On Sunday, 7 July 2024 23:29:21 BST Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 05:10:18PM -0500 schrieb Dale: > > >>>> It's hi res and a good deal. :-D > > >>> > > >>> Please define hi res. Full HD at 32″ is definitely not hi res. ;-P > > >>> It’s about as much as CRTs back in the day, close to 1024×768 at 17″. > > >> > > >> Well, I still consider 1080P hi res. That's what I get for any monitor > > >> or TV I buy. The biggest thing I have is a 32" tho. My rooms are > > >> kinda > > >> small. No need for a 60" TV/monitor. > > > > > > Well my TV sits over 4 m (that’s 13 feet for the imperialists) away from > > > the sofa. So I splurged and got myself a 65″ one. > > > > Well, I saw on a website once where it gave info on distance, monitor > > size and what you are watching can factor in too. It claimed that a 32" > > is the ideal size for my room. Given my old eyes tho, a 42" might serve > > me better. Thing is, I'm bad to watch old videos from the 80's, 70's > > and even 60's. Most of those are 480P or if lucky, just a little higher > > resolution. With those, monitor size can make videos worse. > > This websites’s goal probably was about covering your eyes’ natural field of > view. Sitting at my desk, my 27 inch monitor appears only slight smaller > than my 65 inch TV 4 m away. Watching 50s TV shows will be the same > experience on both in those situations. > > If you want to fill that entire field of view with details, then naturally, > a 50s TV show in 480p won’t suffice. The more of your viewing arc you want > to cover, the more picture resolution you need. You basically want to map > X amount of pixels on each degree of viewing arc. Physical units are great. > > It also goes into the other direction: people these days™ watch 4K movies on > their phones. Why, just why? Even if the screen can display it physically, > their eyes cannot resolve that fine detail, because the pixels are too > small.
The rule of thumb is to come as close as possible to the TV screen until you start seeing different pixels. Then you back off a little bit and plonk your armchair there. Obviously with a UHD TV the higher pixel density at a given screen size means you can seat much closer - or buy a larger TV. At some point the TV size becomes too large to provide a sharp non-pixelated image, if the room is small. When I asked a friend why he kept upgrading his TV to ever larger sizes for what was becoming an obviously worse visual experience, he responded "... for a man there's no such thing as too large a TV size!". o_O The problem arises when you are watching old TV material recorded at a much lower resolution than UHD. For these you have to move your seat further back when using a UHD TV, until the displayed pixels in the picture appear to merge and give a smooth(er) non-pixelated image. The TV chipset will try upscaling/ interpolating and smoothing algos to improve the situation, but this won't fare well when the jump is from a VHS equivalent of 320 pixels to the 2160 of UHD.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
