2. Recurring Industry Practice: Pre-Splitting Content Before Deployment

Typical workflow observed in large display projects

In many large-scale projection mapping and immersive display projects, content is pre-split into multiple files before on-site deployment.

This usually requires:

• Predefined projector positions and overlaps
• Fixed pixel boundaries for each output
• Content files rendered per display device

This workflow assumes that physical deployment will match the design assumptions exactly.

3. Failure Pattern: Why Pre-Splitting Introduces Structural Risk

This section is the core diagnostic block of the spoke.

3.1 Loss of Flexibility During On-Site Deployment

Even small physical deviations during installation (mounting tolerances, obstructions, alignment corrections) invalidate pre-split content.

Because cropping boundaries are fixed in the content itself:

• Adjustments require full re-rendering
• Content timelines and budgets become exposed to on-site uncertainty

This transforms installation variance in content production risk.

3.2 Synchronization and Alignment Amplification

Once content is split into multiple independent files:

• Frame-level synchronization becomes mandatory
• Edge alignment errors are magnified at large scale

Any drift, latency mismatch, or pixel offset becomes visible as a seam.

This shifts system reliability from deterministic geometry zu runtime synchronization quality, which is inherently less predictable.

3.3 Content Asset Lock-In

Pre-split content is tightly bound to:

• A specific resolution layout
• A fixed display topology

If the display configuration changes:

• The content cannot be reused
• High-cost assets become single-use

This significantly reduces the operational lifespan of content.

3.4 Responsibility Leakage Into the Content Domain

Content designers are forced to:

• Calculate overlap pixels
• Compensate for geometric distortion
• Anticipate physical installation tolerances

These tasks belong to display system orchestration, not content design. This creates a structural mismatch between creative intent and system responsibility.

4. System-Level Interpretation: Content Preparation Is Not a Creative Problem

The recurring failures above do not originate from:

• Insufficient creative tools
• Inexperienced designers

They originate from assigning display orchestration responsibilities to the content production layer.

In system terms:

• Content becomes responsible for physical display behavior
• The system loses a stable, deterministic boundary

This is a system architecture issue, not a workflow preference.

5. Responsibility Reassignment: Decoupling Content From Display Topology

Required system-level shift

In large display systems, content should describe:

• A complete visual canvas
• Narrative and visual composition

The display system should determine:

• How that canvas is segmented
• How geometry and overlap are resolved
• How physical devices behave as a unified surface

This separation restores a clear responsibility boundary.

6. Hardware-Level Implementation of Content Decoupling (GeoBox as Reference)

This section introduces GeoBox only as a concrete implementation, not as a general claim.

6.1 Single-Canvas Input as a Contract

GeoBox receives a complete, high-resolution signal and performs:

• Output cropping
• Geometric correction
• Kantenüberblendung (Edge Blending)
• All segmentation occurs nach content delivery, at the hardware output stage.

6.2 On-Site Adjustability Without Content Rework

Because cropping boundaries are defined in the display processing layer:

• Installation adjustments do not affect content files
• No re-rendering is required

This converts physical uncertainty into a controlled system variable.

6.3 Reduced Dependency on Playback Synchronization

By avoiding multi-file playback:

• Frame-sync dependencies are reduced
• Media playback complexity is lowered

System behavior becomes more predictable under load.

6.4 Deterministic Geometry Processing

FPGA-based processing ensures:

• Fixed processing paths
• Stable latency
• No dependency on OS or GPU state

This does not increase image resolution, but it stabilizes how pixels are mapped to physical space.

7. Technical Constraints and Explicit Limitations

GeoBox addresses mapping determinism, not creative resolution limits.

• The total input resolution still defines pixel density
• Large surfaces require adequate source resolution
• Hardware processing cannot compensate for insufficient content detail

8. Observed System-Level Impact

When content preparation is decoupled from display topology:

• Content workflows become reusable
• Installation risk is reduced
• Long-term system maintenance becomes simpler

The benefit is not visual enhancement, but predictable system behavior.