3 ms·

You may not like it yourself but other people have the opposite experience. Setting the screen farther away and having your eyes focus at that distance is more

You may not like it yourself but other people have the opposite experience. Setting the screen farther away and having your eyes focus at that distance is more comfortable for them. That other people choose other solutions doesn't invalidate that this solution exists and is valued by people. And I used the term strictly precisely. If you can manage that setup physically you get the same angle of view, more resolution and less eye strain. The 8K large screen dominates the 5K small screen solution for that set of criteria. If you add other criteria you care about instead the evaluation changes.

BoorishBears 5y ago
You're using strictly in a way that's the opposite of precise when you need to preface it with a barn sized caveat. In fact your suggestion is worse than standard, most people accept you'll never sit far enough away from a 65" TV to have the same apparent size as a 27" monitor and settle for "small enough" apparent size - I can't be bothered to do the exact math here but even at normal TV viewing distanced meant to fill your entire view the recommended distance is 5.5ft to 8ft. Getting it down to the same apparent size of a 27" monitor would mean sitting across a very large room...
- jimrandomh 5y ago
  That's the wrong approach. When I want a centered 27" rectangle, I use software to put a 27" rectangle in the spot where I want it. I never fullscreen anything, and put secondary things around the edges, the way one would use extra monitors. There are some minor software issues to work through, it definitely requires some customization in the window manager department, but it's worth it imo.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    Ok... but then you have significantly worse pixel density than a 5k monitor. There's no way to have your cake and eat it too on this, either you'll have worse pixel density, or you'll need a very unnatural setup.
    - jimrandomh 5y ago
      8k/65in has the same pixel density as a 4k/32.5in, which is mid-range as computer monitors go. 16k would be nice if that was possible to buy, but this pixel density is good enough for my purposes.
      - BoorishBears 5y ago
        4k/32" might as well be 1440p compared to 5k/27" You talking to someone who upgraded from a 4k/32" equivalent ("5k" 40" ultrawide) to the XDR just for the pixel density increase, and it's no contest at all: even the most casual PC user would immediately appreciate the bump.
- pedrocr 5y ago
  > You're using strictly in a way that's the opposite of precise when you need to preface it with a barn sized caveat. It's not a caveat, it's the whole point. To not have your eyes straining to focus closely the screen needs to be far away, can't have one without the other. The people that value that start at that point of figuring out how to be able to have the screen far away enough. For them it's not a caveat, it's a requirement. So for them when they go shopping for screens the 8K 65" option totally dominates the 5K 27" and is a strictly better option. > most people accept you'll never sit far enough away from a 65" TV to have the same apparent size as a 27" monitor and settle for "small enough" apparent size The cases I'm referring do put it far enough away, that's the point, it's how you get a 65" image down to 27" on a desk equivalent. That suggestion shows up once in a while on HN when people discuss eye strain. You've now gotten another answer from someone that does something completely different and uses the 8K TV as a multi-screen setup on a single screen. That's the problem with these discussions. A TV or projector used 5+ meters away, an external screen on your desk, and a 14" laptop at keyboard distance are completely different use cases. Yet often these discussions end up on ">X DPI is essential" without considering this factor. It seems no one can imagine that other people use their screens very differently from them and it turns into a religious war.

BoorishBears 5y ago

You're using strictly in a way that's the opposite of precise when you need to preface it with a barn sized caveat. In fact your suggestion is worse than standard, most people accept you'll never sit far enough away from a 65" TV to have the same apparent size as a 27" monitor and settle for "small enough" apparent size - I can't be bothered to do the exact math here but even at normal TV viewing distanced meant to fill your entire view the recommended distance is 5.5ft to 8ft. Getting it down to the same apparent size of a 27" monitor would mean sitting across a very large room...

jimrandomh 5y ago
That's the wrong approach. When I want a centered 27" rectangle, I use software to put a 27" rectangle in the spot where I want it. I never fullscreen anything, and put secondary things around the edges, the way one would use extra monitors. There are some minor software issues to work through, it definitely requires some customization in the window manager department, but it's worth it imo.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  Ok... but then you have significantly worse pixel density than a 5k monitor. There's no way to have your cake and eat it too on this, either you'll have worse pixel density, or you'll need a very unnatural setup.
  - jimrandomh 5y ago
    8k/65in has the same pixel density as a 4k/32.5in, which is mid-range as computer monitors go. 16k would be nice if that was possible to buy, but this pixel density is good enough for my purposes.
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      4k/32" might as well be 1440p compared to 5k/27" You talking to someone who upgraded from a 4k/32" equivalent ("5k" 40" ultrawide) to the XDR just for the pixel density increase, and it's no contest at all: even the most casual PC user would immediately appreciate the bump.
pedrocr 5y ago
> You're using strictly in a way that's the opposite of precise when you need to preface it with a barn sized caveat. It's not a caveat, it's the whole point. To not have your eyes straining to focus closely the screen needs to be far away, can't have one without the other. The people that value that start at that point of figuring out how to be able to have the screen far away enough. For them it's not a caveat, it's a requirement. So for them when they go shopping for screens the 8K 65" option totally dominates the 5K 27" and is a strictly better option. > most people accept you'll never sit far enough away from a 65" TV to have the same apparent size as a 27" monitor and settle for "small enough" apparent size The cases I'm referring do put it far enough away, that's the point, it's how you get a 65" image down to 27" on a desk equivalent. That suggestion shows up once in a while on HN when people discuss eye strain. You've now gotten another answer from someone that does something completely different and uses the 8K TV as a multi-screen setup on a single screen. That's the problem with these discussions. A TV or projector used 5+ meters away, an external screen on your desk, and a 14" laptop at keyboard distance are completely different use cases. Yet often these discussions end up on ">X DPI is essential" without considering this factor. It seems no one can imagine that other people use their screens very differently from them and it turns into a religious war.