|
|
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
A contributor to one of these groups wrote an excellent treatise on
this subject - maybe 6 months ago. I can't seem to locate it, please help. My own 32" HD TV looks fantastic in HD at ~ 1-2m; but at ~ 4-5m I can't really tell much difference between HD and a "high quality" (eg BBC news, studio) SD transmission. Wish I'd bought a 40" ! TIA |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:22:19 +0100, Fred wrote:
A contributor to one of these groups wrote an excellent treatise on this subject - maybe 6 months ago. I can't seem to locate it, please help. My own 32" HD TV looks fantastic in HD at ~ 1-2m; but at ~ 4-5m I can't really tell much difference between HD and a "high quality" (eg BBC news, studio) SD transmission. Wish I'd bought a 40" ! TIA Yup - I've a 37" and hankering for 47" or even 55" (LG 3D look good. Saw a 55" from a few feet away and it was sharp). http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Article/Ho...ould-I-Sit.php -- Peter. The gods will stay away whilst religions hold sway |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:22:19 +0100, Fred wrote:
A contributor to one of these groups wrote an excellent treatise on this subject - maybe 6 months ago. I can't help with respect to the earlier treatise, but it is generally reckoned that the visual acuity of the eye is approximately one minute-of-arc. That implies a viewing distance of 6H (six times the picture height) for SD, 4.8H for 720p HD and 3.2H for 1080p HD. For HDTV critical viewing the ITU recommends 3H; I believe the BBC tends to use 4H. So if your screen size is 42" diagonal (20.6" high) 3H corresponds to about 5 feet (1.6 metres). Of course at this distance you will see every defect, so if you want to be spared MPEG compression artefacts and the like you may be wise to increase the distance somewhat! Richard. http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/ |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:15:08 +0100, PeterC wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:22:19 +0100, Fred wrote: A contributor to one of these groups wrote an excellent treatise on this subject - maybe 6 months ago. I can't seem to locate it, please help. My own 32" HD TV looks fantastic in HD at ~ 1-2m; but at ~ 4-5m I can't really tell much difference between HD and a "high quality" (eg BBC news, studio) SD transmission. Wish I'd bought a 40" ! TIA Yup - I've a 37" and hankering for 47" or even 55" (LG 3D look good. Saw a 55" from a few feet away and it was sharp). http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Article/Ho...ould-I-Sit.php Sorry - replying to my own thread. From Sony's site: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended distance for viewing High Definition picture is 3 times of TV vertical screen size. Recommended distance for viewing Standard Definition picture is 5 times of TV vertical screen size. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- There might be a bit of bias, considering the source, towards selling bigger TVs. I'd have to sit at 4'6" for HD and 7'6" for SD. -- Peter. The gods will stay away whilst religions hold sway |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
"Fred" wrote in message
... A contributor to one of these groups wrote an excellent treatise on this subject - maybe 6 months ago. I can't seem to locate it, please help. My own 32" HD TV looks fantastic in HD at ~ 1-2m; but at ~ 4-5m I can't really tell much difference between HD and a "high quality" (eg BBC news, studio) SD transmission. Wish I'd bought a 40" ! TIA That original detailed and very well written document (although I think it was rather more than six months ago) ended with the maths that, effectively, for 1080p you need 10.8 inches of diagonal screen size for every metre of viewing distance, and if there was any discrepancy you should go for the larger size. Thus for a 32" TV you would expect to be viewing from around 3m or 10ft. I followed that line for our bedroom TV and it is just about perfect - albeit ours is SD! -- Woody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
In article ,
Woody wrote: "Fred" wrote in message ... A contributor to one of these groups wrote an excellent treatise on this subject - maybe 6 months ago. I can't seem to locate it, please help. My own 32" HD TV looks fantastic in HD at ~ 1-2m; but at ~ 4-5m I can't really tell much difference between HD and a "high quality" (eg BBC news, studio) SD transmission. Wish I'd bought a 40" ! TIA That original detailed and very well written document (although I think it was rather more than six months ago) ended with the maths that, effectively, for 1080p you need 10.8 inches of diagonal screen size for every metre of viewing distance, and if there was any discrepancy you should go for the larger size. Thus for a 32" TV you would expect to be viewing from around 3m or 10ft. I followed that line for our bedroom TV and it is just about perfect - albeit ours is SD! when tv sets first appeared you were recommended to sit 1ft away for every inch of screen diagonal. So, you'd have to watch your 32" set from next door. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18 |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:31:06 +0100, charles wrote:
when tv sets first appeared you were recommended to sit 1ft away for every inch of screen diagonal. So, you'd have to watch your 32" set from next door. Hum I think I could get a 32' line of sight in this room. B-) Anyway when TV sets first came out they would have been 405 line not 1050... -- Cheers Dave. |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:13:47 +0100, Woody
wrote: That original detailed and very well written document (although I think it was rather more than six months ago) ended with the maths that, effectively, for 1080p you need 10.8 inches of diagonal screen size for every metre of viewing distance That's ridiculous - it corresponds to about 7.4H which is a greater distance even than recommended for SD! One metre of distance for every 10.8" of screen *height* (3.6H) would be about right for HD so perhaps you misremembered. Richard. http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/ |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
On 29/04/2012 2:22 PM, Fred wrote:
A contributor to one of these groups wrote an excellent treatise on this subject - maybe 6 months ago. I can't seem to locate it, please help. My own 32" HD TV looks fantastic in HD at ~ 1-2m; but at ~ 4-5m I can't really tell much difference between HD and a "high quality" (eg BBC news, studio) SD transmission. Wish I'd bought a 40" ! TIA these guides never take account of the fact that some people want to see a big picture and some small - i didn't buy a big tv so i could sit further away and have everything look as before. -- Gareth. That fly.... Is your magic wand. |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
Richard Russell wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:13:47 +0100, Woody wrote: That original detailed and very well written document (although I think it was rather more than six months ago) ended with the maths that, effectively, for 1080p you need 10.8 inches of diagonal screen size for every metre of viewing distance That's ridiculous - it corresponds to about 7.4H which is a greater distance even than recommended for SD! One metre of distance for every 10.8" of screen *height* (3.6H) would be about right for HD so perhaps you misremembered. By coincidence (presumably), I gave a figure of 10.8" of screen height per metre of viewing distance in a post to uk.t.d-tv dated 14/12/2009, and because I evidently hadn't made it clear that I was referring to the height, I followed up the next day with another post giving the diagonal measurement... |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
Richard Russell wrote:
I can't help with respect to the earlier treatise, but it is generally reckoned that the visual acuity of the eye is approximately one minute-of-arc. That implies a viewing distance of 6H (six times the picture height) for SD, 4.8H for 720p HD and 3.2H for 1080p HD. For HDTV critical viewing the ITU recommends 3H; I believe the BBC tends to use 4H. Fred: Richard has nailed it. This is how you work out the optimum viewing distance. HOWEVER, you should bear in mind two things. 1/ If your eyesight isn't perfect you won't be able to resolve to 1 arc-minute, so you'd need a bigger screen for a given viewing distance. 2/ A very important factor is how big you like the picture. I have a 55" TV which is just the right size for my viewing distance, but many people find it too large for comfort. -- SteveT |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
Brian Gaff wrote:
So, if there are artifacts, why bother with hd? I have no duch issues these days, I get rid of the screen altogether! Brian A classic case of making a virtue out of a necessity. Bill |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
On 30/04/2012 08:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
So, if there are artifacts, why bother with hd? Because as it's HD they give it a bigger bit budget. Which means there are fewer, smaller, artefacts. Andy |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
Andy Champ wrote:
Because as it's HD they give it a bigger bit budget. Which means there are fewer, smaller, artefacts. I agree. The compression artefacts seem far less apparent on HD than on SD. At least to my eyes. -- SteveT |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
On 4/29/12 4:41 PM, Richard Russell wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:22:19 +0100, Fred wrote: A contributor to one of these groups wrote an excellent treatise on this subject - maybe 6 months ago. I can't help with respect to the earlier treatise, but it is generally reckoned that the visual acuity of the eye is approximately one minute-of-arc. That implies a viewing distance of 6H (six times the picture height) for SD, 4.8H for 720p HD and 3.2H for 1080p HD. For HDTV critical viewing the ITU recommends 3H; I believe the BBC tends to use 4H. So if your screen size is 42" diagonal (20.6" high) 3H corresponds to about 5 feet (1.6 metres). Of course at this distance you will see every defect, so if you want to be spared MPEG compression artefacts and the like you may be wise to increase the distance somewhat! And at a 'somewhat increased ' distance you will still see a remarkable difference between HD and SD. At least I do. gr, hwh |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
"Fred" wrote in message ... A contributor to one of these groups wrote an excellent treatise on this subject - maybe 6 months ago. I can't seem to locate it, please help. My own 32" HD TV looks fantastic in HD at ~ 1-2m; but at ~ 4-5m I can't really tell much difference between HD and a "high quality" (eg BBC news, studio) SD transmission. Wish I'd bought a 40" ! TIA Google up optimum screen size. IIRC Richer Sounds had something on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum...ewing_distance but remember Yank sets are 720p. From 3m-4m probably 37"-42", from 4m-5m 47" and so on. Viewed from about 3.5m my 42" in HD looks very good and you can easily see the difference, however a larger screen might have been better because I can't make out text when I plug in the net-book unless I get closer. OTOH too large a screen and your eye can't encompass it all. From the dining area (~7m) you can't tell the difference between SD and HD. My desk PC has two 21" CRT screens at 1,600X1,200 and this was well worth it (the newer can display 2048x1536, but this is smaller than the phosphor dots (well bars - it's Trinitron)). The angular resolution of the naked eye is about 1'; however, some people have sharper vision than that. |
optimum viewing distance vs screen size - SD & HD
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
My desk PC has two 21" CRT screens at 1,600X1,200 and this was well worth it (the newer can display 2048x1536, but this is smaller than the phosphor dots (well bars - it's Trinitron)). Nice, but it's worth bearing in mind that watching TV on a small screen at close range is by no means equivalent to watching TV on a large screen at a proportionally greater distance. I think the reason for this is partly because most programme content is shot with a camera-to-subject distance which is greater than typical TV viewing distances, so a bigger screen image at a larger distance appears more natural and life-like to the eye and brain, and partly because the eyes have to work harder to converge and focus on a near object. The lens muscles are relaxed when the eyes are focussed on the far point. I became aware of this effect when testing my stereoscopic viewing system with 2D images. In the extreme case, the images are only 15 cm from the eyes but strong reading glasses are used so that the images are in focus when the eyes are relaxed and focussed on the far point. In addition, by using two screens, the image path for the two eyes is split, and the convergence can be adjusted for "parallel" viewing with the eyes again relaxed and looking into the distance. The result is a virtual screen image of indeterminate size located at "infinity". The effect is cinematic, and very different to watching video on a small screen at a short viewing distance. The angular resolution of the naked eye is about 1'; however, some people have sharper vision than that. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com