5 ms·

... wait, what? 8 foot viewing distance with a 65" screen? Ok, we have very, very different definitions of "typical" here. You're using a 50% larger TV from

• michaelmrose 6y ago
  Samsung says suggested diagonal size = viewing distance /2. So at 16 ft 96". To get a more precise fix you can break out a calculator or use this one based on THX recommended viewing angle. https://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html https://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculato... It suggests that your tiny tv ought to be optimally viewed from 4.8 feet away and at 16 feet away you really ought to have a tv greater than 100 inches. Of course most people don't have 100+ inch tvs but they also don't watch tv from 16 feet away unless they are watching a 45-60 FOOT theatre screen. Play with some values in the calculator if you want to see how other people use tvs. People normally sit 8-10 feet from 60-75 inch tvs and use 40 inches for smaller rooms like bedrooms where they are 6 foot away. To be clear about the whole picture you are a fellow with bad vision watching a small tv from nearly 3 times further back as the rest of planet earth. At that distance your tv literally does already exceed average visual acuity and for your usage you are absolutely correct. Meanwhile the rest of us will benefit from up to 8k in the future.
  • Syonyk 6y ago
    > To be clear about the whole picture you are a fellow with bad vision watching a small tv from nearly 3 times further back as the rest of planet earth. My vision is perfectly fine, thank you very much, as you seem to insist on going on about how horrid it must be. The difference is entirely explained by the fact that I watch a reasonable sized TV from a perfectly sane distance in a living room that isn't a home theater room and has space for plenty of other activities. No idea how you get a TV 6' away in the bedroom, though, unless it's literally at the foot of the bed. I've never had one in there and never intend to. Your linked calculator suggests that the "optimum" distance for my TV is about 6' away, which I find quite absurd (having just tried it). I'm watching movies, not programming on it. We appear to have rather divergent views (and social group priorities, if yours has 60-70+ inch TVs at your suggested 8-10 foot viewing distance) on the nature of television viewing, and, as such, there's not an awful lot more to discuss.
    • michaelmrose 6y ago
      I don't think its a matter of divergent priorities. The argument up thread was that we had reached the zenith of resolution based on visual acuity. What we established is that this is almost entirely true or false based on the persons vision, size of screen, and viewing distance. Based on how the majority of the public uses TVs we have provably not reached such a point. In point of fact a medium sized living room is 12x18 with a TV on either a stand or the wall along the longer wall and seating that is around 2 feet deep and off the wall by at least a foot. This means that in an medium size living room there is 8-9 foot between seat and screen. In a large living room 15x20 there is still only 11-12 feet. People actually are putting 60-75 inch screens therein so we can support the position that the figures given by the calculator represent how people actually use TVs and supports the position that HD -> 4k -> 8k will be perceptively still beneficial given the constraints of human eyeballs.
      • elyobo 6y ago
        I'm interested in sources that establish "how the majority of the public uses TVs". I've personally never seen anyone use TVs in line with the recommendations from TV manufacturers screen size and viewing distance. Maybe this is a USA cultural thing (or, contrary, maybe my own observed viewing habits are a cultural AU/NZ thing).