term used in optical solution to the keystone effect.
What I am thinking of is making the beam parallel again to the projection surface so there will be no need of keystone correction and...
I have read enough articles on fovea and human visual acuity to know what I'm doing. 5 degrees is a good rule of thumb, the resolution falloff is actually a curve and the perfect 20/20 vision is actually in less than 5 degrees but since we don't have such screens with random pixel density from...