Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Slick1ru2, please don't tell me what i can or cannot see with my own eyes. I CAN see the difference, if you cannot well that is not my problem.

You have a 1080p and a 720p TV of the same brand, in your bedroom? Tuned to look the same? Right.

[Steedeel]

As i cannot be in the room it is a bit pointless isn't it? I see quality, you see what you think is quality. That is my opinion. Your rants are becoming tiresome. You now have the audacity to TELL people what they are seeing. Don't be so pathetic. Grow up!!

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Slick1ru2, please don't tell me what i can or cannot see with my own eyes. I CAN see the difference, if you cannot well that is not my problem.

I'm not telling you that, its optical physics. Sure, if you get close enough you can see the difference, but the smaller TVs you have to get closer and closer to see it. You sit 4' from your TV?

Based on the resolving ability of the human eye (with 20/20 vision it is possible to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc), it is possible to estimate when the differences between resolutions will become apparent.

For a 32" TV

For 480p (720×480) resolution, you must sit:
9 feet or closer for full benefit
For 720p (1280×720) resolution, you must sit:
6 feet or closer for full benefit
For 1080p (1920×1080) resolution, you must sit:
4 feet or closer for full benefit
For 4k (4000×2000) resolution, you must sit:
2 feet or closer for full benefit


BTW:

ISF states the the most important aspects of picture quality are (in order): 1) contrast ratio, 2) color saturation, 3) color accuracy, 4) resolution. Notice where resolution falls on PQ.

[Steedeel]

Ok Slick, right you are! I am off, go and pick an argument with another member. sure you will have no problem there.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

I'm not telling you that, its optical physics. Sure, if you get close enough you can see the difference, but the smaller TVs you have to get closer and closer to see it. You sit 4' from your TV?

Based on the resolving ability of the human eye (with 20/20 vision it is possible to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc), it is possible to estimate when the differences between resolutions will become apparent.

For a 32" TV

For 480p (720×480) resolution, you must sit:
9 feet or closer for full benefit
For 720p (1280×720) resolution, you must sit:
6 feet or closer for full benefit
For 1080p (1920×1080) resolution, you must sit:
4 feet or closer for full benefit
For 4k (4000×2000) resolution, you must sit:
2 feet or closer for full benefit

Those figures aren't far off.

For a 32" 1.78:1 HDTV:
I get about 6.275 feet max dist away to fully resolve the full 720p res.
max 4.18 feet to fully resolve 1920x1080
max 2.09 feet to fully resolve 3840x2160 (3840x2160 is also marketed as "4K").

So based on those figures, if I was going to sit a maximum of 5.23 feet away from a 3840x2160 TV and wanted to fully resolve all pixels, what would be the optimal screen size for that TV in that viewing position?

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

So based on those figures, if I was going to sit about 5.23 feet away from a 3840x2160 TV and wanted to full resolve all pixels, what would be the optimal screen size for that TV?

Somewhere around 80-90". A DLP that size runs $3k still. I originally said that 4k TV might be good for those with giant screen setups. But I am thinking double that screen size and a more normal distance like 2 or 3 times what you are saying. But I doubt that the benefits will outweigh the fact that there has to be a whole new media. All these defending Blu ray must realize that its too small a format for 4k and especially 8k. So if they became the industry stable, guess what, BD is dead. Doubt that will happen.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Somewhere around 80-90".

Correct.

For a 1.78:1, 3840x2160 HDTV (which is also marketed as "4k"), if the viewer's viewing distance was 5.23 feet max from the screen, an 80" HDTV would let the viewer fully resolve all pixels.

So for that viewing distance, a 25 foot 3840x2160 HDTV is not the optimal screen size.

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

The optimal size for a 4K TV is 25 feet.

[nolfoc]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

As i cannot be in the room it is a bit pointless isn't it? I see quality, you see what you think is quality. That is my opinion. Your rants are becoming tiresome. You now have the audacity to TELL people what they are seeing. Don't be so pathetic. Grow up!!

+1 buddy, i haven't posted much in this thread but i sure read it a lot..and it seems like slick thinks his opinions are FACTS and hes the creator of resolutions.. this thread title should be either closed or changed to "Slick thinks he knows all; test him"

[42041]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Most people can't tell the difference at a normal viewing distance, including you. Most likely some many could standing a foot away. But, people don't watch TV from foot away. I am farther away then that from my laptop. Just because you think you can see a difference doesn't mean anything either. Unless you have participated in a double blind study, you only think you can tell the difference. And not only that, you only think you can tell which is which IF you could actually see a difference.

wow. people are seriously debating this person?

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Correct.

For a 1.78:1, 3840x2160 HDTV (which is also marketed as "4k"), if the viewer's viewing distance was 5.23 feet max from the screen, an 80" HDTV would let the viewer fully resolve all pixels.

So for that viewing distance, a 25 foot 3840x2160 HDTV is not the optimal screen size.

Who sits 5 feet away from a 6 foot wide TV? Blind man, I guess. Point is that is much closer then most would sit from a huge TV. You would be sitting much farther back and not notice the resolution difference.

19 feet or closer for 25 foot 4k screen. In other words, the size of a home theater with a wall big enough for the screen. Sounds about right to include most in the room.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by nolfoc

+1 buddy, i haven't posted much in this thread but i sure read it a lot..and it seems like slick thinks his opinions are FACTS and hes the creator of resolutions.. this thread title should be either closed or changed to "Slick thinks he knows all; test him"

What a human eye can resolve, what speeds are capable across a fiber optic network, how many people have HDTVs, number of people who stream NetFlix, etc.. These aren't facts? Most on here are stating opinions that are ridiculous ranging from streaming movies are all garbage to claims of seeing optical resolution that's humanly impossible, all which are opinions with no factual basis what so ever.


But yeah, close the thread. Asking if Blu-ray will survive on this website? Right. Of course, looking at the page views, its one of the top on this topic. Page views is what keeps this website going. Visit and click on a movie or game and buy it and they get a percentage.

[nolfoc]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

What a human eye can resolve, what speeds are capable across a fiber optic network, how many people have HDTVs, number of people who stream NetFlix, etc.. These aren't facts? Most on here are stating opinions that are ridiculous ranging from streaming movies are all garbage to claims of seeing optical resolution that's humanly impossible, all which are opinions with no factual basis what so ever.


But yeah, close the thread. Asking if Blu-ray will survive on this website? Right. Of course, looking at the page views, its one of the top on this topic. Page views is what keeps this website going. Visit and click on a movie or game and buy it and they get a percentage.

of course its in the top views on topics.. you have 130 post in this thread alone.. the next closes is anthony p trailing by 16 post.. and nobody comes close after that.. you keep refreshing this thread over and over again.. if you stopped posting the thread would die out.. trust me

and streaming movies is garbage you're constantly saying that blu-ray wont survive and talking about resolutions and what not. the best part of all this is you're a member of "Blu-Ray.com" and have an actual bluray as your avatar.. its like you're contradicting yourself.


but im not gunna argue because this thread should be long gone by now and if i start a new argument it will be around again..

[Steedeel]

Well i officially end my posts here. Thats if i can see the screen well enough to do so!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by 42041

wow. people are seriously debating this person?

Em.....yes. I do not need other people telling me what i cansee. I will trust my own eyes. Right, thats the final post from me!

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by nolfoc

of course its in the top views on topics.. you have 130 post in this thread alone.. the next closes is anthony p trailing by 16 post.. and nobody comes close after that.. you keep refreshing this thread over and over again.. if you stopped posting the thread would die out.. trust me

and streaming movies is garbage you're constantly saying that blu-ray wont survive and talking about resolutions and what not. the best part of all this is you're a member of "Blu-Ray.com" and have an actual bluray as your avatar.. its like you're contradicting yourself.


but im not gunna argue because this thread should be long gone by now and if i start a new argument it will be around again..

Cool,I guess, I have a stalker. BTW, Steedeel has half a dozen posts on this page alone. Or should I say, Eagle Eye.

[nolfoc]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Cool,I guess, I have a stalker.

don't flatter yourself chief. i literally just check the post and saw what you did..

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by nolfoc

don't flatter yourself chief. i literally just check the post and saw what you did..

Right. How long did it take to go through almost 40 pages of posts? Did you use a graph? Spreadsheet? What don't you do this to put it in perspective. Divide it into how many posts overall I've made. Next time I want a post count, I know who to ask.

[42041]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Right. How long did it take to go through almost 40 pages of posts? Did you use a graph? Spreadsheet? What don't you do this to put it in perspective. Divide it into how many posts overall I've made. Next time I want a post count, I know who to ask.

actually you just need to click the post count on the thread to get a breakdown of who posted how much.

[punkguy03]

Aw where's the love guys!? So much hate, and we used to be united! United against hd! We need another format war to reunite us.

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

Then those "industry engineers" are just as clueless as you are.

Optimal Size for a TV can only be described for a specific case. X sized room, Y sized display, Z people you need to be able to see it, etc.

It is completely absurd to claim there is a universal optimal sized TV for a generic unknown purpose based purely on the resolution desired.

And I've worked with a lot of engineers, and just because one says something doesn't make it remotely true.

You are resorting to the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy.

You left out W viewing distance. We've all seen the charts that indicate how far one needs to sit from what size television to get the benefits of 1080P. Reason of course being that the human eye does have it's limits.

Here's a brief explanation of why the human eye is not capable of discerning the difference between 720P and 1080P on a 50" tv from more than 8' away. The entire article linked below gives a GREAT DEAL of info on this subject

http://www.audioholics.com/education...f-human-vision

The resolution of our eyes is 12 vertical lines per arc angle (one line per arcminute for 20/20 acuity) times 2. Now 28 degrees x 12 lines x 2 = 672. This means we really can't see a display component (pixel) smaller than 1/672 x image width. Our minimum resolvable element size is about 0.065", or about twice the size of the pixels of the WXGA image! Put bluntly, from 8 feet away while watching a 50 inch plasma TV, the human eye is generally incapable of reliably distinguishing any detail finer than that shown on a true 720p display!

Pixels have to be separated by at least two arcminutes before the human eye is capable of discerning them. I don't think that the charts have been done for 4K sets yet. I'm no math wizard, but I'm guessing they would need to be at least 300" before you'd have enough pixel separation to be discernable. Even at that size... you'd probably have to be so close to the screen to see any difference, that you would never be able to see the whole screen without moving your head constantly.