Slashdot Mirror

98" 8k TV? I'm not sitting 38" from a 98" TV, heh. A 98" 4k TV doesn't even make sense. When regular HD is already past the line where I can actually see pixels, any resolution above that is pointless. http://isthisretina.com/

http://isthisretina.com/ will or should prove to you that there is no such thing as affordable UHD/4K. You need a screen way too big, and/or you have to sit way too close, to make anything over standard HD worthwhile. $85,000 for a 120" TV that you have to sit 8' from does not make much sense to me. If it makes sense to you, good for you. ;)

"better than "retina""
Supposedly my screen is like retina at 6 foot.

"the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels" This is what needs clarifying.

I can clearly see a line of white pixels between lines of black pixels at 8ft.

Most of all, at 7feet some web fonts look atrocious to me, I block web fonts on a site by site basis because of this. The font letters am looking at as I type this is constructed of lines 1 pixel wide, if I turn on 'font smoothing' that looks really bad at a distance beyond the 6foot 'like a retina display'.

There are other differences that I can make out at up to 14 foot - more than double the indistinguishable claim for my screen - 1080p 46" @ 6' = like retina.

Not sure about your eyes, but the graphic appears to be pretty close to the values I'm getting when calculating when the resolution is better than "retina" for most people.

Of course, video compression can alter your results. And sub-pixel motion can cause moiré patterns that are quite noticeable even on retina displays.

I said this in the last 4k TV discussion. I have a 60" 1080P set, and my couch is 8 feet from it, or 96 inches. According to http://isthisretina.com/ 60" 1920x1080 pixels should only be visible to the average retina up to 94". That 8 foot distance is about as close as I would want to sit to a TV that size anyway, so I lucked out there. If I got a 60" 4k TV it WOULD NOT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT at that distance. The 1920x1080 pixels are already just small enough to not see.

Now, go back to isthisretina and punch in 3840x2160 and 60" and what do you get? Yep, 47". Do you want to sit 47" from a 60" TV? Pretty sure you don't. I know I don't. You need to double the size to 120" in order to make the 8-foot viewing distance happen. But, again, do you want to sit 8 feet from a 120" TV? I don't think I would want to. Nevermind that an 85" 4k TV is something like $40,000! haha. How much would a 120" one be? Pff, yeah. That'll happen.

Also nevermind the fact that the last time you were in a movie theater with that big screen you were looking at a 4k picture. Did you see pixels during the movie? No. (And you were probably looking at a lot of 2k content during that movie anyway.)

TLDR: 4k is useless for the home, and always will be.

I have a 60" 1080P set that is 8 feet from my couch, or 96 inches. I actually fluked out, without knowing this in advance or even thinking about it at the time, in that a 60" 1080P image only has visible pixels at up to 94 inches away, beyond which point you're past the average retina capability. Punch in 1920 x 1080 and 60" at this site. http://isthisretina.com/

Not only that, but I don't think I would want to sit closer than 8 feet from a set that big, anyway. It's a pretty big image from that far away. Now, if you go back to http://isthisretina.com/ and punch in 3840 x 2160 and 60" and what do you get? Half of what you did before, or 47"! Sorry, but I do not want to sit 47" away from a 60" TV in order to appreciate all the pixels I would have paid for.

Now, extrapolate. If I wanted to continue to sit 8 feet from my TV, but I wanted a 4K TV that I could actually see (or nearly see) the pixels I paid for, knowing the information from above, how big would it need to be? That's right, 120" is what it would need to be. So we get back to the same problem again. I don't think I would want to sit 8 feet away from a 120" TV. But that's exactly what I would need to do in order to make use of 3840 x 2160 at that distance.

Maybe that wouldn't be too bad for watching movies, actually, but I doubt I would want to carry out my regular TV watching at that size/distance. I wouldn't mind trying it, but I am not confident that I would actually like it. Again, maybe for movies. Maybe.

I have a 60" 1080P set that is 8 feet from my couch, or 96 inches. I actually fluked out, without knowing this in advance or even thinking about it at the time, in that a 60" 1080P image only has visible pixels at up to 94 inches away, beyond which point you're past the average retina capability. Punch in 1920 x 1080 and 60" at this site. http://isthisretina.com/

Not only that, but I don't think I would want to sit closer than 8 feet from a set that big, anyway. It's a pretty big image from that far away. Now, if you go back to http://isthisretina.com/ and punch in 3840 x 2160 and 60" and what do you get? Half of what you did before, or 47"! Sorry, but I do not want to sit 47" away from a 60" TV in order to appreciate all the pixels I would have paid for.

Now, extrapolate. If I wanted to continue to sit 8 feet from my TV, but I wanted a 4K TV that I could actually see (or nearly see) the pixels I paid for, knowing the information from above, how big would it need to be? That's right, 120" is what it would need to be. So we get back to the same problem again. I don't think I would want to sit 8 feet away from a 120" TV. But that's exactly what I would need to do in order to make use of 3840 x 2160 at that distance.

Maybe that wouldn't be too bad for watching movies, actually, but I doubt I would want to carry out my regular TV watching at that size/distance. I wouldn't mind trying it, but I am not confident that I would actually like it. Again, maybe for movies. Maybe.

At 4K you might be running into the "Uncanny Valley" symptom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

I concur 100% that 4K doesn't make ANY sense due to SMALL screen sizes. In order to have ~300 dpi @ 4K (3840 x 2160) your screen size would have to be 14.66 inches.
http://isthisretina.com/

I want 300 dpi at 60 inches.

4K only starts to make sense when you want to scale up the picture to be wall size. Let's take an average (diagonal) 60" plasma at 1080p, and the viewer sits at the recommended THX viewing angle of 36 degrees. (The recommended THX viewing distance is 6.7 feet)

  You would need to sit 6'8" (or 80 inches or 6.7 feet) to have a 36 degree viewing angle; the 36 DPI becomes retina at 94 inches, or 7'10". Most people don't sit that close, usually 8+ feet for something that size -- nowhere anything close to the recommended 6.7 feet.

With a 4K TV, while it has doubled the DPI at 73 dpi, it becomes retina at 47 inches. All 4K means is that you can sit closer and still see the same detail.

So if you sit closer then 7'10" then 4K would be an improvement; if your sit at the recommended THX viewing distance then it would be too; I seriously doubt most people pay THAT much attention to a "proper" visual setup.

References:
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/

Where are you getting your numbers from?

Using this: http://isthisretina.com/

I got: 4K display at 70" becomes "retina" at 55 inches.

A 1080p 4" display becomes "retina" at 6 inches. A 4K display is retina at 3 inches. How close to the eye are the displays on the Oculus Rift?

Souce: http://isthisretina.com/

Here's the calculator you're looking for: http://isthisretina.com/

31" is really too small for 4K.

Only if you're further than 25" from it. At any distance closer than that, you'd be able to resolve individual pixels. Until pixels are so small they are invisible, pixel density isn't high enough.

Furthermore, If you sit closer than 31" to a 40" monitor at 4K (as we all would), you'd be able to see individual pixels. So no, the pixel density on a 40" 4K monitor wouldn't be at the limit of normal visual acuity.

What's the point of 4K at 20"? 1080p at 20" at a 32" seating distance is already to the point where a human eye couldn't discern an individual pixel. 4K at 20" would require you to be closer than 16" to see an individual pixel, and no one sits that close to a desktop monitor. More like 24-30 inches.

I'm actually in the market to replace my existing monitors (2xDell 2408WFP) with new monitors. I'm currently considering 3x27" 2560x1440 LED IPS monitors (Dell U2713HM or LG 27EA83-D are the top 2 choices right now) so this interests me greatly, and something I keep seeing popup.

We're approaching "retina' resolution on the desktop anyway at 2560x1440 already. I of course mean retina in the Apple marketing sense as "at the normal viewing distance the human eye cannot resolve an individual pixel".

So really two questions - where are these 4K desktop monitors and what's the point?