When do you suppose 8K will be available?

[ikms]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

So would have gone a similar conversation in the 1960s. We should all be glad that no one took any notice of them then, and nobody will now!

Only, you can not but take notice of them now. While technology placed hard limits on the size of CRTs from the 1940~90s (screen area, depth, weight, and price) in comparison the purchase considerations these days are concerned with the affect on living arrangement. The least obstruction might be for a rolling/folding screen combined with projector technology that would bright enough for daylight use, but even a "so cheap its practically free" 100" TV is always going to be thirty square feet when deployed vs. the 22" 4:3 of yesteryear (which barely cracked 1.5) Virtual display (via glasses or brain-tap!) is the only display technology that might bypass the living arrangement angle.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by ikms

Only, you can not but take notice of them now. While technology placed hard limits on the size of CRTs from the 1940~90s (screen area, depth, weight, and price) in comparison the purchase considerations these days are concerned with the affect on living arrangement. The least obstruction might be for a rolling/folding screen combined with projector technology that would bright enough for daylight use, but even a "so cheap its practically free" 100" TV is always going to be thirty square feet when deployed vs. the 22" 4:3 of yesteryear (which barely cracked 1.5) Virtual display (via glasses or brain-tap!) is the only display technology that might bypass the living arrangement angle.

So glad I don't live in a dense urban area where it would cost me another million dollars just to get the space for a big TV. We don't have that problem out here in the suburbs, our living rooms are designed around accommodating a big screen. I don't even own a house, I just rent a room in a house, but I just don't find the idea of a 100" flatscreen to be the least bit daunting, I could even conceivably rearrange my bedroom space for it. It's big, but not that big, we're only talking about roughly 8 feet diagonally, which is actually only a 7-foot wide screen. Assuming you have doors and straight hallways that you could actually get it through, finding 7 feet of wall shouldn't be impossible.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

So would have gone a similar conversation in the 1960s. We should all be glad that no one took any notice of them then, and nobody will now!

Digital HDTV did well but the same can't be said for D-VHS, HD Laserdisc, and analog HDTV. That something is better isn't enough it has to be noticeably better and be sold at a reasonable cost.

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

I'm pretty sure that in a couple years when I'm sitting 3-4' from a 60" 4K unit, in a bedroom not a giant HT room, I will not find it "uncomfortable" or "impractical"... and then it will only be a matter of time before I want 8K instead.

Do you believe that the average person would sit 3' away from a 100" display?

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

Digital HDTV did well but the same can't be said for D-VHS, HD Laserdisc, and analog HDTV. That something is better isn't enough it has to be noticeably better and be sold at a reasonable cost.


Do you believe that the average person would sit 3' away from a 100" display?

Some people seem to just think bigger is better, which it isn't. Their is a reason SMPTE and THX standards more or less match for recommended viewing distance for a given screen size. At 7 foot it is around 65", at 3 foot it is around 27" and a 100" screen is a bit over 11 foot. Some like going a little larger then this, but if you go relatively much bigger (in terms of relative screen size) you will not be able to view the entire screen without having to look back and forth which is not how feature films are intended to be seen (imax features are of course different).

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

No, what I'm saying is that the statement you made that 4K is actually beyond the capability of the human eye to see is nonsense which is easily demonstrated at any store displaying 4K models. You can attempt to make logical categorizations of my "argument" all you want, but it doesn't change that fact. All of those so-called studies that presume to put the limit of eye-function within the range of existing technology are pure bunk and always have been, including the one you mentioned. When a group of people who have actually seen 4K and 8K concur and tell me that you can't see the difference, then I will take it with some merit; but when someone makes a pronouncement based on pure theoretics, which contradicts the first-hand-experiences people are reporting, then I call b.s.

If you can see the difference between 35mm film and 70mm film, then you can see the difference between 4k and 8k, because on digital scan it's at least the same difference.

You are missing the important part of my post, from recommended thx and smpte viewing distances. If that is where you watch your films you will not be able to see the full detail of 4k/uhd yet. So going to 8k has no advantages (outside of things like for keystone corrections, glasses free 3d).

Take it or leave it, I guess I know what you will be doing as a bigger number is always better amiright.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Some people seem to just think bigger is better, which it isn't. Their is a reason SMPTE and THX standards more or less match for recommended viewing distance for a given screen size. At 7 foot it is around 65", at 3 foot it is around 27" and a 100" screen is a bit over 11 foot. Some like going a little larger then this, but if you go relatively much bigger (in terms of relative screen size) you will not be able to view the entire screen without having to look back and forth which is not how feature films are intended to be seen (imax features are of course different).

You are missing the important part of my post, from recommended thx and smpte viewing distances. If that is where you watch your films you will not be able to see the full detail of 4k/uhd yet. So going to 8k has no advantages (outside of things like for keystone corrections, glasses free 3d).

Take it or leave it, I guess I know what you will be doing as a bigger number is always better amiright.

I will not be following their screen size/viewing distance recommended ratio, because it is asinine, and it is an opinion which I don't agree with. Adding arbitrary numbers and quantities to an opinion does not turn it into a fact. 27" at a 3' distance? You have got to be joking! Maybe in 1953, but in the HD widescreen era, what a laugh! That's ridiculous, thank you for "quantifying" your opinion (and theirs) to beyond the outside of reasonable consideration and erasing any doubt that it is complete nonsense. A 27" is insufficient for watching films at any distance for me, it can't even remotely approximate the cinema experience.

I sit 2'-3' from a 40" display (2' to type and mouse, 3' for movies and games), and I think it is not wide enough, I would prefer 50-55" at that distance, or get 65" and push back to a more comfortable 3'-4'.
To get the view-filling aspect, I would have to either get even closer, like 18" away, (which is no good because I can already see the pixel grid at 2'-3'), or get a bigger screen with a better resolution. Mock me for a mindless "bigger is better" mentality if you wish, but when I go to the movies, I do not sit in the back row so I can fit the whole screen into the center of my field of view, and neither do most people. Stop positing your personal preferences as universal facts.
This statement down here is flatly wrong:

you will not be able to view the entire screen without having to look back and forth which is not how feature films are intended to be seen

Baloney, you just pulled that absolute pronouncement out of thin air. When researchers developed widescreen back in the 1950s, the specific purpose in going widescreen was that it fostered eye-movement and scanning which had been determined to enhance viewer engagement and viewing experience; in other words, the opposite of what you just said.

Why are some of you guys so resistant to the idea of large displays, wall size displays, the stuff we've been seeing in sci-fi and futuristic imagery for half-a-century? The stuff that industrial scientists and futurists alike believed would already be in our homes by now, back when I was a kid at school watching documentaries of Robert Lucky at Bell Labs talking about the future of technology.

I liked you better when you were banned.

[I KEEL YOU]

I'm sorry, but watching a 50-55 inch screen while sitting only 3 feet away is ridiculous and very unpleasant for both the eyes and neck.

What's more is you said that you want to play games like this? How the HELL can you play games like this? I tried playing Battlefield 4 on a 46 from around 5-6 feet and after half an hour-hour worth of playing time, my eyes felt like they were about to fall out of their sockets every time I turned my eyeballs to the corner of the screen to see the radar. I can't imagine how it would be on a 50-55 from 3-4 feet away.

[Suntory_Times]

mjbethancourt nothing of worth in your posts but assumptions and misinformation, though I am fairly certain you are trolling given the I wasnt a 55" screen from two foot away comment. I gave reasons based on standards that most cinemas try and adhere to (you know the place movies are made to be seen). If you want to sit 5 foot away from a 110" screen. Be my guest. You are less then the .0001% and will not be able to see the whole image or see it in a comfortable fashion. Also the person with a 40" display trying to talk about not understanding the benefits of a large display to someone with a 65" and 110" setup. Amusing to say the least.

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I'm sorry, but watching a 50-55 inch screen while sitting only 3 feet away is ridiculous and very unpleasant for both the eyes and neck.

What's more is you said that you want to play games like this? How the HELL can you play games like this? I tried playing Battlefield 4 on a 46 from around 5-6 feet and after half an hour-hour worth of playing time, my eyes felt like they were about to fall out of their sockets every time I turned my eyeballs to the corner of the screen to see the radar. I can't imagine how it would be on a 50-55 from 3-4 feet away.

More to the point, if you want it to fill up your fov why not just go to a VR solution. They are already available (albeit not in finalized form which should be next year).

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I'm sorry, but watching a 50-55 inch screen while sitting only 3 feet away is ridiculous and very unpleasant for both the eyes and neck.

What's more is you said that you want to play games like this? How the HELL can you play games like this? I tried playing Battlefield 4 on a 46 from around 5-6 feet and after half an hour-hour worth of playing time, my eyes felt like they were about to fall out of their sockets every time I turned my eyeballs to the corner of the screen to see the radar. I can't imagine how it would be on a 50-55 from 3-4 feet away.

It's great playing games 4 feet away on a 50 inch screen.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

mjbethancourt nothing of worth in your posts but assumptions and misinformation, though I am fairly certain you are trolling given the I wasnt a 55" screen from two foot away comment. I gave reasons based on standards that most cinemas try and adhere to (you know the place movies are made to be seen). If you want to sit 5 foot away from a 110" screen. Be my guest. You are less then the .0001% and will not be able to see the whole image or see it in a comfortable fashion. Also the person with a 40" display trying to talk about not understanding the benefits of a large display to someone with a 65" and 110" setup. Amusing to say the least.



More to the point, if you want it to fill up your fov why not just go to a VR solution. They are already available (albeit not in finalized form which should be next year).

I'm sorry, what was that? I couldn't hear you, on account of I'm still laughing out loud at the assertions that there is no benefit from going larger than 27" at 3', and that feature films were meant to be seen as a little window on a box instead of as an eye-engaging panorama.

Extrapolated to larger dimensions, 27" at 3' would be the same as sitting 80 feet away from a 60 foot cinema screen; that's probably going to be the back row, if the auditorium is even that large.
Edit: sorry, I forgot to compute for the diagonal nature of the 27" measurement. The corrected analogy is a 52-foot-wide screen at an 80 foot distance.

... pfft, "misinformation and obviously trolling"... you're funny when you're trying not to be, and not funny when you are trying to be. Your sense of humor needs work.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

I'm sorry, what was that? I couldn't hear you, on account of I'm still laughing out loud at the assertions that there is no benefit from going larger than 27" at 3', and that feature films were meant to be seen as a little window on a box instead of as an eye-engaging panorama.

I didn't assert a benefit or negative beyond when you go to to ludicrous levels (eg: 2 foot from a 55"), I stated the recommended viewing distance based on thx and smpte standards and then stated the benefits or lack there off of going beyond uhd resolutions at such a relative screen size.

Extrapolated to larger dimensions, 27" at 3' would be the same as sitting 80 feet away from a 60 foot cinema screen; that's probably going to be the back row, if the auditorium is even that large.

Depends on the cinema. Three screen heights for 2.39:1 content is smpte standard though. Funny how you don't bother addressing any of my points but make up your own versions of what I said and then respond with an equally odd response. Instead of extrapolating, you could take the one minute it would take to find the viewing distance standard as per thx and smpte.

... pfft, "misinformation and obviously trolling"... your sense of humor needs work.

I wasn't being funny nor was I trying to be. You logic needs work though.

I'm done with you regarding this topic. You haven't given a real response thus far and just spewed nonsense Mr "I sit two foot away from a 40" screen but 55" is what I want at that distance". Which yes if that's how you view content going beyond uhd will be of benefit, but I never said otherwise.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

The SMPTE recommended viewing angle is 30 degrees while the THX recommended viewing angle is 40 degrees. For a person with 20/20 vision the recommended viewing angle for 1080p is 30 degrees while the recommended viewing angle for 4K UHDTV is 60 degrees. Even the most vocal advocate of 8K UHDTV, which is the NHK, recommends a viewing angle of 100 degrees.

SMPTE and THX are not talking about where you should sit (which would appear as implied by your choice of the word "recommended") in the theatre, if that was the case there would be seats in the theatre saying those are the recommended seats that you should use for the best experience. Their specs are for the theatres (room) themselves. And those angles are really for how far the farthest seat in the theatre should be (because if someone sits further then that they are robbed of the big screen experience.)

Now THX has a "recommended" 36 spec and a real max (distance) of 26 for certification but that is for business purposes (i.e. a theater that has a row at 30 will still pass certification and THX will get their$ even it is not within what THX believes to be really acceptable.)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ikms

No, the only thing you can prove with a 4k demonstration at a store is that the human eye is capable of seeing improvement over standard 1080 HD.

agree, but isn't that the only thing that is important?

To demonstrate that 4k itself isn't beyond the capability of the human eye would take a source of greater resolution (6k or 8k) to fail in blind A-B tests at a standard viewing distance.

not really
1) you forgot screen size (10' from a 20" screen is different then 10' from a 10' screen

2) there is no such thing as a "standard viewing distance" even in my HT with multiple rows the distance is different depending on where someone sits

3) there is more than just resolution (or detail) that can influence the outcome. For example, in the old days of film projection a lot of the theatres would project out of focus in order to make film grain and other small artifacts less objectionable.

4) failing a blind A-B test is meaningless in many ways (passing a blind A-B test is the only thing that is not). For example, if someone does a blind A-B test with a completely black image obviously in that instance resolution X and Y won't make a difference even if X is 1 pixel and Y is 400k. Now obviously the example is a bit exaggerated, but it easily proves the point that if an A-B test fails to show a difference that it means for every other possible content the person would also fail to see the difference.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

You are missing the important part of my post, from recommended thx and smpte viewing distances.

Have you read the SMPTE documentation? the THX? your idea of what they mean is completely wrong. Those are rules on how close (due to the height issue with theatre size screens) and how far (the numbers you usually see) the seats should be. These numbers are also based on available tech.

http://www.thx.com/professional/cine...een-placement/

Originally Posted by THX FAQ

The placement of the cinema screen is precisely calculated for every THX Certified Cinema. To ensure the best possible viewing experience, THX recommends having a 36 degree viewing angle from the farthest seat in the auditorium.

Prior to construction, THX advises cinema designers and architects to accommodate for the 36 degree horizontal viewing angle. And, to make sure that every seat has an unobstructed view, THX often recommends either elevating or lowering the entire floor to adjust the seating location.

these numbers have absolutely nothing to do with where you should be sitting if anything they are the opposite since only idiots and teens try and sit in the back row.

. Some like going a little larger then this, but if you go relatively much bigger (in terms of relative screen size) you will not be able to view the entire screen without having to look back and forth which is not how feature films are intended to be seen

seriously man, stop talking, a human with healthy field of vision has almost a full 180 degrees wide with 110-120 of it being full binocular, and 135 degrees vertical the idea that going slightly more than 40 will mean that people would need to move their head to see the whole picture is beyond ridiculous.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I'm done with you regarding this topic. You haven't given a real response thus far and just spewed nonsense Mr "I sit two foot away from a 40" screen but 55" is what I want at that distance". Which yes if that's how you view content going beyond uhd will be of benefit, but I never said otherwise.

... and you have yet to say anything that could validate the assertion that a 36-degree viewing angle is the only way to comfortably and correctly view movies.

I said 3' for games and movies, not 2'. But keep repeating that, if it makes your opinions feel more factual to you.

And the backpedaled version of your argument is even more flimsy than the allegedly "straw man" version, now you're saying I'm "wrong" because there is a specific single convergence of parameters for THX viewing-angle recommendations from which benefits of higher resolution diminish, and you are trying to extrapolate that to mean that therefore there is no benefit to going 4K or higher for any home-viewing arrangement; all along, your argument has been founded on the insistence that we all must watch from the recommended viewing-distance/screen-size ratio (which, as Anthony pointed out, isn't actually the recommendation at all, it is in fact the minimum acceptable standard for THX for the worst seat in a cinema auditorium), or we are somehow "doing it wrong". On two separate occasions in this thread, you have stated that 4K and 8K displays have no practical application "for film watching at home", which asserts that the THX minimum standard are somehow absolute, inviolable parameters.

... And the suggestion that you're "right" and I'm "wrong" because you own a bigger TV? Absolutely hilarious.

But whatever, you're right, chief. Nobody needs a bigger screen or a higher resolution, we should all just watch movies on little tablets. You don't know many Americans, do you?

I don't need to cite every detail of that misinterpreted THX recommendation to address your nonsensical point of factpinionation, I understand you (and it) perfectly: nobody needs a bigger screen, you just need to sit closer; and nobody needs a higher resolution, you just need to sit further away... only you can't do both at the same time, can you now? Bit of a problem there, huh? This starting to make sense yet? Is it still escaping you, that your little THX table in fact illustrates the problem for which higher resolutions are the solution? What was that weak crack about logic, again?

Apparently, I need to walk you through this:
You stated the argument that "higher resolutions have no practical application for viewing films at home", based on the premise that "THX publishes recommendations for preserving a specific viewing angle by maintaining the same screen-size-to-viewing-distance ratio, and at what you deem to be the 'comfortable' home viewing distance, the screen is too small to see a benefit". I rejected the argument, on the grounds that I reject the validity of the premise. As I stated from the beginning of our disagreement, my personal first-hand experience tells me that I can comfortably enjoy larger displays at closer distances than what you cited in the THX recommendation, in other words a much larger viewing angle than a measly 30 degrees. You then responded by repeating your premise over and over again and insisting that I've "missed" it or don't understand it.

I shall now reduce our disagreement to a single, simple question:

What part of this do you not understand?

I reject the assertion that "higher resolutions have no practical application for viewing films at home", because my personal experience that I can "comfortably enjoy viewing larger displays at closer distances than THX viewing-angle recommendations" refutes the premise that "at comfortable home-viewing distances THX recommends a screen too small to see the benefit".

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

SMPTE and THX are not talking about where you should sit (which would appear as implied by your choice of the word "recommended") in the theatre, if that was the case there would be seats in the theatre saying those are the recommended seats that you should use for the best experience. Their specs are for the theatres (room) themselves. And those angles are really for how far the farthest seat in the theatre should be (because if someone sits further then that they are robbed of the big screen experience.)

Now THX has a "recommended" 36 spec and a real max (distance) of 26 for certification but that is for business purposes (i.e. a theater that has a row at 30 will still pass certification and THX will get their$ even it is not within what THX believes to be really acceptable.)

You make a good point about SMPTE though I would mention that THX does give a recommended viewing angle of 40 degrees for home theater. 4K UHDTV will change that though I think that there are many other things that should be improved in consumer video.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I wonder if people in this thread know that watching a film in 4k from reference as per SMPTE and THX standards actually goes beyond humans ability to see...

Say What?

If you’re indicating that people don’t have the ability to see 4k detail at as far away as 3 screen heights then you’re absolutely wrong. Even old SMPTE standard EG-18-1994 had the viewing angle from the back of the room being ~ 30 degrees (the screen subtends ~30 degrees at your eye) which works out to a viewing distance of 1.87 x picture width or ~3.3 screen heights from screen to eye.

Now…video engineers (a lot in SMPTE) like to think/use the basis for maximal visual acuity as being that humans can see detail up to 1 min. of arc because that is what a letter chart like Snellen is based upon and its convenient as hell for them to extrapolate from there, despite the fact that those trained in vision science know that humans can actually ‘see’ BETTER than one minute of arc…. http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~salmonto/v.../Lecture21.pdf
That is fact, even though the concept of Vernier (hyperacuity) may be more difficult for video engineers to extrapolate to video displays with regards to viewing distances. For those not understanding, in simplistic terms, people with “normal” or 20/20 vision (which equates to one min. of arc), in reality, actually ‘see’ better than 20/20, given normal non-aging brain function, the absence of cataract formation which could cause decreased contrast sensitivity, etc.

But, let’s just stick with the one min. of arc criteria in order to keep things as simple and conservative as possible. So, based upon that one arc min criteria, which SMPTE used, you need a pixel density of at least ~ 3700 pixels across in order to display all visible detail that humans can perceive (based on Snellen 20/20). UHD/4K tvs provide a tiny bit more than enough (3840 pixels across).

So anyway, how does this all translate for the non-mathematically inclined? Based on the most conservative estimate for 20/20 visual acuity and not taking into account what happens beyond the retina in humans (i.e. the brain), humans have “the ability to see the difference between 4K detail and 1080p detail 8.5 ft. from a 55” screen or 8.7ft. from a 56” screen, etc.

Results from independent professional lab scientific (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...=9#post9504489)
as well as large sample consumer testing http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-re...1312153517.htm have corroborated this science. Of note, the professional lab study did not test for distances beyond 2.7m (~9ft.), so it’s unproven if their observers’ could have differentiated the 4K captured and displayed material at greater distances, if tested. I presume; likewise, the consumer testing didn’t test for distances beyond 9ft. but you’d have to inquire with them for confirmation.

Obviously, if one moves closer to the screen than noted above its ‘easier’ to see the detail, just like its ‘easier’ to read all the letters from a 20/20 line off a wall chart 10ft. away from it rather than 20ft. away; plus, with dramatic video content the observer gets a greater “sense of being there and the sense of realness”, as NHK terms it, with said *immersive-ness* providing an additional benefit which doesn’t seem to bother folks like mj who seem to enjoy getting as close as they can to the TV screen. Nothing wrong with that as it’s an individual preference.

P.S.
I wonder since I’ve been absent if cannabis went on the fast track to legalization in Australia?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

I'm planning on bypassing 4K entirely and waiting for 8K.

From last year’s SMPTE tech conference…

2…4…8…K -

SMPTE JAM 2013 - Resolution Blues - YouTube

Note: with da ^ band is the Director of the HDRI test film, Emma….http://www.theasc.com/asc_news/News_...s/News_516.php

Anywho, why ‘Blues’?, one might ask…because, for one thing, of the bandwidth requirements for higher and higher spatial resolution(s). Sooo, I’m satisfied with 4K (for the foreseeable future) so as not to jeopardize the inclusion of other UHD augmentations like wide color gamut (WCG), HDR, HFR and immersive audio instead of forging ahead with plain vanilla 8K. In other words, 4K rez is already taking a big slice out of the bandwidth pie of current technology.

The 4K vs. 8K adoption thing was a topic of discussion at the last IBC which I attended in Amsterdam and the topic merited a panel…http://www.tvbeurope.com/ibc-dilemma...-1-wait-uhd-2/ after which I can inform you that consensus hallway chatter indicated that stakeholders were inclined to first go for 4K and let that technology mature.

On the other hand, I feel for proponents of technological advancement (such as ‘mj’ ) and I’ll eventually embrace 8K once WCG, HDR and HFR have been added to 4K for a complete UHD recipe and we can then move on to meet 8K’s HUGE bandwidth needs in the production and delivery chain infrastructure for something other than proof-of-concept experiments or extremely limited end user access in one small host country.

I’ll especially look forward to 8K if Google X minds can make these seamless displays of the future happen - http://online.wsj.com/articles/googl...ogy-1412346897 , perhaps not so much for movies as it’s been (and still is) a struggle (years of time) to get post houses onboard with complete 4K end-to-end pipelines but more so for subdividing the screen into more and larger blocks for financial news channels (e.g. Bloomberg news, etc.) or sports (e.g. ESPN).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

as it’s been (and still is) a struggle (years of time) to get post houses onboard with complete 4K end-to-end pipelines...

Heck, it’s been a struggle to get all Hollywood post houses onboard just to master their Blu-rays in BT.1886 standard….and that’s peanuts compared to the cost of setting up a facility with a 4K pipeline.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

I would mention that THX does give a recommended viewing angle of 40 degrees for home theater.

OK, when you said "recommended 40" I thought it was a rounding of the recommended 36 for cinemas, never realized THX gave an HT recommendation of 40

4K UHDTV will change that though I think that there are many other things that should be improved in consumer video.

agree, I now sit at around 52 and the pixel structure is too apparent (but not to the point of annoying), this is one of the reasons I am excited for 4k, it should make it less apparent and make it possible to move the rows a bit closer.

PS and like I told ST how far is based on filling up enough of your peripheral vision but how close is only based on tech (like you said) and comfort (i.e. looking way up wich does not tend to be an issue at home)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

4K UHDTV will change that though I think that there are many other things that should be improved in consumer video.

Most 4K/UHD TV manufacturers like to base their illustrations on horizontal visual angle and believe/hope a FOV of 60 degrees as illustrated during conference - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ie#post7856932 strikes a good balance for factoring in the value of immersion and comfort.

However, there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ value. Ultimately it comes down to personal preference. One important thing for our neophyte 4K home viewers to stay cognizant of is that as you choose to move closer and closer to the screen in order to take advantage of immersive-ness and less pixel artifact than with HD is to try to maintain a line of sight to the vertical center of the screen because it is much easier to ‘see’ sideways than it is to look up or down, esp. up (http://www.ic-at.org/papers/91117.pdf ).