A New Study Shows That Most People Are Unable to Perceive the Difference of 8K on a Smaller Screen Unless They Are Extremely Close to It

This reminds of the stupid misconception that was widespread in the 90s / 2000s. That if you buy a larger TV you must sit proportionally further away from it. Which ofc. would completely defeat the purpose of the larger screen. There were even charts for this nonsense, that said how many feet further you have to move for every inch of screen size or something like that.
 
MadMummy76 said:
This reminds of the stupid misconception that was widespread in the 90s / 2000s. That if you buy a larger TV you must sit proportionally further away from it. Which ofc. would completely defeat the purpose of the larger screen. There were even charts for this nonsense, that said how many feet further you have to move for every inch of screen size or something like that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, back when standard definition 480x720 was a thing. The larger the screen the larger those pixels became the worse it looked up close.
 
MadMummy76 said:
This reminds of the stupid misconception that was widespread in the 90s / 2000s. That if you buy a larger TV you must sit proportionally further away from it. Which ofc. would completely defeat the purpose of the larger screen. There were even charts for this nonsense, that said how many feet further you have to move for every inch of screen size or something like that.
Click to expand...
It's not nonesense, it's about field of view.
en.wikipedia.org

Field of view - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Riccochet said:
Yeah, back when standard definition 480x720 was a thing. The larger the screen the larger those pixels became the worse it looked up close.
Click to expand...
Except individual pixels weren't really discernible on a CRT or a Projector screen. And the distances were ridiculous like 10 feet for a 27" and such.
 
MadMummy76 said:
Yes they used FOV to justify it and it was / is nonsense. Think about it. What is the benefit of a bigger screen if you view it from a distance so it appears the same size as a smaller one?
Click to expand...
You sit closer you would need to pan your head to watch the whole screen. and no, it wasn't 10ft for 27"


goodcalculators.com

TV Viewing Distance Calculator | Good Calculators

This TV Viewing Distance Calculator will assist you in discovering the perfect distance from which to view your TV in accordance with THX, SMPTE, and Visual Acuity standards
goodcalculators.com goodcalculators.com
 
Riccochet said:
Depends on the size of the display.

I have both 1440 and 4K 32" monitors. I've played games on both. I can't tell a difference other than lower FPS on the 4K
Click to expand...
I've got 27" 4K's right now... I dunno if I could tell between 1440 and 4k, I've never tried that... but I can definitely tell between 1080 and 4k.
 
MadMummy76 said:
Except individual pixels weren't really discernible on a CRT or a Projector screen. And the distances were ridiculous like 10 feet for a 27" and such.
Click to expand...
27" used to be a giant massive cabinet of a TV though. I can remember my first TV was a 27" Trinitron and it weighed like 300 lbs and seemed absolutely ~massive~ in my living room.

I kinda miss that TV.
 
The limit of human vision at whole-screen distances is somewhere between 1440p and 4k; we can err toward 4k just due to the absolutely batty sub-pixel arrangements used by OLED makers, but really, you're not getting much more out of it.

And not just because your eyes can't see it, again at comfortable whole-screen viewing distances, but also if you could see the content on a per-pixel level, you wouldn't be able to pay attention to it at all. This is why good 1080p content is almost indistinguishable from low-bitrate 4k content, for motion content at least.

It's a little different on computer monitors, both for desktop use and for gaming. Here you are close enough to focus on a small area of the screen and details matter. But we'd still put 8k down as the upper limit of single-user single-screen scenarios*, as the extra resolution does nothing for the user aside from requiring more horsepower to run.

(*once you start having multiple screens, with or without multiple viewers, more resolution can be helpful, but really only at larger sizes and closer than full-display viewing distances, where essentially viewers are cropping into the viewable area)
 
Its NOT resolution, is mastering and whatever else makes a quality image, period, end of story.
Every single time, resolution an effing gimmick.
Crap is crap at 16k, 8k, 4k, 1080, and 720p.
And most material and whatever they do for video is borderline crap, dont get me wrong, i am happily entertained with all the garbage I consume, but on the rare occasion I have seen better curated contents image quality wise, it is like ahhhhh, oohhh, you know celestial sounds and all that, ive seen this at 720p, and 1080p, i dont even remember what movie/ program it was, i just remenber thinking, what hell, a DVD can look this good all this time? And then same with blu rays, its all mostly crap, not showcasing capabilitilies, at any resolution.
Its cause, whatever they do editing, mastering , whatever, probably costs lots of money. Probably will always cost money even of they implement AI or some crap, AI will probably do a crap job and everybody will be like stick that 8k label and send it.
 
Stoly said:
I recall the same argument for 1080p vs 720p and 4k vs 1080p.
Click to expand...
Even 480p vs 720p. As back in college one classmate was not understanding why do I want more than DVD quality. This was at a time when the first HD test broadcasts were just starting, and most people only had analogue cable or aerial TV.
Uvilla said:
Its NOT resolution, is mastering and whatever else makes a quality image, period, end of story.
Every single time, resolution an effing gimmick.
Click to expand...
They are two separate things, resolution and image quality. Neither can substitute for the other, and it's best to have both.
 
sdifox said:
You sit closer you would need to pan your head to watch the whole screen. and no, it wasn't 10ft for 27"
Click to expand...
If you have to pan your head you are sitting too close. But the alleged recommended distances were multiples of that. It might not have been exactly 10ft for 27" I was just giving a ballpark example, but it was ludicrous numbers.
sdifox said:
goodcalculators.com

TV Viewing Distance Calculator | Good Calculators

This TV Viewing Distance Calculator will assist you in discovering the perfect distance from which to view your TV in accordance with THX, SMPTE, and Visual Acuity standards
goodcalculators.com goodcalculators.com
Click to expand...
This is a far cry from the charts making the rounds in the DVD / CRT era. I wish I could somehow dig those out.
 
LazyGamer said:
This is why good 1080p content is almost indistinguishable from low-bitrate 4k content, for motion content at least.
Click to expand...
Good 1080p will look far better, because the low bitrate 4K will have compression artifacts like discoloration, dithering, or blockiness, which are far easier to notice than resolution. I don't think its worth paying for 4K streaming.
 
www.rtings.com

TV Size To Distance Calculator (And The Science Behind It)

Choosing a new TV for your room can be a daunting challenge. The market has never been more complicated, with dozens of new models released each year and a mountain of marketing jargon to work through.
www.rtings.com www.rtings.com

Pretty good explanation on fov and viewing distance.

I had a 720P projector in 2006, switched to 1080P in 2008. The room was 300sqft.

Wii was fun on projector, so was Starcraft 2. My HT has stayed in the boxes since I moved in 2011 :(


I remember black and white fish bowl CRT, as in just the tube, packed in straws and wood slats. My dad used to own an electronics retailer/mid tier distributors so I grew up seeing a lot of that stuff. We still carried vacuum tube then, albeit secondary to transistors.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top