Optimal FOV - Where more image meets less quality

[CaptaPraelium]

There is much discussion amongst gamers, as to what is the "best FOV". Lower FOV makes bigger targets, a more easily visible centre of the screen, shows more detail, it's great. But Higher FOV, creates peripheral vision, reduces apparent recoil, gives the impression of faster movement. It's great...

There are many pros and cons. Accordingly, the "best FOV" is generally considered to be subjective.... In other words, it depends on the player. I do not subscribe to this logic, and I am making this thread to discuss the objectively optimal FOV.

For every increase or decrease in FOV, there is a tradeoff between the pros and cons, of which I gave some examples. This tradeoff is not magic, it's math. We can crunch the numbers to find out where the distortion of the image, becomes excessively lossy, when compared to the additional information on our monitor. This is not a thread where "muh feels" have any place. If you have an FOV which you feel is best, and it works for you, I am not trying to change your mind Use it! But, if you want to pitch in and crunch numbers to find the sweet spot where more image meets less quality, you're in the right place.


I've started some discussion over here:

Which aims to define the nature of the distortion in the image, not only along the axes where x=0 and y=0, but across the whole image. The formula which arise from that thread, will be directly applied here. I'll be focussing on that thread first, but I feel like the content in that thread, leads directly to this one, so, here it is!

Annnnnd go!

[MattKelly]

.

Edited October 10, 2018 by MattKelly