Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
When people simplify screen size with viewing distance, they tend to overlook the fact that at a certain size, a screen can still only resolve a certain amount of detail in an image.
|
With fixed-pixel digital displays on which raster overlap cannot be produced? I don't understand how your assertion could even be possible. What am I not getting here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
50" seems, in many cases, to be the size above which the truth is seen. At 30" a screen is virtually worthless for judging an image, but until recently most post facilities were still using only screens of that size. While this tended to work for SD mastering, it cannot for high definition -- or at least I find it of little use.
|
Again, if your screen is displaying the entire picture information reasonably accurately, which a
good 30" monitor should be able to do, the idea that any larger a screen would necessarily have any inherent advantage doesn't make any sense to me, relative viewing distances being equal.
How could it?
To this end, I find it quite intriguing that your defense of this assertion appears to be entirely anecdotal and you aren't describing any principles at work which might explain a scientific basis for your experiences. Mind you, I'm not trying to imply anything about the validity of your claim when I say this.