Talk:Optimum HDTV viewing distance

Image compression effects

This article is mainly concerned with pixel size and the resolving power of human sight. However, image compression effects could have a greater influence, especially where image resolution and screen resolution do not match. A 1080p screen will give a very clear account of a 1080p bluray signal, but will give a very blocky version of a PAL widescreen signal. The consequence will be that the optimal viewing distance for an HDTV fed with a standard definition signal will be very much further than a high definition signal.--ML5 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Peripheral Vision

Missing in this analysis is consideration of peripheral vs. central vision. The former may be particularly influential in creating presence. With too wide a visual angle, the most meaningful material in a scene may lie in the peripheral region, requiring a great deal of eye-shifting to take it in; with too narrow an angle, peripheral mechanisms may be inadequately stimulated. This article needs some exposition about all this, but I'm not qualified to find sources, let alone evaluate them. Myron (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It will be very hard to find sources on which distance is best for people, because some people like myself prefer to be as close as possible without seeing pixels. It is like asking which ice cream is better chocolate or vanilla. I think close as possible is best, as long as comfortable. (NICKJANSSEN)

As others have already said, viewing distance is a matter of personal preference and a compromise, but I believe that for most people the combination of viewing distance and screen width/(or diagonal OK -- this is only approximate) should result in an included angle of view of about 30º so that the picture is as 'large' as possible (re. "immersive effect") while at the same time the entire picture can be seen at once, ie., you will not miss action at the right side of the screen while looking directly at the left side. Of course your focus is best at the centre of your view, and drops off progressively in all directions, but you should notice action anywhere on the screen regardless of what part of it you're focussed on.

My rule is that the Viewing Distance should be Twice the Screen 'Width' and this generally works very well.

Closer is more impressive but you start to miss part of the picture while viewing near the sides; farther quickly starts to have a 'keyhole' feel. I developed this principle for myself by experiment over time, and have found most articles on the subject to be in close agreement with it.

Because of the limitations of the human eye, the result is that image resolutions above full HD are arguably pointless for domestic use beyond a technical exercise. 4K, 8K, etc. have value mainly for commercial applications where the objective is to cater to a large audience in a limited space, so some of the viewers will be closer to the screen than optimal, and these high definitions keep the pixel sizes small enough to be tolerable for most of them. Children generally sit at the front and are less concerned with image quality anyway. Osmo30 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

The recommendation section should make it immediately clear that the relationship bewtween screen size, viewing angle, & distance only applies to 16:9 screens. While these are now ubiquitous, there are HD monitors that are 4:3, and 4:3 content will be viewed on 16:9 screens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.231.44 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Units

Please use ft & inches instead of decimal point feet (e.g. 5 ft 3 in instead of 5.25 ft). Unfortunately, in the US, many measures do not indicate metric units. Instead, they indicate ft and inches, not decimal point feet. --Makkachin (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Toshiba recommendations

The Toshiba recommendations listed in this article do not agree with the actual recommendations on Toshiba's website. --JHP (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Human physiological considerations

The author states "a wide field display" causes undesirable physiological effects. But in the same sentence the author states "the feeling of presence can be too real". In my experience, the most common cause is hand-held camera shake, which is hardly considered "too real". I think it would be better to give the standard definition of increasing the visual angle can cause miscues between what the viewer sees and what the viewer feels through their balance system. Paul Schruben (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Snellen Angle Calculation Method

In the Visual System Limitation section there is mention of several angles related to the Snellen methodology (e.g. 1080p HDTV is approximately 31.2 degrees) but nothing about how those angles are calculated.

I've gotten close by calculating the angle of the spherical display (though I can't recall now how I did that...) but nothing I've found shows how the flat display angles are determined.

Any thoughts?

GMcDowellJr (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic

Please comment on how this article can be improved Audley Lloyd (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

With metric units — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.241.35 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the material in this article belongs in a technical guide and does not belong in an encyclopedia. WP:NOT. There is a lot of good work here, and it deserves to be accessible - just not here. I suggest the article be made much shorter, with references out to the detailed tables.

Is there an existing wiki platform other than Wikipedia that would be a better place this?

74.77.153.157 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)