Userbase

ub4b schreef:op die afmetingen maakt het niks uit
43 inch zie je zelfs de volle scherpte van 1080p niet op 3m

ub4b schreef:op die afmetingen maakt het niks uit
43 inch zie je zelfs de volle scherpte van 1080p niet op 3m

When Can a Computer Display be Considered Retina?

The viewing distance for a computer display is a rather fixed value. It often hardly depends on the display itself, but almost solely on the depth of the desk it stands on. Most desks have a depth between 75 and 80 cm and generally viewing distance is slightly shorter than that. For now we’ll assume a viewing distance of 70 cm. By combining that distance with the normal visual acuity the required pixel pitch can be determined:

[...]

(~33" voor volledig nut van UHD-resolutie op 70cm afstand, bij VA=1.0 of 6/6 of 20/20, wat ge het ook wilt noemen)

This is of course assuming normal visual acuity. If VA = 1.6 the resolution will have to be 60% higher in both horizontal and vertical direction for the display to be considered retina. Especially with young people (under 25 years old) a VA of 1.6 isn’t all that rare. Another thing to keep in mind is that because of the relatively short absolute viewing distance, sitting marginally closer can already have a fairly significant effect. Sitting at 65 cm is already a 7.7% increase in linear resolution compared to 70 cm, at 60 cm that’s 16.7%.Those 4K 24” displays suddenly make a lot more sense.

[...]

UHD viewing distance recommendations

The fun really starts with the Ultra High Definition viewing distance recommendations. The previous part already showed that the SMPTE and THX recommendations have a wide field of view, which results in very large TV’s for what most people consider a comfortable viewing distance. But those are still quite narrow though when you compare them with the 60° HFOV of 4K and the insanely wide 100° HFOV of 8K. Using the 250 cm viewing distance example the previous section ended with results in a 130.4” (331.2 cm) screen diagonal for 4K and a 269.2” (683.7 cm) screen diagonal for 8K. The viewing distance can also be written as percentage of the dimensions of the screen for a certain HFOV:

For 4K this gives a viewing distance of:

87% of screen width
154% of screen height
75% of screen diagonal

[...]

Conclusion

On computer displays there is definitely something to say for 4K. You can display a lot of information simultaneously and you usually only have to focus on a small area at the time, which means the higher detail really has added value. Furthermore the short viewing distance allows a wide field of view without the need for extremely large displays. 8K might have its uses with very specific applications, but in general it would be excessive.

With televisions it’s a different story. Many people probably aren’t even making full use of their FHD TV yet. To really profit from 4K you’d need an extremely large screen, or sit extremely close. And 8K is just plain ridiculous. For a 250 cm viewing distance you’d need a 595 x 335 cm screen. There aren’t that many people with a wall that big in their house and even if you had, you’d need a pretty impressive beamer and a very large projection screen (they obviously don’t make TV’s that big).

One of the reasons that 4K televisions sell relatively well might be that in the store people tend to look at it from a very short distance, at which they could easily see that 4K is sharper than FHD. If they would look at it from the same distance as the actual distance they would view it from at home, many would not be able to tell the difference (if all other aspects of the image reproduction were identical for both displays). Manufacturers know this, so from a marketing perspective 4K is very clever.

Tomby schreef: Veel spectaculairder zijn de kleuren die je hebt met HDR. Zowel met Marco Polo als met Grand Tour sta ik soms versteld van de kleuren en ben ik zeker dat het in gewone FullHD een pak minder indrukwekkend zou zijn.

ub4b schreef:HDR en >= 10 bit lost dit gelukkig op.