What is Your Viewing Distance Relative to Screen Height? - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
View Poll Results: What is Your Viewing Distance Relative to Screen Height?
HD—Less than 3 times the screen height 312 36.03%
HD—About 3 times the screen height 227 26.21%
HD—More than 3 times the screen height 177 20.44%
UHD/4K—Less than 1.5 times the screen height 18 2.08%
UHD/4K—About 1.5 times the screen height 40 4.62%
UHD/4K—More than 1.5 times the screen height 92 10.62%
Voters: 866. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 96Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 06:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,463
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2341 Post(s)
Liked: 1345
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
I like less than 3 times the height of actual movie, especially with film shot with wide angle lenses.

Take How The West Was Won for example, if you sit more than 2.5 times the height you are missing detail.

The blue that is part of the lamp light in the the movie Thor (2.35:1 Aspect Ratio), which is a pretty small detail, can be seen up to 3.5/4 times the screen hight..i checked that out myself.
8mile13 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 06:28 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgarner View Post
So if I sit in the middle of a theater to watch a movie regardless of which theater I go to, does that mean it is approx. 2.5 viewing distance? I would imagine that 3x is the back of the theater and anything less than 2x would be the front row?

Is that a fair assumption?

Brian
That's not too far off the mark, at least for THX theatres.

The geometric center of the seating area in a THX certified theatre gives around 52 degrees horizontal for a scope screen, and that's 2.4 x the screen height (40 degrees for 1.85 in that seat). I'm not sure if all theatres would be built to the same kind of footprint, but THX appear to be the only ones who put that kind of information out there. Others may be in the ball park.

THX recommend that the back row should be 3.68 x the screen height to give a 36 degree horizontal viewing angle for scope. The furthest acceptable is 5.18 xSH (26 degrees).

SMPTE recommend that 2xSH is the closest you should sit (61.8 degrees horizontal viewing angle), and the furthest 4 x SH (33.3 degrees). 3xSH will put you at around 43.4 degrees.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #93 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 07:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
6athome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 640 Post(s)
Liked: 174
Haven't been able to get my wife to read either article so I can get my 80 inch TV.
Maybe I should try crowd funding?
6athome is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 07:42 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,123
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2755 Post(s)
Liked: 2659
I have found, to my surprise, that when I stand in front of UHD TVs in the stores (I don't own one) and I move closer than a 1080p distance in order to feel more immersed and pick up the detail, that I actually start perceiving the pixel structure!

I presume this is because the high brightness and lower fill ratio between pixels than what I have at home.
Ever since I've owned JVC projectors, particularly the E-shift models, I've become used to an image in which there is effectively zero pixel visibility even on the largest image sizes. After being used to a perfectly smooth image, regular 1080p TVs became less satisfying as I became more aware of the pixel structure than ever.
But I was surprised that this seems to carry over even to the new UHD displays to some degree as well.
rossandwendy likes this.
R Harkness is offline  
post #95 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 07:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
I have found, to my surprise, that when I stand in front of UHD TVs in the stores (I don't own one) and I move closer than a 1080p distance in order to feel more immersed and pick up the detail, that I actually start perceiving the pixel structure!

I presume this is because the high brightness and lower fill ratio between pixels than what I have at home.
Ever since I've owned JVC projectors, particularly the E-shift models, I've become used to an image in which there is effectively zero pixel visibility even on the largest image sizes. After being used to a perfectly smooth image, regular 1080p TVs became less satisfying as I became more aware of the pixel structure than ever.
But I was surprised that this seems to carry over even to the new UHD displays to some degree as well.
That's an interesting observation. I've experimented sitting very close with my plasma tv and not noticed that myself, but with high brightness LCD I can see that it could be a problem.

I only ever noticed pixels on my first (DLP) projector which was an 800 x 600 model if I leant forward in my seat which was then at 3 x SH. Considering that was 15 years ago and we have considerably much higher resolutions now, I would think that pixel visibility is a rare thing for most people.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #96 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 08:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
CosmoNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6athome View Post
Haven't been able to get my wife to read either article so I can get my 80 inch TV.
Maybe I should try crowd funding?
This makes me think of a quote that I found somewhere and have on my Facebook profile:

"Asking if an HDTV is too big is like me asking you if the diamond on your wedding ring is too big." -- A husband's response to his wife's question about his 65" HDTV.
mo949 likes this.

---
Striving to live life in high dynamic range and ultra high definition.
Samsung UN65JS8500 / Denon AVR-X4000 / 5.1 w/ Mixed Speakers / Oppo UDP-203 / TiVo Premiere XL / Apple TV (3rd gen) / Fire TV (1st gen) / Xbox 360 R2-D2 Edition
KC area / Father of 4 / Husband / Video Producer / Skeptic
CosmoNut is offline  
post #97 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 09:09 AM
Senior Member
 
bizwiz41's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 367
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicrecording View Post
My sitting distance is where the wife says she wants the couch.
For me, it's also where the wife says to locate the TV, and other seating furniture!!!

I was surprised to determine that the primary viewing position (large recliner) was right at the 3:1 ratio. Honestly, I have always felt this was too close a viewing position, as I can see the picture defects, etc.

I guess we can't rule out "preference over reference"..........

Sometimes I have to remind myself that I bought all this "stuff" to enjoy it!
bizwiz41 is offline  
post #98 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 09:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Normal tv has variable image quality, often down to bit rate. If you watch primarily Blu Ray it should be less of a problem. Sometimes setting the brightness and contrast correctly can make a big difference as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #99 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 09:28 AM
Senior Member
 
iamjason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 21
i will add my 2 cents about seating distance later but that is one great movie in the home theater - especially with the smile box version - just a visual joy to watch - and a breatty good movie as well!


Quote:
Originally Posted by James Freeman View Post
I like less than 3 times the height of actual movie, especially with film shot with wide angle lenses.

Take How The West Was Won for example, if you sit more than 2.5 times the height you are missing detail.

iamjason is offline  
post #100 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 02:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bargervais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tampa Bay Florida
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1755 Post(s)
Liked: 1090
60 inch plasma I view from 13.5 feet, for my 51 inch plasma 8.5 feet away just perfect for me.

DEN Samsung UN65KS8000 / 2017 Roku Ultra / Onkyo TX-RZ710 5.2.2 Atmos / Sam. UBD-M8500 Blu-Ray Player
Living Room TCL 55R617 55-Inch 4K Ultra / Onkyo TX-RZ920 7.2.4 Atmos / M-5010 Amplifier / Sam. UBD-K8500 Blu-Ray Player . BEDROOM Samsung 55JS8500 / 2016 Roku Ultra / LG UP870 3D Ultra High Definition Blu-Ray 4K Player
bargervais is offline  
post #101 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 05:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1193
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizwiz41 View Post
For me, it's also where the wife says to locate the TV, and other seating furniture!!!

I was surprised to determine that the primary viewing position (large recliner) was right at the 3:1 ratio. Honestly, I have always felt this was too close a viewing position, as I can see the picture defects, etc.

I guess we can't rule out "preference over reference"..........
Same here!

And another quip about 'reference' is that there is no such thing as 'reference' at home on bluray at least - the standards are a myth that no one mixes to for home releases anyhow and its really all just preference. Try finding two standards that agree on everything around here
mo949 is offline  
post #102 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 05:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States, Earth
Posts: 2,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
Liked: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by bargervais View Post
60 inch plasma I view from 13.5 feet, for my 51 inch plasma 8.5 feet away just perfect for me.
60-in diagonal, if 16:9, is 29.4 in high. Viewing distance / height = 5.5

51 in diagonal, if 16:9, is 25 in high. Viewing distance / height = 4.1

It may help to see if one is primarily watching Blu-ray, over-the-air TV, cable or satellite, DVD, Laserdisk, or VHS cassettes.

My very humble setup:
Spoiler!

Last edited by Mark12547; 06-24-2015 at 05:45 PM.
Mark12547 is offline  
post #103 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 05:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bargervais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tampa Bay Florida
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1755 Post(s)
Liked: 1090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark12547 View Post
60-in diagonal, if 16:9, is 29.4 in high. Viewing distance / height = 5.5

51 in diagonal, if 16:9, is 25 in high. Viewing distance / height = 4.1

It may help to see if one is primarily watching Blu-ray, over-the-air TV, cable or satellite, DVD, Laserdisk, or VHS cassettes.
Definitely not VHS Cassette....mostly Blu-Ray, satellite and streaming apps.

DEN Samsung UN65KS8000 / 2017 Roku Ultra / Onkyo TX-RZ710 5.2.2 Atmos / Sam. UBD-M8500 Blu-Ray Player
Living Room TCL 55R617 55-Inch 4K Ultra / Onkyo TX-RZ920 7.2.4 Atmos / M-5010 Amplifier / Sam. UBD-K8500 Blu-Ray Player . BEDROOM Samsung 55JS8500 / 2016 Roku Ultra / LG UP870 3D Ultra High Definition Blu-Ray 4K Player
bargervais is offline  
post #104 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 06:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HopefulFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,756
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 571 Post(s)
Liked: 528
50" plasma from 94 inches was better than I thought, at 3.76:1

But when I think that so much of what I actually watch is 'scope I realize the actual image height of 18" gives me about 5.2:1

The theater under construction will be much closer about 2.3:1 for the front row, and right at 4:1 for the second row - constant image height.
HopefulFred is offline  
post #105 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 06:30 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Anything less than 3 times the screen causes headaches for me. My best friend has a 60 inch tv with a couch only 6 feet away. I dont know he deals with this. it drives me nuts!
Larkdean is offline  
post #106 of 230 Old 06-24-2015, 07:51 PM
Member
 
WHATTHEDILEO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Metro-Detroit, MI
Posts: 190
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by antennahead View Post
... One day in the future when a 75 to 80" UHD FLAT OLED is available at a reasonable price ...
It will never happen... Large, Flat, and OLED ? You can only pick two of those three options, in any combination.

WHATTHEDILEO
Some people LOVE MUSIC.
Some people LOVE the SOUND of music.
If you don't know the difference, then you LIKE MUSIC.
My slow-cooking 11.4 channel Theater Room quest
WHATTHEDILEO is offline  
post #107 of 230 Old 06-25-2015, 11:30 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 4
I'm at about 4:1 (16' on a 100" screen) and that's perfect for tv, sports and video games. For me anyway, I like being able to see everything without turning my head.

I just tried sitting at 2:1 for watching a movie and it was more immersive but if there was any more than one person watching it the viewing angle would have cancelled out the experience for them.
joshch is offline  
post #108 of 230 Old 06-25-2015, 11:47 AM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3561
This thread is truly inspiring, and incites to discover, to experiment, with screen's distances. ...With heights, with widths, with fields of view.

How the West Was Won ... tonight, on Blu.
NorthSky is offline  
post #109 of 230 Old 06-25-2015, 12:48 PM
Member
 
Wahoo_envy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 18
144" viewing distance or 2.67:1 from a 54"x130" 2.35:1 scope screen. I had just over 17' to work with and wanted a wide screen for a wide wall. This for me is just about perfect for 2:35:1 blu rays, but the 16:9 viewing is a little on the small side with the vertical bars on the sides.
billmac likes this.
Wahoo_envy is offline  
post #110 of 230 Old 06-25-2015, 01:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
If 16:9 looks too small, try sitting closer. I tried 2xSH and found 16:9 was very immersive, and of course scope even more so. Worth a try IMHO.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #111 of 230 Old 06-25-2015, 08:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rlindo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ON, Canada
Posts: 6,326
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 984 Post(s)
Liked: 882
The ratio for 4k is ridiculous. Using my 46" tv that I am typing this on right now, if it were UHD then I would be expected to sit just shy of 3 feet back which is nuts as I just tried that. At that close a distance I would have to be constantly scanning the image to see what the heck is going on. Oh and hello, eyestrain. Apparently optimal means continually scanning the image and getting eyestrain. I did test it at the 3x distance and it was not bad although I prefer to be back another 1.5 feet than the 67" 3x gives me as I like the entire image to be in my direct view so there is minimal required eye scanning and no actual head moving.

I just don't think you can plug and play ratios in and I think screen size matters. Take a monitor. 3x from your average 24" 1080p monitor is probably a bit far for most while 1.5x from a 24" uhd isn't too far off yet 1.5x from a bigger uhd image is way too close.

For me, the optimal distance is wherever someone wishes to sit. I don't need an organization telling me where I should be sitting for the "optimal image" seeing as they have no idea what my eyesight or brain is like. Pretty silly to act like everyone should be sitting X distance away even if X distance means they may get headaches and other issues because they're too close.

I will say that 3-4x height is a pretty decent ratio for me and I think my distance in my dedicated room with the 106" diag image is somewhere in the 3.5x range and I could stand to be a bit closer if the room setup allowed that.

I have 20/15 vision so sitting real close to a display is not optimal as there is no real benefit to it and just the negatives I mentioned in the first paragraph.
rlindo is offline  
post #112 of 230 Old 06-25-2015, 10:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
I agree 4ks 1.5xsh is too close except maybe for IMAX.

All the recommendations are just that, and if you go to a commercial theatre, you have a range of seating to choose from, so just sit where it suits you. You will find though, that they are built to the guidelines which are derived from research that takes into account many things and is not based on a single person. So of course they don't work for everyone, but they do for most people.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.

Last edited by Gary Lightfoot; 12-18-2015 at 01:09 PM.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #113 of 230 Old 06-26-2015, 05:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
Mike191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 13
1.77 using 110" 16:9 screen. Seating distance is fixed and I tried different screen sizes when I set up my projector by projecting to the wall where the fixed screen would be mounted. Liked the 110" screen the best!! Projector is Epson 8350. Now just need to upgrade to 3D!

Mike
Mike191 is offline  
post #114 of 230 Old 06-26-2015, 09:29 AM
Member
 
barleyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 49
My couch is about 17 feet from a 100" diagonal screen, 16:9. That's 4.36:1.

I tend to prefer more of a "back row of the theater" viewing angle. I find sitting closer fatiguing.

Also, my living room isn't rectangular, so there's really nowhere to put a bigger screen. I had to go edgeless just to get to 100 inches.
barleyguy is offline  
post #115 of 230 Old 06-26-2015, 12:24 PM
Senior Member
 
HYPURR DBL NKL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Noble Oklahoma
Posts: 495
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Liked: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicrecording View Post
My sitting distance is where the wife says she wants the couch.
This cracked me up, because this is where my sitting distance is as well.
HYPURR DBL NKL is offline  
post #116 of 230 Old 06-26-2015, 02:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Reddig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central U.S.
Posts: 2,825
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 497 Post(s)
Liked: 983
Seating is 11.5 feet away from 125 in diagnol 16:9 screen.

2.208 times the screen height is what I get.

JBL Pro Cinema/JTR/JVC/Denon/Oppo/Roku Ultra/Elite Screens/Furman/Seatcraft/Acoustimac/AudioQuest
Reddig is offline  
post #117 of 230 Old 06-26-2015, 02:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 339 Post(s)
Liked: 231
I'm 11' back from a 48" high 2.35:1 screen currently using eshift (aka 'faux 4k') on a JVC X500 projector, so I voted 'under 3 x HD'. That works out 2.75 of screen height. When I first installed the screen 5-6 years ago it seemed huge, but now I'm actually craving a bit more width, so when I change my screen next year for an AT one I'm considering going a little wider (I've since moved/replaced the speakers that were either side of the screen so have an extra 3' to play with).

The only issue with this change is that the bigger screen requires more light output and AT is usually lower gain too, but I have a bit of brightness in hand by opening the aperture. No good having a huge screen if it looks dull.
rossandwendy likes this.

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet". William Shakespeare 1615
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #118 of 230 Old 06-26-2015, 05:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
nuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 1,283
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 141
What the ITU and the math in this thread actually saying is:

Pixel structure becomes apparent at 3.2x screen height for 1080p and 1.6x screen height for 4k.

That means if you want to view a 65" display closer than about 9-feet away, you need a 4k vs. a 1080p. Nine feet is the approximate distance at which pixel artifacts become visible on a 65" display.

For an 85", the limiting distance is 12 feet for a 1080p. Any closer, you'd want the 4k.

nuke
nuke is offline  
post #119 of 230 Old 06-26-2015, 05:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dean McManis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Morgan Hill, CA USA
Posts: 1,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
(1:1) I'm sitting 84" away from a 180" 16:9 screen.
I do notice streaming/compression artifacts more with online video, but high quality HD movies are so immersive.
On the other side of things, I don't watch regular TV broadcasts/satellite on the big HT screens.
That's on a 47" 16:9 1080p LCD monitor, viewed about 10' back.
More is Better likes this.
Dean McManis is offline  
post #120 of 230 Old 06-27-2015, 11:51 AM
 
Stridsvognen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Denmark
Posts: 242
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuke View Post
I'm sorry Scott, but this UTTER NONSENSE and the ITU is utterly out to lunch on this. (ITU-R BT.1845-1)

The "optimum" viewing distance is not the distance at which the Rayleigh Criterion for human vision becomes limited to individually resolve pixels.

The *OPTIMUM* viewing distance is the one that provides the greatest human enjoyment of the displayed content. By that respect, the optimum distance doesn't change as long as it is at least GREATER than the LIMITING resolution.

The distance the ITU is putting forth is not the optimum, but the *LIMITING* distance. If you are *closer* than this distance, the human eye is capable of distinguishing and perceiving artifacts of pixilation.

The whole point of a TV display is to *not* see the artifacts of pixelation.

Thus 4k vs. 1080p means you can enjoy a larger screen in the same distance. It doesn't mean you have to sit closer to the 4k to enjoy.

The entire premise that "optimum" occurs at the distance where individual pixels can be resolved is utterly preposterous.
Ill have to agree here, ill prefer to sit about 3,5 times the height of my screen, but thats to do with the fact that i dont like to move my head to keep up with actions across my screen.

Im running a CRT setup at 1080P 72hz, and im not limited by the resolution, or pixelation, for that matter i can sit 0,5 times the screen height away if it was not for my head making a shadow on my screen.

I doubt anyone in the future, when we get 20K will sit with the nose true the screen, and have a pleasant experience.
Stridsvognen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
frontpage , Polls

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