5 ms·

Glad to see this get some exposure. It always kills me when people buy expensive 4k, curved, HDR, etc 50" TVs and sit over 10 feet away from them. (127 cm diago

Glad to see this get some exposure. It always kills me when people buy expensive 4k, curved, HDR, etc 50" TVs and sit over 10 feet away from them. (127 cm diagonal and over 3m away for Europe) You just threw your money away. Another thing is when you plan your sofa and TV furniture. Having over 10ft/3m (a common occurrence in homes) means you will need 100 inch screen for a cinematic experience, which means having lots of money or a projector, which brings a lot of problems itself. My personal setup is 6.5feet/2.5m 65 inch diagonal 1080p plasma Panasonic Viera from 2007. Everybody who hears about this thinks it's way too big for that close. But when guests ask for the specs of what they find an impressive picture in person they are always shocked to find it's "obsolete" technology. EDIT: as people dispute the real distance you can notice 4k vs 1080p, you don't need to trust any graph. Get close enough to your TV to notice individual pixels, then back away a little bit until you can't. That's the distance and I bet you will find it a lot close than you would think.

HPsquared 6y ago
It's a compromise between spacious living quarters (Feng Shui), and a cinematic experience when watching the TV.
- iso1631 6y ago
  Cinema means you want 30-40 degrees, but once you've fixed your screen size and your distance, you can then work out if 4k is worthwhile over 2k (or 8k over 4k) Of course this all falls down because it them comes down to availability, other features (number of hdmi ports, "smart" options, power use), and "4k" tends to also mean things like HDR, which is worthwhile (with the right source) no matter the screen.
- driverdan 6y ago
  > It's a compromise between spacious living quarters (Feng Shui) Feng Shui is not "spacious living quarters", it's pseudoscience nonsense.
BlueTemplar 6y ago
I wish I could buy a FullHD HDR TV...
stewx 6y ago
1) 4K TVs are virtually the only resolution available for purchase today. If you buy a new medium or large-sized TV for any reason, it will be 4K. 2) HDR works for any size and distance. TVs that do a good job with HDR will look a lot nicer than old, less bright models.
- Exmoor 6y ago
  1) You're (outside of some relatively small models) very right here, but TV manufacturers are starting to push 8K sets with negligible benefits for most people's scenarios and little to no native resolution content. 2) Absolutely. One of my eternal frustrations is many people's hyperfocus on a single metric when comparing products (resolution for TVs, megapixels for cameras, clockspeed for processors, etc.). Your average consumer would be much better off focusing on other image quality improvements like the things Rrtings includes in their reviews.
- buran77 6y ago
  Also 3), bringing your couch and TV closer to each other will probably result in some wasted space around them that you can't use in any way (like 0.5m behind the couch and the TV stand). Not quite a worthwhile compromise. Not everything is about optimizing for the numbers. You don't have to plan your TV watching experience to the mm in order to enjoy it. You can have the TV at a slightly non-optimal distance, use the integrated speakers, or view content that's not high bitrate 4K or FHD.
  - dharmab 6y ago
    Reminds me how audio engineers have to test their masters on old Toyota Corolla stereos, because that's how many people will hear their production the first time.
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
Resolution isn’t necessarily about having the ability to stop and see individual pixels though. If nothing else, there is a difference in 1080p versus 4K when it comes to aliasing. The absolute best antialiasing, is to increase resolution. The effect of resolution on all edges that aren’t perfectly vertical or horizontal is noticeable. There are also particle effect differences where your particles have a 4x boost in definition. I’m not saying it’s a big deal, but there are factors that go beyond sitting distances. I personally think these distances calculators are made to sell bigger TVs, but won’t immediately discount 4k as just pointless.
- function_seven 6y ago
  This reminds me of the misunderstandings around frame rate. It used to be that people would think "you can't make out individual frames of video at 24fps, so there's no reason to go higher than that". And, yeah, I don't see a fast-moving slideshow at 24fps, but there is still a significant visible difference between 24, 30, 48, 60, 144, etc. Just because you can't make out the building blocks of the thing, doesn't mean you can't see the effect of increasing the resolution (whether spatial or temporal).
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Latencty went through a similar dark age until recently. People would argue that human reaction times are at best around 100ms, but the feedback loop formed by the eyes and ears, through the hands, into the keyboard/mouse/musical instrument, and back out to the ears/eyes, is much more sensitive than that.
    - LocalH 6y ago
      Rhythm games are proof of that. Despite the 80ms or so "inherent latency" that we have, we can still be pretty exact in terms of synchronization with external stimuli.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Yeah, our eyes can pick up on subtle misalignments 5-10x smaller than the "retina" levels for distinguishing between pixels.
marzell 6y ago
Our perception abilities are not that simple; just because you can't discern individual pixels at a particular distance, doesn't mean you won't notice done details in an image. Also, it is fine too be too far away to notice every detail in 4k, when the alternative is going down to 2k or 1080 where you then might be sitting way too close. Real world situations tend to involve compromise. Another factor is that typical viewing is done on streaming services. That 4k streaming video is far more detailed than a 1080 stream, but the difference between 4k streaming vs 1080 uncompressed/Blu-Ray is not quite as significant. So if you are pixel peeping or using a calculator, it seems reasonable to factor this in and feel ok sitting a little farther back than some ideal.
zamadatix 6y ago
HDR you want regardless and good luck getting anything less than 4k for cheaper than the 4k one anyways... but curved was always a joke. The curve was always overdone to the point it was worse distortion than a flat screen would produce unless you sat at an unrealistically close and precise location. Sit anywhere else and every pro of curved turns into a con. Even when you did sit in the right place manufacturing limitations meant it was only half curved anyways, the vertical was still flat. Thankfully the curve fad is gone in TVs and the cheapest TVs come with 4k HDR anyways.

HPsquared 6y ago

It's a compromise between spacious living quarters (Feng Shui), and a cinematic experience when watching the TV.

iso1631 6y ago
Cinema means you want 30-40 degrees, but once you've fixed your screen size and your distance, you can then work out if 4k is worthwhile over 2k (or 8k over 4k) Of course this all falls down because it them comes down to availability, other features (number of hdmi ports, "smart" options, power use), and "4k" tends to also mean things like HDR, which is worthwhile (with the right source) no matter the screen.
driverdan 6y ago
> It's a compromise between spacious living quarters (Feng Shui) Feng Shui is not "spacious living quarters", it's pseudoscience nonsense.

BlueTemplar 6y ago

I wish I could buy a FullHD HDR TV...

stewx 6y ago

1) 4K TVs are virtually the only resolution available for purchase today. If you buy a new medium or large-sized TV for any reason, it will be 4K. 2) HDR works for any size and distance. TVs that do a good job with HDR will look a lot nicer than old, less bright models.

Exmoor 6y ago
1) You're (outside of some relatively small models) very right here, but TV manufacturers are starting to push 8K sets with negligible benefits for most people's scenarios and little to no native resolution content. 2) Absolutely. One of my eternal frustrations is many people's hyperfocus on a single metric when comparing products (resolution for TVs, megapixels for cameras, clockspeed for processors, etc.). Your average consumer would be much better off focusing on other image quality improvements like the things Rrtings includes in their reviews.
buran77 6y ago
Also 3), bringing your couch and TV closer to each other will probably result in some wasted space around them that you can't use in any way (like 0.5m behind the couch and the TV stand). Not quite a worthwhile compromise. Not everything is about optimizing for the numbers. You don't have to plan your TV watching experience to the mm in order to enjoy it. You can have the TV at a slightly non-optimal distance, use the integrated speakers, or view content that's not high bitrate 4K or FHD.
- dharmab 6y ago
  Reminds me how audio engineers have to test their masters on old Toyota Corolla stereos, because that's how many people will hear their production the first time.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago

Resolution isn’t necessarily about having the ability to stop and see individual pixels though. If nothing else, there is a difference in 1080p versus 4K when it comes to aliasing. The absolute best antialiasing, is to increase resolution. The effect of resolution on all edges that aren’t perfectly vertical or horizontal is noticeable. There are also particle effect differences where your particles have a 4x boost in definition. I’m not saying it’s a big deal, but there are factors that go beyond sitting distances. I personally think these distances calculators are made to sell bigger TVs, but won’t immediately discount 4k as just pointless.

function_seven 6y ago
This reminds me of the misunderstandings around frame rate. It used to be that people would think "you can't make out individual frames of video at 24fps, so there's no reason to go higher than that". And, yeah, I don't see a fast-moving slideshow at 24fps, but there is still a significant visible difference between 24, 30, 48, 60, 144, etc. Just because you can't make out the building blocks of the thing, doesn't mean you can't see the effect of increasing the resolution (whether spatial or temporal).
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Latencty went through a similar dark age until recently. People would argue that human reaction times are at best around 100ms, but the feedback loop formed by the eyes and ears, through the hands, into the keyboard/mouse/musical instrument, and back out to the ears/eyes, is much more sensitive than that.
  - LocalH 6y ago
    Rhythm games are proof of that. Despite the 80ms or so "inherent latency" that we have, we can still be pretty exact in terms of synchronization with external stimuli.
Dylan16807 6y ago
Yeah, our eyes can pick up on subtle misalignments 5-10x smaller than the "retina" levels for distinguishing between pixels.

marzell 6y ago

Our perception abilities are not that simple; just because you can't discern individual pixels at a particular distance, doesn't mean you won't notice done details in an image. Also, it is fine too be too far away to notice every detail in 4k, when the alternative is going down to 2k or 1080 where you then might be sitting way too close. Real world situations tend to involve compromise. Another factor is that typical viewing is done on streaming services. That 4k streaming video is far more detailed than a 1080 stream, but the difference between 4k streaming vs 1080 uncompressed/Blu-Ray is not quite as significant. So if you are pixel peeping or using a calculator, it seems reasonable to factor this in and feel ok sitting a little farther back than some ideal.

zamadatix 6y ago

HDR you want regardless and good luck getting anything less than 4k for cheaper than the 4k one anyways... but curved was always a joke. The curve was always overdone to the point it was worse distortion than a flat screen would produce unless you sat at an unrealistically close and precise location. Sit anywhere else and every pro of curved turns into a con. Even when you did sit in the right place manufacturing limitations meant it was only half curved anyways, the vertical was still flat. Thankfully the curve fad is gone in TVs and the cheapest TVs come with 4k HDR anyways.