Originally Posted by Randomoneh
Let's assume things are exactly as you've said: 50'' 1080p display, 12 ft viewing distance.
Apparent pixel size is 0.542 arcminutes, angular resolution is 110.7 pixels per degree [of person's field of view].
When participants of NHK "blind" tests were presented with images with 104 ppd and 312 ppd, 82-90%
(depending on the image) of participants rated higher the image with 312 ppd.
When presented with 156 ppd and 312 ppd images, 59-78%
(depending on the image) of participants rated higher the image with higher resolution.
This tells us a lot, but most importantly - we shouldn't continue using fixed 60 pixels per degree value as limit of human vision.
"59-78%" with 156 vs 312 ppd?!
Give me a break. Last time I checked a coin flip's 50/50. When I get the time I'll delve deeper into this "study" - almost certainly conducted by an entity with a vested interest in increased resolutions- whether admitted or not.
Till then keep telling yourself that more than 2% of humans can resolve all the detail in a 50" 1080 display at 12 feet.
As for the average seating distance of about 8', lmao more still. Yep, perhaps in the UK where the typical home is 30-40% smaller I guess.
I did my own little "experiment" 6 months ago. I measured (yes, I actually used a tape measure) and noted the viewing distance and size of the television in the "next" 20 living rooms of friends and family I visited.
What did I find? About 90% (17 actually, IIRC) had either a 42, 46, or 50" tv and the average seating distance was about 11.5 feet. A few extremely close scenarios (due to room size) really skewed the data though...most were well over 12 feet. I'm at 11.5' with a 60" screen myself.
Guess I know all the wrong people though, go figure.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
JamesEdited by mastermaybe - 8/31/12 at 7:29am