Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 05:10:18PM -0500 schrieb Dale: > >>>> It's hi res and a good deal. :-D > >>> Please define hi res. Full HD at 32″ is definitely not hi res. ;-P > >>> It’s about as much as CRTs back in the day, close to 1024×768 at 17″. > >> Well, I still consider 1080P hi res. That's what I get for any monitor > >> or TV I buy. The biggest thing I have is a 32" tho. My rooms are kinda > >> small. No need for a 60" TV/monitor. > > Well my TV sits over 4 m (that’s 13 feet for the imperialists) away from > > the > > sofa. So I splurged and got myself a 65″ one. > > Well, I saw on a website once where it gave info on distance, monitor > size and what you are watching can factor in too. It claimed that a 32" > is the ideal size for my room. Given my old eyes tho, a 42" might serve > me better. Thing is, I'm bad to watch old videos from the 80's, 70's > and even 60's. Most of those are 480P or if lucky, just a little higher > resolution. With those, monitor size can make videos worse.
This websites’s goal probably was about covering your eyes’ natural field of view. Sitting at my desk, my 27 inch monitor appears only slight smaller than my 65 inch TV 4 m away. Watching 50s TV shows will be the same experience on both in those situations. If you want to fill that entire field of view with details, then naturally, a 50s TV show in 480p won’t suffice. The more of your viewing arc you want to cover, the more picture resolution you need. You basically want to map X amount of pixels on each degree of viewing arc. Physical units are great. It also goes into the other direction: people these days™ watch 4K movies on their phones. Why, just why? Even if the screen can display it physically, their eyes cannot resolve that fine detail, because the pixels are too small. -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. How do you recognise a male hedgehog? It has one more spine.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
