O/T: Hardware Bargains

In order to benefit from higher resolutions, we need to move closer. Anyone who believes otherwise is out of their mind.

I've been watching my 46" FHD from 1 meter for around five years already.

I'd have to wear glasses if I sat further away. ;)
 
Huh?

It's perfect.

Much too close. Optimal would be about 2m.

Now you need glasses sooner.

The point is that like 1% of people sit that close to their TVs. Therefore higher resolutions are useless to like 99% of them.

Actually, it's 1.5 times the diagonal size of your screen, iirc. So in your case 46" x 1.5, converted to metres, would be perfect. (You work it out)
 
Much too close. Optimal would be about 2m.

Now you need glasses sooner.

The point is that like 1% of people sit that close to their TVs. Therefore higher resolutions are useless to like 99% of them.

Man, you keep banging on about this optimal viewing distance business. I can tell the difference between HD, FHD and UHD from almost any distance when comparing TVs in a shop. It's not that difficult to do. It might be that the extra resolution loses fidelity from further away, but the impression is still of a smoother sharper image.
 
Actually, it's 1.5 times the diagonal size of your screen, iirc. So in your case 46" x 1.5, converted to metres, would be perfect. (You work it out)

Which would be over 1.75m. That's a big difference from 1m.

You do correctly highlight how close one needs to be to perceive the full benefit of FHD.

Which means one has to be even closer forUHD.

So, go back to my original point, and show me wrong.
 
Man, you keep banging on about this optimal viewing distance business. I can tell the difference between HD, FHD and UHD from almost any distance when comparing TVs in a shop. It's not that difficult to do. It might be that the extra resolution loses fidelity from further away, but the impression is still of a smoother sharper image.

The point I was referring to was one about eyesight degradation from sitting far too close.

"Almost any distance" - I don't believe you. I will also place a bet that you were looking at large +-50" TVs and up.
 
The point I was referring to was one about eyesight degradation from sitting far too close.

"Almost any distance" - I don't believe you. I will also place a bet that you were looking at large +-50" TVs and up.

Well, it could be that the TVs I was looking at were 50 and up, yeah. I wouldn't argue with that. But who tries to view a 40" tv from more than 2 metres away anyhow? If your viewing distance is going to be so far then you need a minimum of 50".
 
Well, it could be that the TVs I was looking at were 50 and up, yeah. I wouldn't argue with that. But who tries to view a 40" tv from more than 2 metres away anyhow? If your viewing distance is going to be so far then you need a minimum of 50".

I agree.

And you would need an even bigger one for UHD.

The point is that people, who actually sit in accordance with correct viewing distance/resolution measurements, are in the extreme minority.

Let's take a 46" FHD for example. Do you honestly know of a lot people whose lounges/TV rooms are set up so that they're 1.75m away?

I certainly don't.

Of course we have to generalise here. Some people live in flats, some people live in houses. Some people watch TV in their bedrooms, and use their TV as a PC monitor, so would inherently sit closer, etc. Some people have better eyesight, etc.
 
The point I was referring to was one about eyesight degradation from sitting far too close.
snip...

I don't think that's a thing anymore. Maybe back in the CRT days, but with an LCD you'd have to be sitting with your nose touching the screen.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X