Delusional used TV Sellers

MentalSharps

merlin said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/technology/enough-pixels-already-tvs-tablets-phones-surpass-limits-human-vision-2d11691618

This is a very misleading article.

There is definitely a noticeable difference between 4K and 1080p, in terms of picture quality and extra detail. But you need to have a big enough TV to notice it, or to sit closer.

The main difference is one of immersion - because of the bigger field of view, like the cinema. The problem is most people, aka 'normal viewing' have been conditioned to see a small TV from across a big room, to watch their soaps or reality TV.

Many people consider 43" as a "big" TV, but in reality it's actually tiny, that's why you can buy a brand new 43" for £200.

 To watch 4K on a 43" you need to sit a maximum of 5.7ft from it to notice any difference above 1080p. The pixels only become visible when you sit as close at 2.6ft.

To have a 40 degree viewing angle, similar to a cinema (36 degrees in the back rows, 45-50 degrees optimum), you'd need to sit 4.3ft. That's just too close for people's living rooms to accommodate - noone moves their shit around to fit their TV. But they don't want to buy a bigger TV either to properly fit their seating distance. 

I feel like it's a case that the marketing for "Big TVs" as a status symbol early on was so successful, that they're now considered a bit garish by "ordinary folk", as if you're a footballer or banker or something if you have a £600 65" TV.

But that said... I think the range (ie distance from chair to screen) in between 1080p and 4K is a good window that the vast majority of people will fit in. 55" should be the standard size TV nowadays, to fit the average sized living room for 'normal viewing' with a quality level somewhere in between 1080p-4K. So 4K is worthwhile. 8K on the other hand....

HDR is a much bigger jump quality, than the difference between 1080p and 4K - when it's done well. But we're a few years off that yet.