-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Optimal viewing distance for 4K - 65in = 6.4ft (!!!)
- Thread starter Fess
- Start date
I'd say virtually all of them (compare them to proper movie subtitles). Subtitles in video games are awful because developers create their game by working on PC screens.
You'll find really bad offenders there, though:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=704722
Nintendo's Witch
Member
These people must have HUGE eyesight problems
lol
lol
Thank you for this.
plagiarize
Banned
No they don't. How far away from a computer monitor or tablet is your face? The maths is right.
Further away than these distances you can't see all the detail, and that's fine. You're still seeing more detail than 1080p and if you have an HDR set you are still getting HDR. There is nothing wrong with putting the needs of your space and wallet ahead of IQ, but these numbers are useful if you want to get the most out of the screen you have.
Turin Turambar
Member
I should test this myself, but those distances don't feel right to me. My issue is what they consider "ideal".
hydrophilic attack
Member
this is why 4k seems useless to me
i really see no reason to upgrade
i really see no reason to upgrade
Yes, this is a conspiracy cooked up by THX.
/s
Well, what is "right" to you is subjective is does not constitute objective factual data derived from calculation designed extract the best viewing distance given pixel pitch, resolution and tv size.
lifetimeofnot
Member
4ktv: $700, ps4 pro: 400 psvr: 400, nintendo switch: $400 total: $1850. That's not 100% accurate for me because of trade in credit but that's sort or irrelevant because: yes I spent a lot of money, I could have bought a really nice pc with that and have like $500 left over BUT the variety of experiences I get out of my set up makes it have more value to me than just a pc would. I can't make a spreadsheet with my setup but I can play damn near every major game I want to in 4k, have a cool portable option in the switch, and get a glimpse of the future with vr.
Any AAA game. All of them force me to squint in order to be able to read anything from my couch. This is not really related to 4K, but how developers draw their UI. Games like Dark Souls 3, Bloodborne with small icons and text descriptions are impossible to discern. Most icons in fact, I don't even know what they really look like unless I get up. Red stain, blue box, yellow circle with pointy thing etc.
And then the subtitles, it varies. It goes to "it's tiny but if I squint a little I can read them for the most part" to "retina detachment inducing".
One of the worst examples is Witcher 3, and I hear it was even worse before an update they released that made text a little bigger. Do these developers play on a VR headset exclusively or what, don't you see it's too small even when sitting 1m away the TV?
^^^ Per pixel UI is silly design.
So here's my issue...
With this formula (I'm actually busy at work so I dunno if I'm doing this right), my 17-inch laptop should have an optimal viewing distance of 0.514m.
If I'm reading OP's description right, that means 0.76m away there isn't a benefit of 4K over Full HD? Or rather, I "may as well" stick to Full HD. It certainly doesn't appear that way.
So here's my issue...
With this formula (I'm actually busy at work so I dunno if I'm doing this right), my 17-inch laptop should have an optimal viewing distance of 0.514m.
If I'm reading OP's description right, that means 0.76m away there isn't a benefit of 4K over Full HD? Or rather, I "may as well" stick to Full HD. It certainly doesn't appear that way.
That chart is for people with 20/20 vision to be able to see the entire 4k resolution. You can sit further back that that, but you immediately get into diminishing returns territory until you sit far enough back that you might as well have bought a 1080p TV.
This about sums up every attempt at a technical discussion on Neogaf. Try to discuss facts and immediately get shit posts. Or a shite post in this case I guess.
For consuming most media, absolutely. A solid calibration makes a far larger difference than reasonable differences in resolution. For gaming though I'd actually say that temporal resolution (AKA frame rate) is one of the most important factors for image quality. It would probably rank high on the list for normal media as well if the standards allowed for it.
This about sums up every attempt at a technical discussion on Neogaf. Try to discuss facts and immediately get shit posts. Or a shite post in this case I guess.
For consuming most media, absolutely. A solid calibration makes a far larger difference than reasonable differences in resolution. For gaming though I'd actually say that temporal resolution (AKA frame rate) is one of the most important factors for image quality. It would probably rank high on the list for normal media as well if the standards allowed for it.
The math is right, but there's different ways to compute it. Being able to see a black pixel on a white background, a white pixel on a black background, a 1 pixel wide line, etc. will all give you slightly different distances. The idea here is to be able to see a difference between a 4k image and a 1080 image, and it's not that easy to prove.
You can't expect the distance to change that much, but there's still the question on what is "seeing the difference". Unfortunately, it's really difficult to do proper objective tests (even passing 1080 and 4k source on a 4k set has plently of experimental difficulties if you want to do it right).
Those numbers are quite correct, though, and if you think you're able to see difference at 2x or 3x the distance, you probably see something else (different strategies of AA for example).
Problem with the "math" is, you could see a single white pixel on a 4k screen at probably a couple hundred meters in a perfectly dark room (assuming a single pixel is ~0.0001 candela)... Recent studies showed that human eye can see single photons, so that mean being able to "see" a single candle at 20+ kilometers.
People may use this to say what they want on resolution. You won't be able to see the difference between two white pixels side by side and two white pixels with a black one in the middle unless being at most 1-2 meters away (depending on the dpi)
Maybe it wasn't the best example, the topic come from time to time in GAF.
Another:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=965972
A search may bring more interesting results.
Fully scalable UI require a really high dpi, though, and you may still have artifacts (nearest neighbors will give you strange results, averageing will blur everything).
I prefer a per-pixel UI that scales with integer multipliers.
That's basically it, but the problem is in the "doesn't appear that way". How do you test it?
The focus of the THX recommendations is not about resolution.
Here is a calculator:
http://www.engineeringcalculator.net/home-theater-calculator.html
THX is concerned with keeping a certain amount of your vision fixated on the screen, including parts of your periphery.
Visual Acuity Viewing Distance is the distance at which pixels become noticable with 20/20 vision.
THX recommends a 36 degree or larger side-to-side viewing angle and requires at least 26 degrees.
Here is a calculator:
http://www.engineeringcalculator.net/home-theater-calculator.html
THX is concerned with keeping a certain amount of your vision fixated on the screen, including parts of your periphery.
Visual Acuity Viewing Distance is the distance at which pixels become noticable with 20/20 vision.
THX recommends a 36 degree or larger side-to-side viewing angle and requires at least 26 degrees.
Ah! Damn
Thank you.
Look at this trash
Eeesh! I'm about to play TW3 in a matter one week. Not looking forward to this part....
You'd think the devs would put a touch more attention to this aspect.
Patrick Young
Member
65" it is then.
I'm glad I didn't buy a cheap 55" Samsung out of impulse last week.
I'm glad I didn't buy a cheap 55" Samsung out of impulse last week.
That makes sense, but it ignores the fact that you'll be watching TV from different viewpoints and distances over time. Even if your couch is 10 feet away from your TV, I still think there's value in buying a 4K TV over a 1080p TV.
This science is pretty freaking wonky, because it assumes that you're watching TV in a very rigid, obsessive compulsive manner all the time. Only the most detail-obsessed gamers should worry about hitting optimal viewing distances.
Look at this trash
If you have 20/20 vision and sat at the distances recommended in the OP you wouldn't have any trouble reading it. That's what the OP is about. If you are having trouble reading it, then you are also having trouble seeing the rest of the detail in the picture. Having said that most consumers will be no where in the range the OP listed so developers shouldn't be using such a ridiculously small font.
It's not wonky at all. It's a guideline. People don't have to follow it, and most won't. That doesn't at all reflect upon the factuality of the guideline. The issue seems to be that a lot of consumers are unhappy with how visual science works rather than the veracity of the math behind it.
This is also true. There is a good chart that demonstrates the actual distance which also makes the diminishing returns more obvious.
Am I the only one whose parents used to balk when they saw me sitting any closer than 2 meter from TV when I was young? They said it's bad for eye.
And it works. I don't know if TV screen actually have effect to eyesight or it was a myth, but to this day I always feel guilty when I unconciously move my chair closer during intense gaming session. This rule don't apply to computer screen tho lol
And it works. I don't know if TV screen actually have effect to eyesight or it was a myth, but to this day I always feel guilty when I unconciously move my chair closer during intense gaming session. This rule don't apply to computer screen tho lol
Community Forum
Member
I feel like gaming requires a different measurement for me. I used to sit really close to the TV, but if my eyes have to dart around the screen to look at status bars and maps in the corners, it actually is a disadvantage. So I sit far enough away that I can see the whole screen without having to constantly be moving my head back and forth like I'm on crack.
ThanksVision
Member
man i have been having trouble setting up my living room for this very reason... it's cubic 11 feet by 11 feet and my tv is only 43 inches. so i've moved the couch to be like halfway into the room lol.
That makes more sense.
dragonfart28
Banned
32" and sit about 5 feet away.
I'm perfectly fine with it.
I'm perfectly fine with it.
xxRONN1Nxx
Member
I sit right at the recommended distance for a 55''. If I move outside of that it still looks extremely sharp. I do have very good vision as well so I dunno
Yep.
"Viewing distance
According to the American visual reproduction standard, THX, the best field of view is worked out by dividing the size of your TV screen in inches by .84. For example, if youre looking at buying a 65in TV, divide it by .84 which equals a viewing distance of 77-inch, or 6.5 feet (1.9812 meters).
Below is a list of the most popular screen sizes. Ive worked out the best viewing distance for each so you dont have to get your calculator out.
28in = 33.3in, 2.7ft, 0.82296 meters
32in = 38.09in, 3.2ft, 0.97536 meters
40in = 47.61in, 4ft, 1.2192 meters
43in = 51.19in, 4.2ft, 1.28016 meters
48in = 57.14in, 4.8ft, 1.46304 meters
50in = 59.52in, 5ft, 1.52400 meters
55in = 65.47in, 5.4ft, 1.64592 meters
58in = 69.04in, 5.6ft, 1.70688 meters
60in = 71.42in, 6ft, 1.8288 meters
65in = 77.38in, 6.4ft, 1.95072 meters
75in = 89.28in, 7.4ft, 2.25552 meters
85in = 101.19in, 8.4ft, 2.56032 meters
Youll see theres a pattern. Basically, the number of inches the TV is diagonally can be divided by ten to achieve the distance it should be watched from in feet. So the thing to do now is to measure the distance from your sofa to where your new TV will go, and the closest match above gives you an idea of the TV screen size you should be looking to buy."
"HD or 4K
Those measurements above will let you see every detail of a Full HD resolution and you could move back by up to 50% and still make every detail out (presuming your eyesight is good enough). However, for the 4K screen you shouldn't move further away from the display than the distances listed. That's not to say sitting further back will eradicate the benefit of 4K but it will be lessened gradually until you get to around the double the distance stated, then you might as well have a standard TV instead."
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs-entertainment/1404630/what-size-tv-should-i-buy
Dare I say it? Holy crap!
I thought a 65" TV would be perfectly fine for me for 4K resolutions when sitting about 3 meters from the TV, but apparently I should sit around 2 meters away from the TV, or 6.5 feet, to get the full benefit of the 4K upgrade.
At 3 meters, or 9.8 feets, I need a 98 inch TV according to this list. :S
Maybe I should save my money for a 4K projector instead? :/
Edit: Metrics added to the list
Those metrics are for an average ,20/20 sight. If you's is better you can sit a bit father away. You can find those adjustmentes on the internet
I have a 4K 43" and can confirm 3-4 feet is the sweet spot.
Again, these guidelines are how close you need to be for 'big screen' feel, just like at the movie theaters.
No one will get that feeling from 10 feet with a 40 in screen.
No, these mostly have to do with viewing angles and how much of your vision is encompassed by the screen.
FunkyDealer
Banned
Optimal Viewing Distance on paper does not mean the best solution for your room.
There's a ton of factors; eyesight, obstructions, room-size, sitting-layout, usage.
If anything, I'd personally concider these distances near minimum. For comfort, you shouldn't have to move your gaze too far from edge to edge, which you'd have to if the distances were smaller.
Keep in mind that your living room likely has seating at different distances, and it's generally worse to sit a bit too close than a bit too far.
There's a ton of factors; eyesight, obstructions, room-size, sitting-layout, usage.
If anything, I'd personally concider these distances near minimum. For comfort, you shouldn't have to move your gaze too far from edge to edge, which you'd have to if the distances were smaller.
Keep in mind that your living room likely has seating at different distances, and it's generally worse to sit a bit too close than a bit too far.
I've got a 4K 65" TV and sit about 2 meters away from it and find it's the perfect distance. For a 1080p 50" TV it was also good but I did find myself leaning forward often when gaming.
I think it also depends on your eyesight. With glasses on everything looks a bit smaller compared to when using contact lenses or having a good eyesight.
I think it also depends on your eyesight. With glasses on everything looks a bit smaller compared to when using contact lenses or having a good eyesight.
This plays a large part in why many console gamers don't care about sub-native resolutions and blurry TAA implementations, while PC gamers sitting up close to a monitor tend to have a strong dislike for that sort of thing.
It's why games like Horizon: Zero Dawn favor the elimination of aliasing/shimmer over image sharpness.
Same thing with FoV. If I tried to play most console games on a monitor at typical viewing distances, I'd be getting motion sick very quickly.
The main reason it's not a widespread problem is because people sit at the other side of their room looking at a tiny image, instead of it filling most of their vision.
It could be argued that this is also a factor with the acceptance of lower framerates too. Lower framerates tend to be less of a problem for smaller images.
It's why games like Horizon: Zero Dawn favor the elimination of aliasing/shimmer over image sharpness.
Same thing with FoV. If I tried to play most console games on a monitor at typical viewing distances, I'd be getting motion sick very quickly.
The main reason it's not a widespread problem is because people sit at the other side of their room looking at a tiny image, instead of it filling most of their vision.
It could be argued that this is also a factor with the acceptance of lower framerates too. Lower framerates tend to be less of a problem for smaller images.
this.
qa_engineer
Member
I'm 6 ft away from my 49in x800e looks pretty good to me.