I have the 42 Inch LG C2 and want something smaller

[improwise]

So you hate going to the movie theaters?

Not to watch movies but would probably hate to go there to play FPS games.

 

[improwise]

Nvidia control panel. Force the aspect ratio to override to native and force 1440p without fit to screen. I wouldn't though nothing looks as good native resolution.

Or just use GPU scaling with no scaling and have it in native resolution.

 

[zandor]

I have the same problem, sort of. 70yo mom won't accept anything that won't fit in her TV cabinet. It's 36" wide and 42-43" displays are typically 36.75". So so close but no go. My parents have a 40" TV that fits, but there don't seem to be any 40" upgrade options. Like if you want 4k it's 32 or 42-43. So major screen size shrinkage or won't fit. Not gonna badger them to wall mount something bigger, but would love a 40" OLED with bezels thin enough to fit in a 36" wide cabinet. Or maybe not an OLED, but needs to be good enough to kick a 10yo LCD's ass. Also 4k because 70yo dad doesn't think it's worth upgrading if it's not 4k. Not going to get into a fight with mom & dad over this, so it's 4k or bust.

 

[kasakka]

I have the same problem, sort of. 70yo mom won't accept anything that won't fit in her TV cabinet. It's 36" wide and 42-43" displays are typically 36.75". So so close but no go. My parents have a 40" TV that fits, but there don't seem to be any 40" upgrade options. Like if you want 4k it's 32 or 42-43. So major screen size shrinkage or won't fit. Not gonna badger them to wall mount something bigger, but would love a 40" OLED with bezels thin enough to fit in a 36" wide cabinet. Or maybe not an OLED, but needs to be good enough to kick a 10yo LCD's ass. Also 4k because 70yo dad doesn't think it's worth upgrading if it's not 4k. Not going to get into a fight with mom & dad over this, so it's 4k or bust.

Look at physical measurements. A 40" TV might have much bigger bezels than a modern 42-43" so the physical size might be similar.

 

[Ray2097]

I'll never have another display less than 50" for desktop or gaming. The size is luxurious and would never compromise it.

50" for DESKTOP gaming sounds horrific. People have forgotten everything about ergonomy and health over time and keep calling TVs - monitors. "Look at my new monitor!" (it's famous 48" TV). Our eyes and brain haven't changed over past decade, what was too big back in 2000s is too big today.

You can say that it doesn't bother you, but it is not an opinion. It is actually not healthy to work on a "monitor" that big, especially if you play first person games.

And recommended distance charts from manufacturers are terrible too, they consider pixel density only and count the distance from which you won't see pixels anymore. What an amateurish way to do it...(and sell bigger tvs)

On the other hand, they don't understand high dpi displays at all, so they keep saying that 4k is too much for x size constantly. Like you should have bigger display for 4k. Terrible misinformation everywhere and new kids are growing up watching others play on their big LG "monitors" around the world. And it is always that "I'm never going back" tone...

Terrible situation, but here we are with actual monitors just getting started to get SOME attention.

 

[tongshadow]

50" for DESKTOP gaming sounds horrific. People have forgotten everything about ergonomy and health over time and keep calling TVs - monitors. "Look at my new monitor!" (it's famous 48" TV). Our eyes and brain haven't changed over past decade, what was too big back in 2000s is too big today.

You can say that it doesn't bother you, but it is not an opinion. It is actually not healthy to work on a "monitor" that big, especially if you play first person games.

And recommended distance charts from manufacturers are terrible too, they consider pixel density only and count the distance from which you won't see pixels anymore. What an amateurish way to do it...(and sell bigger tvs)

On the other hand, they don't understand high dpi displays at all, so they keep saying that 4k is too much for x size constantly. Like you should have bigger display for 4k. Terrible misinformation everywhere and new kids are growing up watching others play on their big LG "monitors" around the world. And it is always that "I'm never going back" tone...

Terrible situation, but here we are with actual monitors just getting started to get SOME attention.

The only reason why larger TVs became more acceptable as desktops is solely due to resolution, 4k at 50 actually has a generous amount of PPI.
I challenge anyone to use a 50" 1080p/768p display, the "luxurious size" argument will crumble.

 

[MistaSparkul]

The only reason why larger TVs became more acceptable as desktops is solely due to resolution, 4k at 50 actually has a generous amount of PPI.
I challenge anyone to use a 50" 1080p/768p display, the "luxurious size" argument will crumble.

I believe some people on here use a Westinghouse 42" TV that was either 1080p or 720p as their monitor back in the day. But those people were far and few.

 

[elvn]

I believe some people on here use a Westinghouse 42" TV that was either 1080p or 720p as their monitor back in the day. But those people were far and few.

50" for DESKTOP gaming sounds horrific. People have forgotten everything about ergonomy and health over time and keep calling TVs - monitors. "Look at my new monitor!" (it's famous 48" TV). Our eyes and brain haven't changed over past decade, what was too big back in 2000s is too big today.

You can say that it doesn't bother you, but it is not an opinion. It is actually not healthy to work on a "monitor" that big, especially if you play first person games.

And recommended distance charts from manufacturers are terrible too, they consider pixel density only and count the distance from which you won't see pixels anymore. What an amateurish way to do it...(and sell bigger tvs)

On the other hand, they don't understand high dpi displays at all, so they keep saying that 4k is too much for x size constantly. Like you should have bigger display for 4k. Terrible misinformation everywhere and new kids are growing up watching others play on their big LG "monitors" around the world. And it is always that "I'm never going back" tone...

Terrible situation, but here we are with actual monitors just getting started to get SOME attention.

Just set it back on its own stand or wall mount until it's the same 60 to 50 degree central human viewing angle and ppd as a smaller 4k would be up close. Apples to apples the screen size filling your personal FoV and the pixel sizes will be exactly the same to your perspective. The only meaningful difference would be between different screens feature sets and display technology types, etc. You don't have to shoe horn a larger screen directly on top of a desk.

 

[xDiVolatilX]

50" for DESKTOP gaming sounds horrific. People have forgotten everything about ergonomy and health over time and keep calling TVs - monitors. "Look at my new monitor!" (it's famous 48" TV). Our eyes and brain haven't changed over past decade, what was too big back in 2000s is too big today.

You can say that it doesn't bother you, but it is not an opinion. It is actually not healthy to work on a "monitor" that big, especially if you play first person games.

And recommended distance charts from manufacturers are terrible too, they consider pixel density only and count the distance from which you won't see pixels anymore. What an amateurish way to do it...(and sell bigger tvs)

On the other hand, they don't understand high dpi displays at all, so they keep saying that 4k is too much for x size constantly. Like you should have bigger display for 4k. Terrible misinformation everywhere and new kids are growing up watching others play on their big LG "monitors" around the world. And it is always that "I'm never going back" tone...

Terrible situation, but here we are with actual monitors just getting started to get SOME attention.

Lol you just put a bit more distance between you and the monitor. Larger displays are fun. The 43 felt small. Now if it was 240Hz I would definitely entertain a 43" where I would pull it in a bit closer than the 50. Actually a 8k 240Hz 43" would be incredible so sharp haha

 

[Ray2097]

Just set it back on its own stand or wall mount until it's the same 60 to 50 degree central human viewing angle and ppd as a smaller 4k would be up close. Apples to apples the screen size filling your personal FoV and the pixel sizes will be exactly the same to your perspective. The only meaningful difference would be between different screens feature sets and display technology types, etc. You don't have to shoe horn a larger screen directly on top of a desk.

Yeah, just like putting a phone in front of your face at certain distance is the same thing as going to cinema, right? Filling your FOV the same way and all that...

If it's THE SAME, why have a bigger screen in the first place?

 

[NukeDukem]

You get used to the big screens like anything else. I picked up a 55" LG CX to play PC games back in early 2020 because of all the hype surrounding OLEDs-as-gaming-monitors. Holy smokes. Once you dial in the perfect distance it's a beautiful thing. So I got a Samsung 55" S95B in 2022 and WOW, I was blown away by the QD-OLED.

Now, could I have been crazy enough to go larger? Yes. The 65" S95C sits on an island and my performance in multiplayer games is BETTER than on the 55's. The size of the panel makes it a "like I am actually standing there" experience. Once your mouse settings are tuned in the level of aiming precision you can achieve actually increases. Heads are physically bigger on the screen, so suddenly they become easier to track and pop.

There is absolutely a viable way to make it work. If you don't want to risk burn-in on your OLED TV, you get side monitors. My Sammy is just the big screen that plays media. All other times it's got a full screen pitch black wallpaper with hidden taskbar and no icons. Those are all on the 27" Mini-LED I have on the main desk.

 

[NukeDukem]

I also cannot stress enough the game changing picture quality the QD-OLEDs brought to the table. The LG CX was fantastic, but overall not a very bright screen. What makes the Samsung QD-OLED so good is the brightness in specular highlights. It's solved the problem of OLED being too dim. Colors just POP off the screen like traditional LED but you also have the infinite contrast offered by self-emitting pixels.

Once the QD-OLED panels get to the "regular monitor" size (or even if that happens, I don't know), a lot more people are going to be raving about the tech. But that's one reason why we had to get these in bigger screen TV's.... you couldn't find the same spec panels in anything smaller.

 

[elvn]

Yeah, just like putting a phone in front of your face at certain distance is the same thing as going to cinema, right? Filling your FOV the same way and all that...

If it's THE SAME, why have a bigger screen in the first place?

Because there were no 32" OLED gaming displays available, let alone at the $750 - $1200 price point of a 48" or 42" 120hz hdmi 2.1 VRR + HDR gaming TV.

The size isn't a big issue if you have the space and like the idea of it being on a simple rail spine floor tv stand (or wall mount, etc.) The size could even be considered an advantage for things that cut the screen space down perhaps, like letterboxed material or running a ultrawide rez on a larger screen.

Larger also beneficial for using as more real-estate like a bezel-free multi monitor setup if sitting closer, though a 8k screen would be better at that, having quads of 4k real estate. The 55" ark for example is 4k so only 1080p per quad, so that's not really a replacement for a modern multi-monitor setup.

Larger is also nice for dual duty as a movie display depending on what you are doing, or just for a more spaced out command center style setup with some distance. Up against the wall like a bookshelf isn't the only way to do things.

That said, yes a "phone screen" up close will definitely be huge in the future - like VR but in 3 - 5 years from now higher rez XR glasses in a sunglasses like format that put a virtual screen in front of your face that looks like a larger, resizable screen in real space are definitely going to be a thing. They are already here in early versions though they are 1080p so far. Apple pushed their lightweight sunglass style model back to 2027 so there might be some advancements then.

. . . . . . . .

I believe some people on here use a Westinghouse 42" TV that was either 1080p or 720p as their monitor back in the day. But those people were far and few.

Yes. I tried the 37" 1080p westinghouse briefly but I found the PPD very poor, even after I moved it back on it's own wooden microwave hutch pillar behind my desk. Sold it soon afterward.

.

37" 1080p at ~ 30" view distance is only 34 PPD which is pretty bad.
It was also 60hz and 120hz screens started to hit the scene with a samsung 27" 1080p 120hz (no VRR/g-sync that early on) . . . and later the first rog swift 2560x1440 144hz, with G-SYNC.


https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

For reference:

At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 8k screen of any size gets around 127 to 154 PPD..

At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 4k screen of any size gets around 64 to 77 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 2560x1440 screen of any size gets only 43 PPD to 51 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 1920x1080 screen of any size gets only 32 PPD to 39 PPD


. . . . . . . . . . .


Here are the PPDs of 42" 4k and 48" 4k when viewed at the 60 to 50 degree human central viewing angle (plus one shown at 51 ppd at a sub-optimal viewing angle for comparison) :



........................

. . . . . . . .



======================================================================

Optimal viewing angle foundation vs. distortion, non-uniformity, and human central viewing angle's scope on a flat screen:

sitting nearer compromises picture quality due to off-axis pixels at the sides,, lowers, ppd, and can also induce eye fatigue depending on what you are doing.

. . . . . .

A 32" 4k screen within the human central viewing angle:

60 deg viewing angle, 64 PPD = 24 inch view distance screen surface to eyeballs

50 deg viewing angle, 77 PPD = 30 inch view distance screen surface to eyeballs

30 inch view distance is asking a bit much for a normal desk sitting with peripherals on top, screen surface to eyeballs but you can get 64PPD to 70 PPD at a healthy 60 deg to 55 deg viewing angle at 24 inch to 27 inch view distance, respectively.

So a 32" 4k is just about perfect size for mounting on a desk. I'd go as far as a 36" 4k on a desk though personally. At 60 deg viewing angle it would still only be at 27 inch view distance. Any bigger than that and you are better off decoupling the screen from the desk entirely using a simple thin spined floor tv stand with a flat foot or caster wheels (or wall mounting but that's much less modular and less adjustable) and moving the desk farther back from the screen.

That's in regard to full screen media and game viewing though, not the similar to a "multi monitor setup w/o bezels" desktop real-estate scenario where you might move your eyes and head around more to different app/window/"screen" spaces separately rather that viewing a full field show or game. Having parts of the screen space outside of your central viewing angle wouldn't be a big problem there, within reason.

You don't move your head around as frequently in that scenario as you are focusing on one app at a time typically. In media or a game you are following the bouncing ball so to speak, or like watching a tennis match from the midline. A better example might be tracking a fly buzzing around a room randomly. There is so much dynamic action going on from entites on screen plus the camera or virtual camera's pathing plus huds, notifications, pointers, chat, etc far field that it's fatiguing.

 

[elvn]

. . .

I'd go 32" to 39" view distance for a 42 inch 4k. This vid shows the general idea of using a tv stand at a desk for more distance. The stand he chose needs to be butted up against a wall but most of them are free standing.

EDIT: He increased his viewing distance from under 28 inches to 38 inches according to his narration in that video. (That's 51 deg, 76 PPD) .
29 inch view distance (screen surface to eyeballs) on a 42" 4k gives you 60 PPD and a 64 degree viewing angle which is pretty close to the human 60 to 50 degree central viewing angle. I consider 60 PPD a minimum for 4k. Even with a very deep ~30" desk you are prob not going to get a real 30" view distance screen surface to eyeballs unless you mount the tv just behind the back end of the desk a bit. Most desks are even shorter depth than that.


I prefer a little higher PPD if I can get it. WIth a stand it's pretty easy to bump the distance to ~ 70 PPD., 55 degree. Depends what I am doing.

With a 48" 4k that would be . . . . . . . . . 36 inch view dist. for 64 PPD @ 60 deg --to-- 45 inch view dist. 77PPD @ 50 deg

With a 55" 4k that would be . . . . . . . . .42 inch view dist. for 64 PPD @ 60 deg ---to--- 52 inch view dist 77PPD @ 50 deg

Worth noting that at the 38 inch view distance he chose in that vid, at that same distance on a
42" 4k would be 76 PPD and a 51 degree viewing angle
48" 4k would be 67 PPD and 58 degree viewing angle
55" 4k would be 60 PPD and 64 degree viewing angle
So it's a good distance for using all three screen sizes actually (though you could easily bump the distance up a bit for the the larger screens if you wanted to and get a bit higher PPD).


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqcmPMb-8A4

 

[improwise]

I also cannot stress enough the game changing picture quality the QD-OLEDs brought to the table. The LG CX was fantastic, but overall not a very bright screen. What makes the Samsung QD-OLED so good is the brightness in specular highlights. It's solved the problem of OLED being too dim. Colors just POP off the screen like traditional LED but you also have the infinite contrast offered by self-emitting pixels.

Once the QD-OLED panels get to the "regular monitor" size (or even if that happens, I don't know), a lot more people are going to be raving about the tech. But that's one reason why we had to get these in bigger screen TV's.... you couldn't find the same spec panels in anything smaller.

What QDOLED is that as I compared my OLED G9 to the C2 42" for two weeks before sending back the G9 as I found it to offer very little extra compared to the C2 besides the UW format (if you happen to prefer that) and +120 hz (which could be worth it). It should be mentioned that I always ungimp my OLEDs day one and that the OLED G9 was really good, just that at three times the price it didn't really offer as much of an upgrade as I would have hoped. Also found the raised blacks very apparent in a side by side.

 

[Weissrolf]

I will not buy an IPS display, since I hate the IPS glow. What do you guys think, just keep what I have and accept it or go with something smaller? Maybe you guys can recommend a smaller monitor other than what I suggested above?

You could take a look at IPS panels with ATW polarizer that suppress IPS glow (turns brighter whitish glow into subdued colored glow). That might increase the number of potential alternatives. If you are in no hurry then wait for next year when not only the new OLED are coming out, but likely/hopefully also more mini LED alternatives.

IPS glow of Corsair 32UHD144 vs. Asus PG32uqxR with local dimming disabled (same panel as Acer X32 FP):

IPS glow of Acer X32 FP vs. Cooler Master GP27U with local dimming enabled:

 

[tongshadow]

Size is the other factor that controls how much you can perceive the benefit of a resolution, the other factor is distance.
So if distance remains constant, size is what determines how much of that resolution can be perceived.
That's why HT enthusiasts seek the largest sizes.

 

[elvn]

Size is the other factor that controls how much you can perceive the benefit of a resolution, the other factor is distance.
So if distance remains constant, size is what determines how much of that resolution can be perceived.
That's why HT enthusiasts seek the largest sizes.

It's all about the PPD and viewing angle.

For a PC, the distance doesn't have to remain the same if you have room space (within reason) and are willing to install a simple thin spined tv stand and use that kind of layout.
I've also had an island desk which itself was on caster wheels, so I could butt the desk up against the screen when not in use, then drag the desk back to a better viewing angle and PPD (~ 40inch view distance +/- , ~70PPD on my 48" OLED) when I wanted to use it.

The human central field of vision is around 60 to 50 degrees. There is some wiggle room there depending on what you are doing but that's a sweet spot, especially for media/movies (* for an individual rather than a mini-stadium seated group in a wider viewing scenario), and it's the sweet spot for most games with pertinent information (huds, pointers, chat, etc) on the periphery of the screen and those with action drawing your attention rapidly to different parts of scenes/game world. Keeping a screen closer to within your central field of vision also keeps fewer pixels off-axis on the sides of the screen, or at least reduces the degree that they are off axis. The farther away pixels are from the center, the more off-axis they are and the nearer you sit the greater the amount they will progressively be off-axis. Having off axis pixels (pixels not pointed directly at your eyes) exacerbates uniformity issues and also causes distortion. Also with larger portions of screen action "out of bounds" of your central field of vision, watching ping pong constant action in games with an "obtuse" angle can be eye and neck fatiguing depending on what you are doing.

. . .

https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

For reference:

At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 8k screen of any size gets around 127 to 154 PPD..

At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 4k screen of any size gets around 64 to 77 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 2560x1440 screen of any size gets only 43 PPD to 51 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 1920x1080 screen of any size gets only 32 PPD to 39 PPD

. . .


For on top of a desk with a 16:9, 32 inch or so is prob the best fit:

A 32" 4k screen within the human central viewing angle:

60 deg viewing angle, 64 PPD = 24 inch view distance screen surface to eyeballs

50 deg viewing angle, 77 PPD = 30 inch view distance screen surface to eyeballs

30 inch view distance is asking a bit much for a normal desk sitting with peripherals on top, screen surface to eyeballs but you can get 64PPD to 70 PPD at a healthy 60 deg to 55 deg viewing angle at 24 inch to 27 inch view distance, respectively.

So a 32" 4k is just about perfect size for mounting on a desk. I'd go as far as a 36" 4k on a desk though personally. At 60 deg viewing angle it would still only be at 27 inch view distance. Any bigger than that and you are better off decoupling the screen from the desk entirely using a simple thin spined floor tv stand with a flat foot or caster wheels (or wall mounting but that's much less modular and less adjustable) and moving the desk farther back from the screen.

That's in regard to full screen media and game viewing though, not the similar to a "multi monitor setup w/o bezels" desktop real-estate scenario where you might move your eyes and head around more to different app/window/"screen" spaces separately rather that viewing a full field show or game. Having parts of the screen space outside of your central viewing angle wouldn't be a big problem there, within reason.

You don't move your head around as frequently in that scenario as you are focusing on one app at a time typically. In media or a game you are following the bouncing ball so to speak, or like watching a tennis match from the midline. A better example might be tracking a fly buzzing around a room randomly. There is so much dynamic action going on from entites on screen plus the camera or virtual camera's pathing plus huds, notifications, pointers, chat, etc far field that it's fatiguing.

. . . .

size is what determines how much of that resolution can be perceived.
That's why HT enthusiasts seek the largest sizes.

I think more than anything it's that home theater enthusiasts seek the largest sizes in order to fill more of their human central/focal viewing angle for immersion in their typically more spaced room layouts - living rooms, etc.
For example even my 77" 4k oled at 8 or 9 feet is closer to filling only half of my central field of vision (not that I'm complaining really). At 100inch view distance (8' 4inch) I'd need a ~140 inch diagonal screen to fill 60 degrees wide which would probably be the full height of my wall. Might sound crazy but some people do that with projectors, the PQ just isn't that great imo among other tradeoffs. A modern high end tv of that size would be extremely expensive, prohibitively for me (and outdated within a few years or so besides).

The size vs view distance does give more value to (and need for) higher resolutions though, if that's what you are saying. The larger the screen's perceived size (how much it fills your personal FoV) in relation to where you are sitting, the larger the pixels will look. That's why VR's PPD is so poor so far. Even with the lenses and tricks, it's like a 100' screen at 8 feet away or something perceptually so the pixels are large with the limited resolution of the headsets so far. Like 24 to 32 PPD maybe on most modern VR headsets even now.

4k and similarly 8k, each bring more detail (in content that has more detail to match it or that is AI upscaled well enough), and less aliasing and fringing compared to lower resolutions when viewed at optimal distances apples to apples.

. .

if distance remains constant

The resolution (and aliasing, fringing) pretty much gets worse the larger the screen at a set distance because the larger the screen of a particular resolution at any given distance, the larger the perceived pixel sizes will be. So higher resolution realized as higher PPD will be great imo.

A 55" 4k samsung ark for example only get to 60+ PPD as it gets to the center of it's 1000R = 1000mm curvature at around 40" view distance. To me, even 60PPD is "good" but not "great". Most people aren't setting the ark up on their own stand or surface farther away like that, so they cram them onto a desk and get lower PPD.

Most desks, even exceptionally deep 30 inch deep desks, won't get 30 let alone 40 inch viewing distance with the foot/stand of the screen mounted on the desk. So most people using the arks, forced to mount them directly onto a near desk, and using the curvature for immersion sitting nearer than 40" for that reason besides, are seeing pixel sizes more like what you'd see on a smaller desktop sized 1440p or 1500p screen rather then that fine pixel sizes you'd expect to see on a 4k resolution screen.

A 55" 4k on a desk up close is lower PPD more like a 1440p desktop sized screen and wide viewing angle:

43 PPD at 24 inch view distance <--- 90 deg
46 PPD at 27 inch view distance <--- 84 deg
50 PPD at 30 inch view distance <--- 77 deg

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 2560x1440 screen of any size gets only 43 PPD to 51 PPD
..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every "2844x1600" screen of any size gets 48 PPD to 57 PPD

A 42" 4k screen up close:

51 PPD at 24 inch view distance, 73 deg viewing angle
56 PPD at 27 inch view distance, 68 deg
60 PPD at 29 inch view distance, 64 deg <------ 60PPD+, but even 30inch deep desks are unlikely to get that with the screen stand/foot mounted on top of the desk
64 PPD at 32 inch view distance, 60 deg

.
.

 

[tongshadow]

4k and similarly 8k, each bring more detail (in content that has more detail to match it or that is AI upscaled well enough), and less aliasing and fringing compared to lower resolutions when viewed at optimal distances apples to apples

That is correct, but these optimal distances would be different if the screen size is the same. Let's picture a very common scenario: Someone buys a new 51" 4k TV to replace their old 51" 1080p TV. If said person viewed native 4k content on this new TV, the difference would be unnoticeable due to our limited visual accuity, the eye cant distinguish the extra pixels from 4k. If this person cant somehow change the setup to sit farther, the other solution would be using a larger size. This chart explains the situation very well:


View: https://i.imgur.com/vb0oSG1.png

Keeping the distance constant, the chart indicates that said person would need to move to at least a 80" TV to perceive the benefit from 4k.

Interestingly enough, this chart also states that the higher the resolution, the flatter the linear curve becomes. Meaning that sitting at 2.5 feet away, ALL displays ranging from 25" all the way to 120" will look IDENTICAL if the resolution is high enough. Pushing 8k and beyond is silly because of that.

 

[elvn]

sitting at 2.5 feet away, ALL displays ranging from 25" all the way to 120" will look IDENTICAL if the resolution is high enough. Pushing 8k and beyond is silly because of that.

IF the resolution is high enough, sure.

A 32" 3840 x2160 (4k) screen at 30 inch viewing distance (50 deg viewing angle) gets 77PPD.
A 32" 7680 x 4320 (8k) screen at 30 inch viewing distance (50 deg viewing angle) gets 144 PPD.

A 65" screen at 6700 x 3664 resolution at 30 inch viewing distance (40 deg viewing angle) would get 77 PPD.
A 65" screen at 13400 x 7328 resolution at 30 inch viewing distance (40 deg viewing angle) would get 144 PPD.


You can see where this is going. You'd need way higher resolutions to keep matching the fidelity of a 32" 4k and 8k screen on a desk if you didn't increase the viewing distance of the larger and larger screens. In order for a 120" screen at 30 inch view distance to match a 32" 4k it would require a 9300 x 5086 resolution, and to match 32" 8k screen at 30 inch view distance it would need 18,600 x 10,172 resolution ! So it seems like a silly standpoint to argue considering the limitations of hardware in the near future.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..


Text sub-sampling and aggressive 3d game graphics anti-aliasing don't really start to compensate more adequately until around 60 PPD, but higher will look better as the masking techs are not perfect. The 2d desktop's graphics and imagery also typically gets no text-ss or game graphics AA to mask how large the pixel structure is either, so 2d imagery benefits even more from higher PPD


====================

https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

For reference:

At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 8k screen of any size gets around 127 to 154 PPD..

At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 4k screen of any size gets around 64 to 77 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 2560x1440 screen of any size gets only 43 PPD to 51 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 1920x1080 screen of any size gets only 32 PPD to 39 PPD

=====================



The chart you posted goes into 10's of feet too, which isn't really pertinent to most viewing arrangements.

Excusing of course that a huge range of sizes of screens won't look identical perceptually because their viewing angles would be wildly different at the same 2.5' view distance . . .


Lets take a few examples you mentioned. . . in regard to perceived pixel density, at 2.5" which is 30" view distance:


120 inch 4k screen at 30 inches (2.5 feet away, "obtuse" 120deg viewing angle) is only
= 32 PPD, pixels per degree. It will look like the same pixel density as a 27 inch 1080p screen at 20 inches away, or more apples to apples, a 40 inch 1080p at the same 30" view distance, which isn't great. The 4k screen is essentially four 1080p screens worth of space after all. This incidentally is also why VR headset's pixel density looks so poor, because it is in the same ballpark perceived pixel size vs distance perceptually through the lenses to the near screen. Current mainstream VR headsets are typically 24 to 32 PPD.

120inch 8k screen at 30 inches (2.5 feet away, "obtuse" 120deg viewing angle) is
= 64 PPD
(this is a good PPD where text-ss and 3d graphics anti aliasing really start to compensate fully starting at around 60ppd ... however everything looks better at even higher PPD - but especially the 2d graphics and imagery since they get no sub-sampling/anti-aliasing tricks or compensations to mask the perceived pixel sizes. 64 PPD is the same as you'd get with any 4k screen at a 60 degree viewing angle)

.

32" 1080p screen at 30", is a pretty fair example of view distance as it ends up being 50 deg viewing angle which is within/filling your 60 to 50 degree human central field of vision.
= 39 PPD
(that is a pretty low PPD by today's standards, like what you'd get with a 1080p 27" screen at 26" view distance, or a 27" 1440p at 20 inch view distance)

32" 1440p screen at 30", same 50 deg viewing angle of course which is good . .
= 51 PPD
(that is expected for a 1440p screen at optimal viewing angles and it's usable, but it's not really good let alone great PPD)

32" 4k screen at 30", same 50 deg viewing angle of course which is good
= 77 PPD
(good PPD... it's the top end for 4k at optimal viewing angles, viewing angles that fill your human central field of vision more or less fully, at angles of 60 to 50 degrees)

32" 8k screen at 30", same 50 deg viewing angle which is in your 60 to 50 deg human central field of vision filling most of it
= 144 PPD
(this is really good PPD, as good or higher than modern phones and tablets depending how far away they are from your face)

========================

Can probably stop there. 32 PPD, 39PPD, 51 PPD, 77PPD, and 144PPD are very noticeably different picture quality so the higher resolutions are valuable.


If you are comparing to a living room where you are sitting a lot farther away than that, 8' - 10' or more, then the PPD of a lot of screens would be a lot higher than if the screens filled your central field of vision/viewing angle . . so the difference won't be as noticeable after a point and the PPD can equalize or go even higher. Comparing the high/extreme PPD of sitting that far from a relatively smaller screens, where you shrink the perceived size of the screen to very small sitting 10's of feet away is pretty silly though.
It really comes down to how much the screen fills your personal FoV. That's why PPD is a much better measure than ppi alone.

As long as you are filling your central field of view, 60 to 50 degrees, (or even going perceptually larger than that field into your visual periphery as some people do for immersion in some games) ..... no matter what size screen, the different resolutions realized as PPD will be very noticeable. If you instead go in the other direction and sit farther and farther away, shrinking a given screen and it's pixel sizes to your perspective, the differences in resolution will become less apparent to a degree as the screen shrinks to half of your central viewing angle for example and more. E.g. a 30 degree viewing angle with another 30 deg of central viewing angle left over of empty/room/wall space. It's all relative.

Just plug any resolution and view distance into the ppd calculator. 60 PPD is where text-ss and graphics AA really start to compensate more fully, and 2d desktop graphics and imagery get no such tricks to mask how large the pixels actually are. Higher than 60 PPD is definitely noticeable and it is higher picture quality provided you have higher resolution source/material (or AI upscaled well enough from a decent enough starting rez). We prob won't be able to get away from having to lean on text-ss and 3d game graphics anti-aliasing as much (at optimal single-viewer human central field of vision filling viewing angles of 60 to 50 deg) until something like 16k or more which would be 256PPD to 308 PPD. We'd need even higher than that to look more like real life but 16k would probably start to finally get away from the aliased 2d or compensated by fogged edges hacks/tricks/compensations text and 3d we'd continue to see up until then.

 

[tongshadow]

Can probably stop there. 32 PPD, 39PPD, 51 PPD, 77PPD, and 144PPD are very noticeably different picture quality so the higher resolutions are valuable.

At first I thought you were talking about DPI/PPI (a silly metric without context), but realized it's about PPD. How does PPD translate into actual use scenarios? Back to my 51" TV example and using that PPD calculator:

The 1080p 51" TV at around 6 feet (the point where the full benefit of 1080p is visible), results in 56 PPD.
Then, the 4k 51" TV at the same distance is 112 PPD.
You said higher PPD = better picture quality, but even if the PPD was increased, the 4k benefit still wouldnt be visible due to visual acuity.

Additionally, at the optimal distance for 4k + 6 feet distance, the needed screen size of 80" would have a PPD of 74, a lower value.

So what exactly does PPD mean in practical terms?

 

[elvn]

I disagree with that visual acuity statement. Picture fidelity for interfaces, text, and image quality is greatly increased at higher ppd than 56.

..............

The human central field of vision is 60 to 50 degrees. A screen in that range is filling your central field of view without having the screen far into your periphery, and without the screen being smaller physically or so far away that it is smaller to your perspective than your binocular field of view. That is the optimal view for a single person to view a screen without it going out of bounds into your blurry edge/peripheral eyesight when looking forward, and without it leaving many degrees of space outside of the sides of the screen that are still in your central field of view (leaving those degrees of space "empty" arguably would be wasting it). That is of course ignoring living rooms set up like a mini stadium for multiple people to view a screen, and is ignoring considerations like room dimensions vs furniture layouts, walking lanes, windows, etc.

A 55" 4k gaming tv for example, at the human central field of vision/viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees is at ~ 42 inch to 51 inch viewing distance.

Any 1080p display of any size, viewed at the central human field of vision/viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, is 32 to 39 PPD
Any 2560x1440 display of any size, viewed at the central human field of vision/viewing angle of 60 to 50 deg is 43 to 51 PPD
Any 4k display of any size, viewed at the central human field of vision/viewing angle of 60 to 50 deg is 64 to 77 PPD.
Any 8k display of any size, viewed at the central human field of vision/viewing angle of 60 to 50 deg is 127 to 154 PPD.

I can definitely tell the difference between those different resolutions at the same optimal/central human field of view resulting in those ranges of PPD.

I've used screens for a very long time. From 640x480, 800x600 screens, 1024x768, 1080p, 1920 x1200, 1440p, 1600p, 4k, etc.. of various sizes and view distances. A long time ago I experimented with a 37" 1080p screen purchase but even when I moved it back on it's own pillar around 36" away it was only 40 PPD. Up closer even worse. In a more recent span of years I tried a 32" 2560x1600 VA g-sync screen but at 60 deg viewing angle it was only getting around 44 PPD which wasn't great at all either. Common consumer VR screens have only been 22 to 34 PPD too, which is a major con.
I view my 48" 4k OLED at around 70 PPD +/- (55 deg viewing angle +/-), and 43" 4k screens in the same neighborhood. I also had a 15" 4k laptop for several years that I'd view at 18" to 24" view distance. On that 4k laptop I'd be seeing 93 PPD at 18" / 1.5' view distance, and 122PPD whenever I used it as a side screen at 24" / 2'. Very noticeably finer pixel density on that than my other screens. Modern smartphones held up around a foot from your face to watch media or read get around 90 to 115 ppd too.
If I end up getting a 55" or 65" 8k screen eventually I'll prob be viewing it for gaming/media full screen at 42 inch view dist, 60 deg, 127PPD for a 55" 8k or 49 inch view dist at the same 60 deg, 127PPD for a 65" 8k. Maybe a little closer when used as multi-screen/window tile space like a multi-monitor setup, which would lower the PPD a little bit, but probably around ~ 60 deg for full screen stuff. That will be a huge upgrade in pixel finery compared to say a 55" 4k samsung ark where at at 40" view distance, 62 deg, 62 PPD (worse PPD yet if sitting closer for more immersion via the curve or for those trying to shoe-horn one directly onto a desk).


Sure you can move a 5'x5' ~ 60" x 60" checkerboard cube back far enough until it looks the same to your perspective as a 36" x 36" checkerboard cube down to the checkerboard cell sizes, or you can move a 36" x 36" checkerboard cube near enough until it matches the same look to your perspective as a 60" x 60" checkerboard cube that is farther away than it, but I don't see how that is relevant if doing so results in screen extents well outside of, or well inside of/shrunken in respect to, the human central field of vision. Like I said earlier in this reply however, I understand that there are other factors especially in home theater scenarios -- "That is of course ignoring living rooms set up like a mini stadium for multiple people to view a screen, and is ignoring considerations like room dimensions vs furniture layouts, walking lanes, windows, etc.". For my 77" 4k oled to fill my central field of vision I'd have to set my my couch more like ~ 5 feet away rather than the 8" + to 9 feet viewing distance I have the room laid out as, but I have no interest in pushing my couch that close to the screen away from the wall opposite the screen (and I'm not in the market for buying a ~ 140 inch screen )
I am however comparing screens of any size filling the human central field/binocular view, which is an apples to apples comparison of screens at the same viewing angles. A PC setup or PC command center style setup for larger gaming tvs as a usage scenario is much more applicable and able to get optimal viewing angles and PPD.


. . .

The only reason text and 3d game graphics and text look as "ok" as they've been in modern times on crisp displays on middling and lower PPD values, at least on computers, is that technology developed to apply tricks as workarounds to the relatively low resolutions we've been forced to use to date. These compensating techs are applied so that that fringing/pixel stepping, especially of highly contrasted edges, is sort of fogged smoother. Those methods mask how large the pixel structure actually appears to you. Text-SS and graphics AA methods start to compensate with better realized results at around 60ppd+. The 2d graphics and imagery typically don't get any such masking of the actual perceived pixel sizes so benefit even more from higher "unmasked" PPD. Very high PPD is very valuable for professionals for things like graphic art fine detail and especially medical imagery, and it can even provide cleaner text compared to middling and lower PPD with text-ss applied for coders and people who read/write text all day long.. . However higher PPD looks better (esp. 2d graphics and imagery since it's uncompensated, and text's results after SS is tweaked) for everyone.. at least everyone with 20/20 -> 20/15 vision or corrective lenses.

If you want to see how low the PPD really is, turn off text-ss and in game/gpu graphics anti-aliasing ~ edge fogging. That's where the 2d content is and what the "raw" pixel grid size is to your perspective. Most people don't like seeing the "raw" pixel grid in their text and 3d game engines . I'm not advocating running a pc/gaming setup like that but it gives some idea of what the pixel sizes are to your perspective when viewing a screen at a particular distance, showing the pixels as "fringing"/aliasing most noticeably on highly contrasted edges. After applying Text-ss and AA, those can compensate a lot for sure but they aren't perfect and won't look as good at middling/lower PPD compared to: text-ss, graphics AA, and uncompensated for 2d on a higher rez-->high PPD viewed screen.
You probably won't be able to avoid fringing, especially uncompensated for / 2D, and having to lean heavily on pixel size masking methods largely until something like 16k at 60 to 50 degree viewing angles (I'm guessing).. ~ 256PPD to 308 PPD . . double the PPD of 8k at that central human viewing angle . . but it still won't be enough to eliminate pixelization entirely compared to seeing the real world, (which is probably most important for VR/AR/MR in the very long run).

 

[elvn]

The 45 to 50 degree is the sweet spot of viewing angle width if you take thx, smpte, and 20th century fox standards into consideration. That pretty much assures that you can see the entire screen's extents in your 60 to 50 degree human central field of view basically.

http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013314viewing-angles/

New cinemas built to THX specifications have a minimum viewing angle of 36 degrees from the last row of seats. The viewing angle ‘sweet spot’ seems to be around 45-50 degrees where SMPTE, THX and 20th Century Fox recommendations converge. This matches quite closely with CEDIA’s 43 degree viewing angle recommendation for 2.4:1 ‘Cinemascope’ content as per CEB-23. For reference 43 degrees is 3x picture height using a 2.35:1 screen.

But that is for movie watching in particular. PC use and Gaming is different. Even different games (racing, flight sims etc. for example) could benefit from different view distances than other game types. Also ultrawide resolutions would probably benefit from a few different viewing distances depending on what game type being played in uw.

I'd say up to a 64 deg viewing angle on a PC is stil decent to use without having to dart your eyes around very much at all as it's only 2 deg to 7deg wider on each side of the screen than your 60 to 50 degree central viewing angle. A 64 deg viewing angle on a 4k screen of any size results in around 60 PPD which is a good baseline. Higher is better though. I look forward to an 8k desktop at up to ~ 120 PPD depending on what I am doing.

 

[tongshadow]

I disagree with that visual acuity statement. Picture fidelity for interfaces, text, and image quality is greatly increased at higher ppd than 56.

While it's true that the benefits of higher resolutions are obvious for elements like text and interfaces (smaller and less aliased), the same isnt necessarily true for "real content", such as movies, games and videos. Let's again start from the premise: The optimal distance to perceive the resolution benefit from a certain sized display.

Would you be able to notice the difference between a 42" 1080p and another 42" 4k display, sitting at 5 feet (optimal for 42"/1080p), while viewing native 4k real content on both?
If the answer is "no", then that's due to visual acuity, the extra pixels from 4k cant be noticed sitting that far. To see the extra details from 4k, you'd need to sit closer.

 

[elvn]

I disagree that 5 feet is optimal for a single person's human central field of view for a 42" diagonal screen.

A 42" screen will fill your 60 to 50 degree central field of vision at 32 inch view distance (60 degree) - to - 39 inch view distance (50 degree).

There is some wiggle room there. For example a 42" 4k screen at 64 degree viewing angle isn't pushing the ends of the screen that much farther out on each end (on each side +2 deg vs 60, or +7deg vs 50 deg), and it still gets 60 PPD which is a good baseline.

..............

This chart shows 42inch screen and a 48inch screen within the human central field of vision/binocular vision.
(plus a 42" shown at 24", 51PPD to show sitting nearer at a sub-optimal distance and PPD)
The underscore lines are the distances (32" - 39" , 36" - 45").

Optimal view distance for a flat screen, miniimizing the number of off-axis pixels and the degrees they are progressively off-axis farther from the center of the screen while still filling your central field of view:

Sitting nearer than optimal pushes the sides of the screen outside of your central field of view. This results in a larger number of pixels being off-axis, and to a greater degree off axis. Exacerbates uniformity issues, distortion, and can be eye fatiguing, especially in games or watching sports, as you have to dart your eyes around a lot on dynamic content.

..............


If you were instead sitting at 5 feet, that is 60 inches. 60 inch view distance on a 42" screen results in a 34 degree viewing angle. That means the screen is shrunken to your perspective until it's much less than your central human field of vision. 34 degrees doesn't fill your 50 to 60 degree human central viewing angle. That's a lot of your central FoV that is left unfilled and is being "wasted".

It's bad in either direction, whether you:

.. blow a screen up, zooming it larger perceptually, sitting staring at the middle of a large wall of screen to your perspective like the image below or even nearer. The red fields are outside of the viewer's central field of vision and the pixels are alot more off-axis.

.. or if you sit so far away that the screen is shrunken considerably smaller than the full width of your central/binocular field of view.

4k 60 deg is 64PPD, 4k 50 deg is 77PPD.
8k screen would get 60 degree (128 PPD) to 50deg (154PPD) at central human field of vision.

Numbers wise, a 42" screen viewed at 60 inch is 34 degrees and it's around 113 PPD.
113 PPD is a very good PPD The screen will be so far away that a considerable portion of your central field of vision is empty though.
A 42" 8k screen would get the same perceived pixel sizes, 113PPD, at a 58 deg viewing angle. So a 8k 42 inch screen at the same 113 PPD (but at 33 inch viewing distance) would fill you central field of vision without "wasted" central field of vision from shrinking the 42" screen to your perspective viewing it from far away. You aren't halving the screen size perceptually in your personal FoV to much smaller than your binocular/central field of vision with a 4k on the nearer 33inch view distance. A 4k 42 inch screen at 33inch viewing distance would get the same 58 deg as the 8k example but at 66 PPD which is already above a good baseline 60 PPD (but not as fine as 100ppd+). 60 to 70 PPD is a good "4k PPD" typical and expected of 4k normally though.


I understand that in home theater scenarios, people, outside of maybe projector users, tend to view screens farther away but historically people usually haven't been able to use gigantic screens to fill living room layouts (outside of using projectors), plus they tend to weigh the furnishings and general room space highly compared to proritizing filling their central field of vision by sitting a couch up closer for example. Especially when they are setting up a room for multiple people and/or general room use rather than a single viewer or a close couple. Like I said in other replies, my 77" 4k tv is at 8 to 9 feet away which is only around 35 deg viewing angle. That's just because my room layout wouldn't be great sitting my couch away from the opposite wall to sit it in the middle of the room, or setting up the tv in the middle of the floor space.. I'd need something like a 130inch screen to fill my wall so that I'd get 60 to 50 deg viewing angle. I'm not interested in projectors, and a high end tv of that size would be astronomically priced (and outdated within a few years anyway).. Therefore I have to compromise my viewing angle some for my living room use, (at least until years ahead maybe with very high rez XR glasses or something). The 77" 4k at ~ 35 deg viewing angle looks good and is very usable, I'm not arguing that. it's just not optimal with me viewing a lot more wall space with the screen set smaller than my central field of vision. A 130inch 8k screen (or the perceptual equivalent in some future XR glasses projected as if on my opposite wall) would be around 128PPD at 60 deg viewing angle at my current couch viewing distance, plus or minus..

On relatively smaller pc desktop monitors directly on a desk as well as decoupled larger gaming tv screens for distance in pc command center style setups (using rail spine tv stands, wall mounts, etc), you are much more able to fill your central field of vision for a more optimal viewing angle. I use my 48" 4k oled at my pc, decoupled from the desk, at a 55 deg viewing angle +/-. I'm forced to use my 77" 4k oled in the living room at around a 35 deg viewing angle though (not complaining, just saying). The 48" OLED's viewing angle is much more optimal.

Home theater, outside of projectors, usually have much narrower options for various reasons and priorities. For those setups that have those confinements requiring them to shrink a 4k screen's size perceptually until it gets "8k-like PPD", 8k might not be as valuable, at least for movies. 8k at those distances would look like what 16k pixel sizes would be at optimal viewing angles really. 16k kind of PPD would be great for desktop/pc stuff, text, and graphics. . . could also have benefit on some very high quality science and nature programming, art, etc too but probably diminishing returns for most people using a screen as a "TV".

 

[ManofGod]

How far back does the 42 inch TV need to be in order for everything to be seen without turning my head, both horizontally and vertically?

 

[elvn]

How far back does the 42 inch TV need to be in order for everything to be seen without turning my head, both horizontally and vertically?

Horizontally, somewhere between 60 and 50 degrees depending on the person.

The underscores " ___ " ahead of the measurements in the image below are listing view distances.

60 degree viewing angle on a 42" 4k is at ~ 32" view distance (screen surface to eyeballs not desk size).
50 degree viewing angle on a 42" 4k is at ~ 39" view distance.

A slightly wider, for example 64 degree viewing angle isn't bad either though since only a few degrees are into the periphery on each end. 64 degrees at 4k still gets 60 PPD which is a good baseline. You get 64 PPD, 64 degrees on a 42" 4k at 29 inch view distance. Going much lower PPD and you are back to more what a 1400p or 1500p desktop sized screen's pixel sizes would look like.

Sitting nearer than that with an 8k screen would still get pretty high PPD though, if you wanted to use a 8k like a multi-monitor screen sans bezels at times. A curved screen would be best for that though imo so more pixels would be on axis, pointed at you (most actual multi-monitor setups tilt the side screens toward you). For example a 1000R curvature screen = 1000mm = around 40 inch to the center of the curvature. If you sat at 40inch view distance on a 65" 8k you'd still get around 109 PPD (71 deg), on a 55" 8k at 40 inches you'd get 124 PPD at 62 degrees so that would probably be a better fit viewing angle wise depending on what you are doing with it primarily.

====================

https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

For reference:

At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 8k screen of any size gets around 127 to 154 PPD..

At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 4k screen of any size gets around 64 to 77 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 2560x1440 screen of any size gets only 43 PPD to 51 PPD

..At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 1920x1080 screen of any size gets only 32 PPD to 39 PPD



=========================================================================================================

Outside viewer is seeing the farthest from center pixels off-axis by the same amount.

.

Sitting nearer than optimal pushes the sides of the screen outside of your binocular / centreal field of view.
The nearer you sit, the more of the screen is into your periphery and the more off axis the pixels will be. Pixels are on axis at the center of the screen but become more and more off-axis in a graduated fashion almost like a gradient the farther away from center to the edges of the screen. This causes uniformity issues, some distortion (though we get used to it somewhat), and areas "out of bounds".
The more of the screen that is in your periphery from sitting closer and closer, the more likely you'll have to turn your head and/or wrench your eyes rather than just dart your eyes a few degrees. That is probably ok for a multi-monitor/multi-window style usage scenario where you are giving attention to a particular area for a longer time, but for what is typically highly dynamic content like gaming, (and watching some types of sports/media probably), it can be eye fatiguing and even head/neck straining over time. Like watching a tennis match from the centerline or tracking a fly flying around a room in an erratic path.

When you sit farther away then optimal you do the opposite of zooming the screen larger, you instead shrink the screen (and pixel size) to your perspective
The red bar representing a screen at 34 degree would fill the green central/binocular field of view if it was much nearer - to where the sides of the red bar would touch the edges of the green triangle at 60 degrees.

 

[ManofGod]

So, about 3ft 3 inches back, thanks.

 

[elvn]

So, about 3ft 3 inches back, thanks.

No problem. That's 50 deg you went with. You'd still be darting your eyes around slightly with micro movements as we always do, especially for reading text, but you wouldn't be performing "eye bending" amounts of degrees straining your eyes or neck turning to the periphery since 50 to 60 degrees is within your binocular/central field of vision. You'd also be keeping more pixels on axis and the extreme sides of the screen's pixels less degrees off-axis than if you were sitting closer. You wouldn't be "wasting" central field of view space by sitting the screen much farther away until it was shrunken to your perspective either. 50 deg on a 4k also gets 77PPD which is nice.

Personally I usually sit at 55 degrees, 40 inch view distance on my 48" OLED (35" view distance on a 42" oled). That gets 70PPD but I sit a little nearer or farther depending on what I am doing (gaming and what type of game, waching a video, using multiple monitors or concentrating on a single monitor or two monitors, etc.). I can change my view distance easily since my desk is separate from my screens and the desk is on caster wheels.


64 deg viewing angle (60PPD) on a 42" 4k is at ~ 29" view distance (screen surface to eyeballs not desk size). -----> 2.5 feet

60 deg viewing angle (64 PPD) on a 42" 4k is at ~ 32" view distance (screen surface to eyeballs not desk size). -----> 2' 8 inches
50 deg viewing angle (77 PPD) on a 42" 4k is at ~ 39" view distance.(screen surface to eyeballs not desk size). ------> 3' 3 inches

 

[tongshadow]

I disagree that 5 feet is optimal for a single person's human central field of view for a 42" diagonal screen.

I'm just going by THX's metrics and recommendations:
http://www.hometheaterengineering.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
Here's a video of a THX Technology Chief discussing the relationship between resolution and size pretty well, to sum it up: The higher the resolution (same size), the less comfortable the viewing experience will be because you'll need to sit closer and move your eyes/head more often, in order to notice the benefit of the higher resolution.

View: https://youtu.be/HVHLwK01jzU?t=292

This proves what I said before: higher resolution is not always benefitial and 8k+ is super silly.

 

[elvn]

At optimal for human central / binocular viewing angle as viewing distance, people can see aliasing on highly contrasted edges probably up to at least 16k, (and farther than that in relation to real life which can come into play in advancements in VR/AR/MR in the far future in order for it to eventually appear more seamless)
If the content has text sub-sampling or 3d graphics engine anti-aliasing applied, those work-arounds will do their best to mask the actual size of the pixel grid to your perspective though, but they are not perfect fixes. The "raw", unmasked 2d desktop's graphics and imagery typically don't get anything to compensate for the actual perceived pixel sizes.

It seems like you are saying a 34 deg viewing angle is best - like your other reply suggested when you said a 51" 16:9 screen was optimal at 6 feet (72 inch view distance) - - -> that would be the equivalent of a 45 inch view distance on a 32" monitor, shrinking the monitor to your perspective to much smaller than your central field of view. Nearly shrinking the monitor(and pixels) by half to your perspective.

I think most people would have no interest in doing that in modern times with what is available and affordable for pc use, and probably console use if they had option for it and suitable environment to view it in. With larger screens, at least where home theater room layout, house considerations, and audience considerations, furnishings etc wouldn't trump the screen size vs position. For example a pc command center style layout ~ larger gaming tv on a pc, you can just scale up your view distance to maintain more or less the same comfortable binocular/central field of view kind of viewing angles you'd expect to use on a 32" 16:9 screen at a desk.

When comparing that kind of central field of view that you'd probably view a pc monitor , e.g. 32" 4k at 24 inch view distance to 30 inch view distance would get 60 deg viewing angle(64 PPD) to 50 deg viewing angle (77 PPD). I can definitely notice the difference in PPD going over 100ppd from that. 8k would be double those ~ 64 to 77 PPD's at the same viewing angles to 128 to 154 PPD. Or you could sit at 64 degree viewing angle which is only a few deg on each side outside of your binocular field and get 120 PPD on a 8k screen.

You won't be moving your head like the youtuber mimed until you sit so close that the extents of the screen are in your peripheral. I'm not championing that. In fact, I've been very vocal on this and other forums about how sub-optimal shoe-horning a larger gaming TV directly onto a desk is, where the viewing angle is too wide pushing the screen into your periphery (and the PPD drops as well). There is a sweet spot between those two extremes, and it is the human central field of view, the binocular viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees.

You are saying view a screen much farther away until it is shrunken like the red bar representing a screen. I'm saying you can flll your 60 to 50 degree viewing angle, like viewing a 32" 16:9 monitor are 24" to 30" away as most normally would, without head/neck bending as it's within your binocular/central field of view.

........................

That scott channel can have some valuable info, especially specs and explanations of upcoming tech but that miming action he did, saying you'd have to look around to the sides like the screenshots below in order to make 8k valuable is B.S. Look at the green 60 deg human binocular view of view in the image above and then look at his antics:

It seems to me like some of the dialog is just downplaying the investment in higher resolution tech (and attempting to squash any consideration that the 4k tech already heavily invested in won't be as high quality), just like people did with 1080p vs 4k. (Worth noting that most mfgs put 8k on ice for awhile so it's in their interest to keep promoting 4k, and actual theaters/projectors are a huge investment nationwide). I did like when the THX chief said " you want to be far enough back for the pixels to merge" (or merge a lot closer than otherwise). That means he has a target range of PPD in mind, and 4k isn't going to hit it until you sit at a pretty narrow viewing angle. However the central field of view at a 60 to 50 deg viewing angle allows those kinds of PPD he's targeting at 8k (yielding well over 100 PPD). Of course you'd need to sit a lot farther away on a 4k to get well over 100ppd but then you'd shrink the screen. THX rep was not going to be pigeon-holed by the interviewer with hard rules on viewing angle in the end, so he diplomatically said "eh.. It's also personal taste". He also mentioned that people have home theaters in a house so their room layout preferences etc come into play more and can affect how far of a view distance might be best to live with even if not the optimal otherwise. "Those are, ya' know, approximations. Like everything else, it should be adjusted to taste and what works in your room and so on.."

One of their own figures on their THX recommended distance chart view distance for a 55" UHD for appears to be 3.57 feet which = ~ 43 inch view distance = 58 degree viewing angle. Their starting figure for the THX recommended 4k viewing distance range is also 3.5 feet (42 inches) which is a 59 degree viewing angle.


.

To add further confusion, a lot of mock up graphics on home theater sites list the degrees they are recommending but show a false representation of the degrees in their graphics. I overlayed this one on top of the binocular field of view to show the actual viewing angle the "36 degree" drawing is from a home theater site:

 

[kasakka]

I don't find viewing distance recommendations based on TV and media watching very useful. I currently have the LG CX 48" TV in my living room, with a viewing distance of about 1.5 meters. That video seems to recommend 1m for 50" size.

Some time ago I was watching the BluRays of the Hannibal TV series and those are 1080p resolution but still manage to look pretty great. Similarly I don't perceive e.g Spider-Man 2 on PS5 running at 1440p-ish resolutions to not look sharp and good. Or playing games on PC with at native 4K with all bells and whistles.

But I will notice if I use the same 48" TV setup with my desktop PC. Even with appropriate scaling for couch viewing distance, you can definitely think "this could have more resolution."

 

[Carlyle2020]

All those overly long viewing angle comments are not helpfull.

If you can´t explain it with a few sentences you normally lack first hand experience.


Kind Regards

Someone whose desk is too big for a puny 50 inch screen

First hand experience shows that all you need for a 50 to 65 inch screen is a 40x80 inch desk

 

[elvn]

Enough material and discussion about it to fill that 6 minute youtube vid worth of dialogue. If you lack the stamina there are bumper sticker forums like tiktok. Or just look at the pictures.

 

[elvn]

I don't find viewing distance recommendations based on TV and media watching very useful. I currently have the LG CX 48" TV in my living room, with a viewing distance of about 1.5 meters. That video seems to recommend 1m for 50" size.

Some time ago I was watching the BluRays of the Hannibal TV series and those are 1080p resolution but still manage to look pretty great. Similarly I don't perceive e.g Spider-Man 2 on PS5 running at 1440p-ish resolutions to not look sharp and good. Or playing games on PC with at native 4K with all bells and whistles.

But I will notice if I use the same 48" TV setup with my desktop PC. Even with appropriate scaling for couch viewing distance, you can definitely think "this could have more resolution."

It's all good.
I remember when set top dvd players were pretty expensive early on, so I bought a creative DVD player for my pc tower. The creative drive came with an mpeg addon card for the pc because pc wasn't powerful enough to run dvds. I brought it to a house lan party and at one point hooked it up to the house's living room TV, threw in my copy of the 5th element. Everyone was blown away by the fidelity increase compared to standard TV at the time and that was 720x480 at best.

1440 still looks pretty good for games, especially with aggressive anti aliasing and maybe downsampling a higher rez/supersampling. 1400 or 1600 on a 27 inch desktop (~13inch tall) or laptop screen looks good , just not as good as higher. 1440p was "the better rez" for a long time.


Worth noting that scalers can be pretty decent now, so just because you are feeding a 1080p movie to a tv doesn't necessarily mean that the end result would look like it would on a 1080p native rez screen. My nvidia shield's AI upscaler does a great job upscaling to 4k but a lot of major higher end brands of modern TVs built in scalers are probably very good (people seem to especially like Sony tvs scaling).

 

[sethk]

I have a D2 top 1% ranking (not that that’s so great) and have dipped into the 0.1% rankings despite being an old ‘un. Only saying it because that’s my point of reference for playing 42” 120hz.
I used to be intensely into CS 1.6 and CSS and dipped out with CS:GO. I would probably switch back to 27” on my 2nd monitor if I resumed CSGO2 because that is the size I got used to (and 200+ hz) but that’s for that last 1%.

 

[elvn]

I have a D2 top 1% ranking (not that that’s so great) and have dipped into the 0.1% rankings despite being an old ‘un. Only saying it because that’s my point of reference for playing 42” 120hz.
I used to be intensely into CS 1.6 and CSS and dipped out with CS:GO. I would probably switch back to 27” on my 2nd monitor if I resumed CSGO2 because that is the size I got used to (and 200+ hz) but that’s for that last 1%.

Have you ever tried setting up the 42" screen at the same viewing angle (if possible) as you would view your 27" screen and playing the game(s) ?

Especially in online gaming not being a 1:1 relationship to fpsHz/performance locally - it might not be the screen tech itself as much as the viewing angle of a gaming tv crammed up close directly onto a desk throwing more of the screen into the periphery.
A 16:9 screen at a more common viewing angle like you viewed your 27"screen in contrast to a fat viewing angle of a gaming tv on a desk where the same scene is just zoomed larger, in some cases much larger. An overly wide viewing angle could be somewhat detrimental by comparison for those games. However an ultrawide, or running an ultrawide rez on a larger 16:9 screen (on games that support uw rez directly or via work-arounds), is actually adding more game real-estate on the sides of that central 16:9 field of the game world which could be an advantage as you could still get the same 16:9 field of view centrally at the right distance but have extra game real-estate on the sides giving you a heads up in a wider angle ~ in your periphery.

If possible, I'd experiment with sitting at a similar viewing angle (e.g. buying a ~ $85 usd to $150usd floor tv stand and setting the screen or desk farther away). That and/or I'd see how my scoring did over time running a ~ 3840x1600 uw rez on the 42" screen sitting a little closer than that, keeping the central 16:10 portion of the uw rez at 60 - 50 degrees (or narrower), at least on games that work in uw rez.

 

[sethk]

I have. I fully understand viewing angle and visual arc lengths. I have been setting up my home theater projectors and screens since the original LCOS machines and have written my own screen distance calculator. A 27" 1440p and 42" 4k monitor are not the same for me because like most people over 40 I am very slightly farsighted. Human vision is not uniformly elastic when it to visual acuity at varying focal lengths even if the viewing angle is the same. Not to mention, the closer the screen the larger the swing in viewing angle from making very small continuous adjustments to view depth by leaning forward and backwards in your chair or moving your chair etc. My chair (Steelcase Gesture) is adjusted to allow a 3-4" lean back just from tension, for example.
I really enjoy the 42" 4k experience (it is mounted on a floor stand and with a adjustable pneumatic arm behind my desk so I have a *lot* of flexibility) but I know I could re-adjust to the 27" QHD experience as well, but I wouldn't say they are the same. I would run the 27" at its sweet spot, where it is taking up a smaller viewing angle than the 48".

 

[elvn]

It's all about the viewing angle but I can understand the farsighted thing. I'm farsighted in my older age the last several years myself. That means I can see things far though, not near where I need corrective lenses or bifocals. I usually use full frame 1.5x at my laptop for example, or bifocals with my phone on the road. I guess it would depend on your range that needs correction vs. the viewing distance, i.e. whether I'd ever need a different prescription for at the pc using a ~ 30 inch to 40 inch view distance on a 42 inch 4k or 8k screen. A 48" 16:9 4k like mine is at 36inch to 45inch for 60 to 50 deg so it's not too close. If I end up getting a 55" or for example a 65" 8k screen, the 65 inch screen would also be relatively far at 64deg (45inch view) to 50 deg (61 inch ~ 5feet) for that kind of range, though I'd use it at the nearer end ~ 45 inch distance with the high PPD 8k would give, or at the ~40 inch/1000mm/1000R center of curvature if there is ever a 1000R model.

I don't notice any appreciable deficit in usability from leaning fwd/back degrees or anything on a 48" 16:9 at ~ 40inch +/- personally. I do just lean back with a controller if playing souls/souls-like games etc at times, but my island desk is on caster wheels so I can adjust depending what I'm doing if I feel I need to. That distance I choose changes at times especially since I use three screens. If I ever needed to vs clarity, I'd get a different set of corrective lenses just for use at the pc. Whatever works for you and is more comfortable is the way to go though. I was genuinely curious of whether the viewing angle ~ zooming the gaming space jumbo size to your perspective ~ was the major factor affecting your gaming performance between the two screens.

 

[chameleoneel]

Back in the days of Battlefield 4, I used a 50 inch 1080p, top model LG plasma TV as my PC gaming display. It was somewhere around 3 - 4 feet away. Looked amazing. I loved the experience.