Comment by willio58

Comment by willio58 20 hours ago

8 replies

View on Hacker News

As someone with a 4k tv and an Apple TV 4K, I thought that all of my streamed content was in 4k.

When I recently switched to self-hosting, I was almost certain since I was so used to 4k that I’d need to self-host all 4k content.

I realized the whole time most of the streaming services I used barely even gave me 4k content, and when they did it was so low bitrate it was basically comparable to 1080p.

So now I specifically download 4k movies for ones that I really care about being 4k (e.g nature documentaries) and for the rest 1080p is more convenient space/time wise.

Yaggo 18 hours ago

Sounds like you have too small TV or you too long viewing distance.

The differency between FullHD and 4K is very noticeable with THX-recommended viewing angles. I watch 98” from 3 meters.

Reply View 6 replies
  • jorvi 18 hours ago

    That is an enormous TV that would dominate the decor of almost any living room. Even if it was a The Frame tv it still would be too dominant a piece.

    OP is right, at the typical TV pixel per angle (TV distance + screen size), 2160p is a waste. That's also why I always tell people to switch on performance mode on all console games that support it. Doubling your FPS for an imperceptible resolution decrease is a golden trade-off.

    Ironically, monitor pixel per angle is still often too small. For typical desk viewing distances, you want 2160p at 21" and 2880p at 27". Most people that have big monitors have 2160p at 27".

    Note that ultra-wide or not doesn't matter if you express the resolution you want in the vertical

    Reply View 5 replies
    • perching_aix 17 hours ago

      Not aware of viewing distance recommendations differing between monitors and TV; it's the same 30°-40° of horizontal field-of-view for both, with 32° being a notable notch along the range.

      This is then usually combined with the 60 PPD visual acuity quasi-myth, and so you get 1800px, 1920px, and 2400px horizontal resolutions as the bar, mapping to FHD and ~WQHD resolutions diagonal size independently. From these, one could conclude even UHD is already overkill. Note for example how a FHD monitor of exactly standard density (96 PPI, so ~23") at 32° hfov results in precisely 60 PPD. That is exactly the math working out in its intended way afaik.

      At the same time, Mac users will routinely bring up the Pro Display XDR and how they think it is the bare minimum and everything else is rubbish (*), with it coming in at a staggering ~200 PPD, 188 PPD, and ~150 PPD at 30°, 32°, and 40° hfov respectively. Whether the integer result at 32° is just the work of the winds, who knows. It is nonetheless a solid 3x the density that was touted so fine, you would "not be able to see the individual pixels". But if that was a lie back then...

      The pixel density (PPI, PPD), viewing distance, and screen real estate discussion is not one with a satisfying end to it I'm afraid. Just a whole lot of numerology, some of which I sadly cannot help but contribute to myself.

      (*) not a reliable narration of these sentiments necessarily

      Reply View 4 replies
      • a012 17 hours ago

        I know PPI which is pixels per inch, but what does PPD mean?

        Reply View 1 reply
      • jorvi 13 hours ago

        > Not aware of viewing distance recommendations differing between monitors and TV

        Uh.. what?

        You usually sit 60cm from your monitor, but 3-6m from your TV. It completely changes the math, which lets you "cheat" with ordinary TV sizes (50"-65") because you will not or barely notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p.

        The other way around, your monitor won't really get the 'retina' effect of not discerning pixels until you hit ~220 PPI.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • perching_aix 5 hours ago

          > 3-6m from your TV (...) lets you "cheat" with ordinary TV sizes (50"-65") because you will not or barely notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p.

          Yes, at those sizes and distances, all the usual rules of thumb will report that the difference will be indistinguishable between FHD and UHD. We're in agreement there.

          It's just that if "cinematic immersion" is among the goals at all, I really don't think e.g. viewing a 50" TV from 6 meters away can provide it. That's more like "something is making noise while I'm having a pop and scrolling social media on my phone" at best. A lot of TV watching happens like that, but then resolution is rarely a concern during those anyways.

          > You usually sit 60cm from your monitor

          > the 'retina' effect

          So we're selecting for 60 PPD ("retina") at 60 cm of viewing distance, let's see:

          21" -> 42.352° hfov, 2544 × 1431, ~139 PPI. At UHD, it's ~210 PPI. WQHD would be enough though, and that'd be ~140 PPI.

          22" -> 44.18° hfov, 2656 × 1494, ~139 PPI. At UHD, it's ~200 PPI.

          23" -> 45.981° hfov, 2768 × 1557, ~138 PPI. At UHD, it's ~192 PPI.

          24" -> 47.761° hfov, 2880 × 1620, ~138 PPI. At UHD, it's ~184 PPI.

          25" -> 49.52° hfov, 2976 × 1674, ~137 PPI. At UHD, it's ~176 PPI.

          26" -> 51.25° hfov, 3088 × 1737, ~136 PPI. At UHD, it's ~169 PPI.

          27" -> 52.96° hfov, 3184 × 1791, ~135 PPI. At UHD, it's ~163 PPI.

          All of this is to say, I have no idea where you're pulling that ~220 PPI figure from, especially when it comes to higher sizes.

          You can also see the PPI slowly descending from some maximum value (eventually reaching 0) since we're talking about a flat panel, and so the math slowly gives out. If you assume a curved display and make the viewing distance the curvature radius (600R) to compensate, you can calculate that maximum value to be ~145.5 PPI. In that case, this value would remain fixed no matter the diagonal size. Not anywhere close to 220 PPI still however.

          That said, I definitely sit further than 60 cm too.

          Reply View 0 replies