Challenges in TV viewing distance recommendations - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 7 Old 07-04-2012, 10:30 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
As many of you know, if you keep increasing display pixel density, at some point there will be no real point to it because eyes won't be able to perceive those extra detail that resolution brings.

For many years, viewing distance has been recommended based on idea that apparent size of a pixel should be 1 arcminute. That translates to angular resolution of 60 pixels per degree.

But, if we want not be able to perceive higher quality, apparent size of a pixel has to be 0.3 arcminutes or less. That translates to angular resolution of 200 pixels per degree.

637
Full resolution here.

Of course, we can't just start recommending viewing distance based on angular resolution of 200 pixels per degree. Why? Because technology isn't there yet. We'd have to recommend either huge distances or small TVs.

476
Full resolution here.

So, my question is, now, at 2012, 4K is almost here, what angular resolution is good enough (not perfect) for recommendations of viewing distance? 100 plus?
Randomoneh is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 Old 07-05-2012, 07:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
mtallent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cecilia,KY
Posts: 867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 13
See the chart in my sig, I think it is pretty accurate. I set 7 feet from my 65 inch 1080P HDTV and I can just barely resolve a test signal of alternating black and white one pixel wide vertical lines. Further away and it just looks like a gray picture.

Mike T
mtallent is offline  
post #3 of 7 Old 07-05-2012, 08:07 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtallent View Post

See the chart in my sig, I think it is pretty accurate. I set 7 feet from my 65 inch 1080P HDTV and I can just barely resolve a test signal of alternating black and white one pixel wide vertical lines. Further away and it just looks like a gray picture.
Mike T
That chart is based on angular resolution of 60 pixels per degree. It may be good enough for you, however, it's not average.
Randomoneh is offline  
post #4 of 7 Old 07-05-2012, 10:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 254
What's wrong with just sitting at a distance that you feel comfortable with and you feel gives you the best resolution?
Otto Pylot is offline  
post #5 of 7 Old 07-05-2012, 10:41 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

What's wrong with just sitting at a distance that you feel comfortable with and you feel gives you the best resolution?
Nothing.

However, some things are wrong. For example, at distance x with xx inch TV viewer would benefit from 8k resolution. However, because he's using a chart / calculator that underestimates human vision by a great deal, he might buy 1080p thinking he wouldn't get any better image quality with 4k or 8k (provided content is there, of course) because chart told him he couldn't see the difference.

That's why I feel we should be true to ourselves and go with tested angular resolutions. We should at least be using 100 pixels per degree (apparent size of single pixel - 0.6 arcminutes), since most of quality rise happens to that point (see the chart).
Randomoneh is offline  
post #6 of 7 Old 07-05-2012, 01:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Well I can't argue with the science but I think it's a silly argument to begin with. No two people have the same visual acuity, and while charts and stats are important and necessary in some situations, it ultimately comes down to what you like. It's the same argument as to whether you should calibrate with meters and software, software only, or just tweak to taste.
Otto Pylot is offline  
post #7 of 7 Old 07-05-2012, 02:37 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

Well I can't argue with the science but I think it's a silly argument to begin with. No two people have the same visual acuity, and while charts and stats are important and necessary in some situations, it ultimately comes down to what you like. It's the same argument as to whether you should calibrate with meters and software, software only, or just tweak to taste.
Try to think of it like this:

Human ear can register frequencies up to 20 kHz. You are out there buying headphones and you see one that can deliver 20 kHz and one that can deliver 40 kHz. There is no reason to spend money on latter if you won't be able to hear the difference. That's the case with displays too - people need to know where is the limit. Unfortunately, limit is almost always greatly underestimated.
Randomoneh is offline  
Reply HDTV Technical

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off