Comment by perching_aix

Comment by perching_aix 17 hours ago

4 replies

View on Hacker News

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

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