5 ms·

Your 60" TV is not big enough for 4k at 7' away. You need > 75" of screen[0] [0] http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship http://

Your 60" TV is not big enough for 4k at 7' away. You need > 75" of screen[0] [0] http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-re...

pslam 10y ago
Video output and its perception, is not at all like audio output and its perception. We can make blunt statements about the limits of audio, because output devices behave (largely) linearly and band-limited, and because human perception can be modeled accurately and is also band-limited. You can't say the same about video. The output is an array of points, not even perfectly square or smooth, it is picked up by another array of receptors, and is non-linear. The limit being 1/60th degree is too blunt a rule of thumb. That's picking an arbitrary point on a curve showing how much better than guesswork a viewer is. The screen isn't a perfect output source, and the viewer isn't a perfect receiver, and the combined effect is you can easily observe the difference of 2K vs 4K images at distances those graphs say you wouldn't. I can easily observe the difference where it says I shouldn't be able to, and I'm nowhere near perfect vision. I would say pretty much everything in those graphs is off by a factor of 2.
newman314 10y ago
My TV is quite a bit further away so that's why I'm still quite happy with 1080p and lower content. The only reason for me to go to a newer TV at this point is for HDR.
dawnerd 10y ago
Those size charts carry a lot of assumptions. I have a 65" and can tell the difference just fine at 8 feet away. The real benefit from 4k is actually HDR and the MUCH higher bitrate for video. The majority of streaming 4k is really low quality when compared to a normal bluray. Just because the resolution is big doesn't mean the picture quality is any better. Also a lot of 4k content is actually upscaled from 2k sources. http://realorfake4k.com/ http://realorfake4k.com/
- petemill 10y ago
  I agree, I have noticed some poor 4k quality, even on netflix, especially in dark scenes. I am constantly consulting realorfake4k.com especially since the marketing for streaming (and even purchasing) is so confusing on Amazon Video.
Rumudiez 10y ago
The print industry will print in resolutions up to 2400dpi depending on the intended view distance. If 2400dpi is the ultimate premium for a handheld print then phones still have a lot of catching up to do. That table is purely relative to the mass-market options and tries desperately to make a case for buying a TV in 2017 which only supports lower resolutions than were common a decade ago. Looking at you, "HD" in 720p.
- haikuginger 10y ago
  Previously worked in a photographic print lab; digital wet labs (that use R, G, and B lasers to expose traditional emulsion-based photosensitive paper) operate at 300dpi. Photographers dont target higher than 300dpi for any prints, and for large prints, it's perfectly acceptable to go down to 100dpi.
  - majormajor 10y ago
    I guess this would explain why my photo prints often feel less sharp than the on-screen versions these days. :)
- nitrogen 10y ago
  That's probably a 2400dpi halftone (or similar) resolution. To compare to ppi (pixels per inch), you need to decide how many gray levels you want. Assuming the 2400dpi is a grid, and you want >= 256 shades, you need a grid square of 256 dots (16x16). This is all rather handwavey though, as two-tone b+w prints truly would be 2400dpi. So 2400dpi might be comparable to 150ppi for photographic images.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    > as two-tone b+w prints truly would be 2400dpi. And by using colored ink (and/or colored paper) you can get some spectacular results on a fairly reasonable budget that way (worked at Kinko's a lifetime ago).

pslam 10y ago

Video output and its perception, is not at all like audio output and its perception. We can make blunt statements about the limits of audio, because output devices behave (largely) linearly and band-limited, and because human perception can be modeled accurately and is also band-limited. You can't say the same about video. The output is an array of points, not even perfectly square or smooth, it is picked up by another array of receptors, and is non-linear. The limit being 1/60th degree is too blunt a rule of thumb. That's picking an arbitrary point on a curve showing how much better than guesswork a viewer is. The screen isn't a perfect output source, and the viewer isn't a perfect receiver, and the combined effect is you can easily observe the difference of 2K vs 4K images at distances those graphs say you wouldn't. I can easily observe the difference where it says I shouldn't be able to, and I'm nowhere near perfect vision. I would say pretty much everything in those graphs is off by a factor of 2.

newman314 10y ago

My TV is quite a bit further away so that's why I'm still quite happy with 1080p and lower content. The only reason for me to go to a newer TV at this point is for HDR.

dawnerd 10y ago

Those size charts carry a lot of assumptions. I have a 65" and can tell the difference just fine at 8 feet away. The real benefit from 4k is actually HDR and the MUCH higher bitrate for video. The majority of streaming 4k is really low quality when compared to a normal bluray. Just because the resolution is big doesn't mean the picture quality is any better. Also a lot of 4k content is actually upscaled from 2k sources. http://realorfake4k.com/ http://realorfake4k.com/

petemill 10y ago
I agree, I have noticed some poor 4k quality, even on netflix, especially in dark scenes. I am constantly consulting realorfake4k.com especially since the marketing for streaming (and even purchasing) is so confusing on Amazon Video.

Rumudiez 10y ago

The print industry will print in resolutions up to 2400dpi depending on the intended view distance. If 2400dpi is the ultimate premium for a handheld print then phones still have a lot of catching up to do. That table is purely relative to the mass-market options and tries desperately to make a case for buying a TV in 2017 which only supports lower resolutions than were common a decade ago. Looking at you, "HD" in 720p.

haikuginger 10y ago
Previously worked in a photographic print lab; digital wet labs (that use R, G, and B lasers to expose traditional emulsion-based photosensitive paper) operate at 300dpi. Photographers dont target higher than 300dpi for any prints, and for large prints, it's perfectly acceptable to go down to 100dpi.
- majormajor 10y ago
  I guess this would explain why my photo prints often feel less sharp than the on-screen versions these days. :)
nitrogen 10y ago
That's probably a 2400dpi halftone (or similar) resolution. To compare to ppi (pixels per inch), you need to decide how many gray levels you want. Assuming the 2400dpi is a grid, and you want >= 256 shades, you need a grid square of 256 dots (16x16). This is all rather handwavey though, as two-tone b+w prints truly would be 2400dpi. So 2400dpi might be comparable to 150ppi for photographic images.
- webmaven 10y ago
  > as two-tone b+w prints truly would be 2400dpi. And by using colored ink (and/or colored paper) you can get some spectacular results on a fairly reasonable budget that way (worked at Kinko's a lifetime ago).