1440p monitor size question

[Hiob]

Yeah, I'm basically waiting for my Screen to show signs of wear. So far, I was lucky. I'm rather picky with such things - dead pixels for example would trigger me immensly.

When the ghosting will eventually start, I'm curious how irritating it will be. I assume it will be a very gradual process - hopefully bearable for another yera or two. But either way, I will eventually have to replace it.

[Beirut]

7 hours ago, LucShep said:

How so?  ...you pay extra tax once price goes over 500$??  

 

No, I get extra sensitive about it.  

 

At $500 you hit that $75 mark in taxes. So $500 is $575.  That's noticeable. Beyond that, everything is about $100 more than sticker price. After $1000, things start pushing $200 more than sticker price. Bleah!

[Hiob]

2 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

No, I get extra sensitive about it.  

 

At $500 you hit that $75 mark in taxes. So $500 is $575.  That's noticeable. Beyond that, everything is about $100 more than sticker price. After $1000, things start pushing $200 more than sticker price. Bleah!

Ouch. 

 

[MAXsenna]

11 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

His screens are all down toward his knees...something you said was stupid.

I believe the point he's trying to make, for the big monitors,you'd want them mounted higher up for better SA, and then you can have secondary monitors with instruments etc. below. Which is exactly how I do it myself. And, care to explain why we even have HUDs in cars?

Now, it totally agree with you about "standars", it's easier on the eyes and body if the monitor is mounted lower. Back in the small CRT days, you could get office desks where you could place your monitor "inside" below the top of your as at an angle, that resembled the way you would read a piece of paper. Remember? 

12 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

that the person has put the machine in perhaps the worst location possible (the floor).

It's obviously there for the photo. If not Why would anyone have RGB fans in a flightsim rig?   

[SharpeXB]

My experience with OLED burn-in. I’ve used the LG monitor below for three years, continually all day in my home office as well as gaming. No sign of trouble at all especially things like the Windows task bar along the bottom show no signs of image retention. I do of course have all the screen protection features such as pixel shifting and cleaning. Truth is any technology that isn’t backlit like an LCD has the potential for burn-in CRTs, plasma and so on. It’s a fantastic display so the risk is worth the reward IMO

[kksnowbear]

On 9/17/2024 at 7:54 AM, MAXsenna said:

I believe the point he's trying to make, for the big monitors,you'd want them mounted higher up for better SA, and then you can have secondary monitors with instruments etc. below. Which is exactly how I do it myself. And, care to explain why we even have HUDs in cars?

Now, it totally agree with you about "standars", it's easier on the eyes and body if the monitor is mounted lower. Back in the small CRT days, you could get office desks where you could place your monitor "inside" below the top of your as at an angle, that resembled the way you would read a piece of paper. Remember? 

It's obviously there for the photo. If not Why would anyone have RGB fans in a flightsim rig?   

I'm glad at least someone sees that there is a clear distinction between the standards and personal preference (for whatever reason).  BTW if you look above in this thread, I did specifically discuss the "down view" desks.  And guess what? These are still being made and sold today.

I might argue the point about SA, though.  Even the biggest of screens doesn't actually come close to 'reality' in terms of overall SA.  Anyone who's ever actually flown a real plane (as I have) can absolutely attest to that.  Many of the planes featured in combat sims have bubble canopies in real life, with practically unrestricted vision in the entire upper hemisphere of a pilot's perspective.  You're not gonna duplicate that with a single large screen or even multiple monitors/ultrawides.   (And that's coming from someone who had a 100" retractable electric HD screen at one point.  Just gonna wait to be asked about how high it was mounted lol)

Having a bigger screen is more immersive, but it's still limited in terms of SA.

What we (typically) do to compensate for this is head tracking.  You can move your head a little and see a much greater 'arc' than your head turned.  Among other things, this is precisely because of the screen "viewport" area being (much) smaller than reality - even if you have a larger monitor.

With head tracking, I can darn well 'see' up, down and all around, with fairly small head movements.  I don't need an actual screen that's big as a wall to *see* what's in that space in the sim.  And that's something which, as I said, many of us do (and for the same reason).  Even those with huge monitors.  Why?  Because it works just as I'm describing, that's why.

People who have even gigantic monitors still cannot 'see' anything outside the area their monitor shows without moving their head.  If I have the same resolution display and game view settings as they do,  I can set things up to see the same stuff they can, even if my monitor's nowhere near as big - and regardless of the height of my monitor.

Is a bigger screen more immersive?  Sure.  But is it necessary?  Nope.  The head tracking compensates (at least in large measure). (And before anyone goes off on it, I fully understand that movement tracking is the biggest reason head tracking is such a "game changer").  But it's still absolutely true to say that it works as well as it does because it's non-linear.  Anyone play at 1:1 head movement/'real world' view displacement?  Nope.  And they wouldn't, because the tracking mechanism (as it is now) will lose the sensors - and they'd lose the ability to 'turn a little, see a lot'.

Hopefully that addresses the SA aspect of it.

I measured the top of my G9 earlier.  It's right at my eye line while I'm sitting, at about 21" off the desktop, and the bottom sits about 7" off my desktop.   That means I could *easily* have a monitor 24" on the vertical, with my eye line just below the top of the monitor, and not have to tilt my head back to see clearly (and for the record, still well above my knees).  I'm not disadvantaged as far as SA goes, because (given the same head tracking sensitivity) my view changes as much as others' does.  If I set my centering properly, I can see as far up as they can without tilting my head (assuming I had a 16:9 monitor, though I don't ATM).

I could also easily wall mount an even bigger monitor, gain desktop space, and still be consistent with the standards.  As I said above, that's essentially what I plan to do, just time and laziness that I haven't already done it.

And, to be perfectly clear: I'm actually considering a 55" 16:9 monitor to replace the G9.  I'm interested in the extra vertical view, but (and here's the key) it *still* needs to be mounted closer to the standards of having my eye line nearer the top, rather than in the middle of the screen.   And yes, it's entirely possible, *with* the desk (and *more* space on it).  To be accurate, I could go to a 55" 16:9 and only then would the bottom edge of the monitor be anywhere near my knees lol...the Samsung 55" Ark measures 27.7 on the vertical, which is right at eyes-to-knees when I'm sitting at my PC normally.  I'd be no worse off from a gaming/SA standpoint because of head tracking/compensation, and I'd still be better off from a physical standpoint.

Something else that's being repeatedly ignored here is the point I made about people who wear multifocal lenses.  This is a well-known factor in the monitor height standards, and (of course) there are variants of the standards that deal with it specifically.

As it happens *I* wear multifocal lenses.  And if I were to line the center of a large screen up with my eye line, you know what I'd see if I look up *without* tilting my head?  Nothing.  Well, OK, a big bright blob without much detail.  Certainly not the 'hun in the sun', that's my point.  See, as I already described (for anyone who bothered reading instead of just posting stupid argument):  When someone wears multifocal lenses, they have to look *down* to have clear vision of an object that's within a short distance of their eyes (i.e., a monitor).

That's just the way things work as we age (presbyopia...it's quite real, and effects pretty much *everyone* - not just those who had glasses their whole lives).  Short range vision goes to hell because your eye lens gets more rigid and can't flex to focus as well.  There is a reason for age limits on military pilots (with a very few and exceptionally rare special cases).

I'd even go a step further and say that, considering the costs involved, there are probably more people pursuing high-end flight sims who also wear multifocal lenses than those who do not.  I can tell you from first hand experience that while the computers I've built over the years were for people of a range of ages, the vast majority of the expensive units were for people over 50, and who also wore some type of multifocal lenses.

But, as I've said many times: None of this changes what the standards are.  Laws are still laws, doesn't matter who obeys or breaks them.  (And before anyone goes there, I am NOT saying the standards are laws).

PS:  I think/hope perhaps you're joking, but if not: No, I don' t think the PC in the picture was put there just for the picture.  Plenty of people have RGB lighting, yet still wanna put a PC in the floor simply because that's where there's space (rather than create space in the interest of best practices, as I indicated).  I, of course, advise against it, but 'you can lead a horse to water'.  Some of my more wise customers have actually invested in bigger desks or small side tables, or even built platforms - because they're smarter than throwing money at a computer just to abuse it by leaving it in the floor.

Edited September 22, 2024 by kksnowbear

[MAXsenna]

10 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

I did specifically discuss the "down view" desks.  And guess what? These are still being made and sold today.

Ah, I missed that part. Haven't seen them in ages though. A while back I made my own. Wasn't really a desk, just a "contraption" where I could mount keyboard, mouse and monitors to my personal "hight preference", with some sort of a board for the usual office clutter I can never get rid of for some reason.  

14 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

I might argue the point about SA, though.  Even the biggest of screens doesn't actually come close to 'reality' in terms of overall SA.  Anyone who's ever actually flown a real plane (as I have) can absolutely attest to that.  Many of the planes featured in combat sims have bubble canopies in real life, with practically unrestricted vision in the entire upper hemisphere of a pilot's perspective.  You're not gonna duplicate that with a single large screen or even multiple monitors/ultrawides.

Absolutely! My long term plan/future vison is/was to make a transparent sphere and have multiple projectors on the outside. And now NVIDIA had killed of stereoscopic support....

As for the rest. Yeah, I see what you mean, and I do agree. A huge screen(s) with super high resolution, can give you better SA in my opinion by only moving your eyes/glancing, opposed the need for moving your head. Now, of course this can be a problem with glasses. Multifocals, are they the same as progressive? I don't use that while gaming. And yeah. Getting old is a bitch. 20 years ago I could read microscript on hour driving licenses. Now I have a hard time even finding where it is.

22 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

PS:  I think/hope perhaps you're joking, but if not: No, I don' t think the PC in the picture was put there just for the picture. 

It was a little jest. I just found it funny having been placed exactly there! 

Thank you! Fruitful discussion!

[kksnowbear]

36 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Ah, I missed that part. Haven't seen them in ages though. A while back I made my own. Wasn't really a desk, just a "contraption" where I could mount keyboard, mouse and monitors to my personal "hight preference", with some sort of a board for the usual office clutter I can never get rid of for some reason.  

Absolutely! My long term plan/future vison is/was to make a transparent sphere and have multiple projectors on the outside. And now NVIDIA had killed of stereoscopic support....

As for the rest. Yeah, I see what you mean, and I do agree. A huge screen(s) with super high resolution, can give you better SA in my opinion by only moving your eyes/glancing, opposed the need for moving your head. Now, of course this can be a problem with glasses. Multifocals, are they the same as progressive? I don't use that while gaming. And yeah. Getting old is a bitch. 20 years ago I could read microscript on hour driving licenses. Now I have a hard time even finding where it is.

It was a little jest. I just found it funny having been placed exactly there! 

Thank you! Fruitful discussion!

Absolutely, it's my pleasure - and thank you

Re: Multifocal v progressive; yessir I believe they're essentially the same thing. 'Multifocal' might be more describing that there *are* multiple refractive indices in the same lens, where 'progressive' would apply more to the nature of the transition between indices...but I believe my optician refers to mine as 'progressives'.  I guess it's true to say not all multifocals are progressives, but all progresives are multifocal

As for the eyesight/aging thing...it also happens I do quite a bit of electronics work, and some of the components are brutally small...I take my glasses off entirely for this.  Below is a sample; this is assembled entirely by hand, with no visual aids at all.  But for everything else (including gaming), if it's not within about 5-6 inches from my face, I'm fairly blind without glasses lol.

 

[SharpeXB]

I’m in the presbyopia club as well. I’ll bet the DCS player demographic hits squarely into this age group. 
When I found myself looking at the screen through the lower part of my progressive lenses I realized my old 32” monitor was too close and too small. That’s why a big screen set farther away is a life saver. And at that distance there’s less eye strain and you can just use the normal part of the lens. A prescription update was in order too. Progressive or bifocal lenses aren’t great for using a PC screen in front of you, they’re made for reading. If the screen is too close even a normal size one is going to mean tipping your head back like that. A better solution would be computer glasses which simply magnify everything instead of just the bottom.
What I use most of the time are multifocal contact lenses which are fantastic. Those simply allow you to see near and far at the same time across the whole field, not just the bottom. In my experience contacts also provide much better vision than eyeglasses.

[kksnowbear]

59 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m in the presbyopia club as well. I’ll bet the DCS player demographic hits squarely into this age group. 
When I found myself looking at the screen through the lower part of my progressive lenses I realized my old 32” monitor was too close and too small. That’s why a big screen set farther away is a life saver. And at that distance there’s less eye strain and you can just use the normal part of the lens. A prescription update was in order too. Progressive or bifocal lenses aren’t great for using a PC screen in front of you, they’re made for reading. If the screen is too close even a normal size one is going to mean tipping your head back like that. A better solution would be computer glasses which simply magnify everything instead of just the bottom.
What I use most of the time are multifocal contact lenses which are fantastic. Those simply allow you to see near and far at the same time across the whole field, not just the bottom. In my experience contacts also provide much better vision than eyeglasses.

All of this might be true for you.  Not for me, and certainly not for everyone.  Among other things some people, myself included, can't wear contacts.

And it still doesn't change the standards, nor the fact that I can absolutely and effectively use a monitor even greater than 48" consistently within the standards (yet not touching my knees), *with* a desk that has *more* space, even for gaming...unlike what you've said.

I didn't realize you were also an expert in optometry.  How foolish of the industry to overlook that it's not appropriate to use a computer if you wear multifocal lenses.  If only they had asked you, before they actually created standards specifically for those who wear multifocal lenses.

Meanwhile, back in reality...

The standards recognize that lots of people wear progressive lenses, and as I said, include variants just for that specific purpose.  They wouldn't have been able to do that if it weren't possible, or was going to cause the very problems they set out to correct.  Somehow, in spite of your claims, they got it right, without forcing people to tilt their heads back (in fact, specifically avoiding it).  While wearing multifical lenses.  Imagine that.

Edited September 17, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

26 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

I didn't realize you were also an expert in optometry.

You don’t need a degree in optometry to wear eyeglasses and know what they are

43 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

How foolish of the industry to overlook that it's not appropriate to use a computer if you wear multifocal lenses.

As I understand it multifocal and progressive lenses are two different things. Progressive lenses are like bifocals without the etched horizontal line between the two or three lens types which are arranged horizontally. Multifocals are contact lenses or even implanted lenses with multiple concentric zones in the same lens. I’m not aware of multifocal eyeglasses, perhaps the term is used interchangeably. Multifocal lenses are better for looking at a screen in front of you since the up close correction is across your whole field of vision instead of just along the bottom. Bifocals or progressives are not. Although if you find yourself tipping your head back like that chances are your screen is too close or your prescription isn’t right. Clearly that’s not ideal. But don’t ask me, ask your eye doctor!

[kksnowbear]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

54 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

I didn't realize you were also an expert in optometry.

You don’t need a degree in optometry to wear eyeglasses and know what they are

Yes, but that's not what you do.

You go on to represent your opinions on the matter as facts, saying things like "Progressive or bifocal lenses aren’t great for using a PC screen in front of you" and "A better solution would be computer glasses...".

These statements sound as if they're expressing fact.  Phrases like "arent great" and "would be" are definitive in nature.

You represent your opinions as if you were an expert.  If that's not what you're doing, then why not say "I think (progressive lenses arent great)" or "in my opinion..." or even "computer glasses might be..."

As I said, the standards address wearing various corrective lenses, because it's not only very common, but because it can be accomplished.  Wouldn't be that way if the industry agreed with you that it's better to just get computer glasses.

So, yet again, we find your opinions represented as fact, yet in stark contrast to what actual experts say.

[kksnowbear]

BTW on the question of multifocal lenses (which I actually did describe earlier, if we're not too busy arguing to read...):

Edited September 17, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

26 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

These statements sound as if they're expressing fact.

Everything people write here is an opinion, I’m sure that’s obvious (in my opinion)

21 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

BTW on the question of multifocal lenses (which I actually did describe earlier, if we're not too busy arguing to read...):

 

The term is used interchangeably it seems. The lens there looks like it’s actually a progressive. For the purpose of this discussion it’s better to consider these separately. One arranges the zones horizontally (progressive) the other (multifocal) is concentric. The second kind is much more suited to looking at a large screen in front of you in my opinion. My doctor refers to them as separate types maybe because I wear both that would just get confusing.

[kksnowbear]

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Everything people write here is an opinion, I’m sure that’s obvious (in my opinion)

And I'm absolutely sure that's not accurate (and that's not an opinion).  Factual statements are made here quite frequently.

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The lens there looks like it’s actually a progressive.

You can't even admit you were wrong when presented with factual proof from an authoritative source....wow.

Here's another image from the Canadian Association of Optometrists website (https://opto.ca/eye-health-library/multifocal-lenses)

null

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

For the purpose of this discussion it’s better to consider these separately.

And here we go again...an opinion, being expressed  as though it's fact.   It's isn't necessarily "better" (that's your opinion), and there was no conflict about this before you started.

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The second kind is much more suited to looking at a large screen in front of you in my opinion.

Well, at least we finally get to the point of establishing that was only your opinion.  And since we've established you're not an actual expert in optometry or ergonomic physiology studies...well...

Edited September 17, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

You can't even admit you were wrong when presented with factual proof from an authoritative source....wow

A progressive lens is a type of multifocal lens. There’s also a multifocal contact lens that’s concentric and behaves very differently. Then there are bifocal contact lenses similar to that progressive. Getting the terms mixed up is confusing. My doctor refers to these as progressive eyeglass lenses and multifocal contact lenses. I think you can see why. 

14 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

It's isn't necessarily "better"

It’s better to be clear about definitions otherwise it’s just derailing the whole thread arguing about semantics. 

[kksnowbear]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I think you can see why. 

What I can see is two different, authoritative sources (one a national association of genuine experts, nonetheless) being referenced with very clear, detailed information (and even pictures)...and you're still arguing about it.

I don't know why it should surprise me...but I have to say that this is just remarkable.

In any case, it remains that the actual experts who established standards for monitor placement included variants for people wearing multifocal lenses.  (Which wouldn't really be necessary if your version of multifocals applied, thus it clearly does not).

You said "Multifocal lenses are better for looking at a screen in front of you since the up close correction is across your whole field of vision instead of just along the bottom."

Now, if multifocal lenses do as you say, then the monitor placement standards wouldn't need to include variants for those wearing them.  Yet they do:

nullnull

Edited September 17, 2024 by kksnowbear

[kksnowbear]

44 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s better to be clear about definitions otherwise it’s just derailing the whole thread arguing about semantics. 

I have no problem with being clear.  My problem is with you representing your opinion as fact, as I've already said.  "Better" is absolutely a matter of opinion; it's subjective.  No one was confused about this before you came along, so if the thread's being derailed that's on you.   It was discussed politely and concisely at an earlier point and without conflict (imagine that). 

Let's look at what I said on the matter earlier:

Re: Multifocal v progressive; yessir I believe they're essentially the same thing. 'Multifocal' might be more describing that there *are* multiple refractive indices in the same lens, where 'progressive' would apply more to the nature of the transition between indices...but I believe my optician refers to mine as 'progressives'.  I guess it's true to say not all multifocals are progressives, but all progresives are multifocal.

I'm literally sprinkling the entire three-sentence paragraph with (at least) four very clear indications that I'm expressing an opinion.  And zero conflict or confusion.

If it's your opinion, why not express it as "I think it might be better"?

Anyhow....as I said previously:

Bottom line:

The standards are still what they are, regardless of how any of us mounts a monitor.  It would further appear that the body of actual experts disagree with your opinion.

And in spite of multiple offers for you to present the references that back up your opinions, you've failed to do so.

So I think we're done here  

Edited September 17, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Now, if multifocal lenses do as you say, then the monitor placement standards wouldn't need to include variants for those wearing them.  Yet they do:

That’s confusing because it’s referring to “Multifocal Progressive” lenses. If those are supposed to be eyeglasses those behave the same as bifocals. Multifocal contact lessens aren’t progressive. For eyeglasses “bifocal” and “progressive” are literally the same for the purpose of a seating diagram.

The effect of Multifocal contact lenses is like just having your perfect eyesight back. Rather remarkable. Sorta fits that middle category but again they’re not progressive. 
And those diagrams don’t really work very well for a much larger screen. 
The other difference for flight simulation is you need to sit lower and perhaps reclined, literally like an airplane cockpit or car seat. Upright high like that you can’t use pedals very well. That lowers your eye point even more. 

[kksnowbear]

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And those diagrams don’t really work very well for a much larger screen. 
The other difference for flight simulation is you need to sit lower and perhaps reclined, literally like an airplane cockpit or car seat. Upright high like that you can’t use pedals very well. That lowers your eye point even more. 

All opinions, as before.  Just kinda pointless.

The diagrams can work just fine for screens up to *at least* 55", just as I explained in detail above (with dimensions, at that).  You're just trying to make it sound like they don't, to fit your argument, which is total BS.  Your opinion is misguided.

I don't think anyone "needs" to sit any particular way for a flight sim.  Obviously opinion.  (Not everyone even *has* pedals, in fact, and that's your reasoning?)

Your opinions differ with recognized experts and established standards, even though you continue trying to make them seem like facts.  And even though you've been offered countless times to provide references to support your opinions, you've not provided any.

Edited September 17, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

15 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

I don't think anyone "needs" to sit any particular way for a flight sim.  Obviously opinion.  (Not everyone even *has* pedals, in fact, and that's your reasoning?)

No not everyone has pedals. Just pointing out why standards for office workstations might not work well for simpits. Lots of people don’t wear bifocals either. So this monitor placement stuff is a non issue for them. 

Edited September 17, 2024 by SharpeXB

[kksnowbear]

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Lots of people don’t wear bifocals either. So this monitor placement stuff is a non issue for them. 

Nope; that's also opinion, not fact. 

We covered this already: 

According to actual, recognized experts, everyone (who has a human body) can benefit from the advantages of proper monitor placement.  The point of the standards isn't to help only people with glasses, or only office workers...

...it's to help people who use a computer with a monitor.

You're more concerned with argument than with actually trying to improve anything.

And you have yet to show any evidence that the standards only apply to office workstations.  So that sounds a lot like just another of your opinions.

Edited September 17, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

The point of the standards isn't to help only people with glasses

Without the restriction of bifocals (and a screen that’s probably too close) your eyes can easily look at the top of the screen. 

9 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

So that sounds a lot like just another of your opinions

Sure. Here’s my opinion of what a 48” screen looks like in that diagram. Not quite what the standards had in mind I suppose.

 

Edited September 17, 2024 by SharpeXB

[kksnowbear]

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Without the restriction of bifocals (and a screen that’s probably too close) your eyes can easily look at the top of the screen. 

That has nothing to do with anything.  People (like you) still locate monitors poorly, sit poofly, etc.  That's what the standards are for and why they exist. Not just for people with glasses, for anyone with a human body.  Again, you're just desperate to argue as opposed to helping anything.

 

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Here’s my opinion of what a 48” screen looks like in that diagram. Not quite what the standards had in mind I suppose.

Yup, your opinion. Which you are intentionally making ridiculous, in order to try to denigrate the standards. Ain't gonna work.  You actually have to be willing to try to follow the standards (i.e., what you're not doing).  Your opinion doesn't seem to work because you don't want it to. 

A reasonably intelligent person would have no problem at all making the standards work just as in the diagram, if they really wanted to. I explained earlier I could easily make it work.

As I said, your goal here appears to be pointless argument, not trying to improve anything.

Edited September 17, 2024 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Yup, your opinion. Which you are intentionally making ridiculous

As much as I can figure without drafting it all out that’s about the height of my screen. It’s the distance from my lap to just above the eye. Does that look like what the standard had in mind? Are there standards for sitting in front of a 48” screen? 

If you place the large screen per the diagram it would end up like this. Doesn’t that seem odd?

 

10 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

People (like you) still locate monitors poorly, sit poofly, etc

Are my eyes going to be damaged by looking above the horizontal? Will I hurt myself sitting the same way as in my car?