The 4K UHD ELEPHANT in the Room...what they don't want you to know (1 Viewer)

The UHD 4K Elephant in the Room. At the Average Viewing distance of 10' you would need a 77" Screen or bigger before you could see Any Improvements with a 4K UHDTV (3840 x 2160) over a 2K (1920 x 1080) set. These are the limits of the human eye with 20/20 vision.



Digital Trends also recommends this chart: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/choosing-the-right-size-tv/

As discussed there are greater benefits from UHD than just resolution alone, for one increased bit depth and colour gamut, i view around 100 inches at roughly 8.5 to 9 feet, or i will once my room is up and running again, but to me it's not all about resolution.

Another site, HDTV Test in the UK did some blind testing and found viewers could see a difference a lot closer than the chart above suggests, i'm sure this debate will go on until the players and software come out, i think resolution alone isn't worth it.

Congratulations on having such great eye sight!

As the maker of this chart clearly states, this is for 20/20 Vision because we clearly cannot go over every possible scenario their is. Strawman arguments aside, this is the Rule for the average person not the Exception.

Source: http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

AlaskanAVGuy said:

Congratulations on having such great eye sight!

Click to expand...

Charts do not tell the whole story, i also know many people who sit roughly 6 to 7 feet from their 65 inch sets, certainly home cinema fans sit closer than the average consumer, i do think resolution alone, which is what your post aspires to be about, is not the only thing UHD has going for it, no banding, better colour, yes please.

Your right Facts that counter your argument don't matter. Work on your reading comprehension skills. This is a discussion about Resolution and the Human eye with 20/20 Vision and how all the HYPE about 4K is mostly just that.

Since you like to use examples from a personal perspective I will share one as well, although as pointed out before it's a moot point because their are infinite scenario's. However I sit 16 feet away from my 64" 1080P Samsung F8500, which means that I could easily have a 720P resolution TV at the same Screen Size and I would never know the difference. I'm more than happy having more, but realistically at my distance I don't really even need 1080P. Although when I really wanna watch a movie I bring my couch to within 10 feet so I can get the full benefit of 1080P.

Like I said in the title i'm just pointing out the Elephant in the Room. And this is for new people to A/V to help educate them about all of the HYPE that they keep hearing from the Industry who only want to sell them on a more expensive set. Once 4K is the same price as 2K then I will switch, but to pay a premium for a HDTV under 65" especially is pure insanity because you would need to sit 4 feet away with a 4K set too notice any difference at all. Unless you had superman vision.

I'll stick with my 1080P set and be smart about my money thanks for your comment.

AlaskanAVGuy said:

Your right Facts that counter your argument don't matter. Work on your reading comprehension skills. This is a discussion about Resolution and the Human eye with 20/20 Vision and how all the HYPE about 4K is mostly just that.

Click to expand...

i happen to agree with you on pricing, no one except those with deep pockets will be buying into 4K this year or next, it will take time for prices to drop and the specs to improve ( Rec 2020 ) i maintain many do sit a lot closer and will benefit from UHD.

It is also likely that by the time prices fall and home cinema fans buy, we will be watching on larger sets as well as projectors, i don't buy into the hype but i have an open mind, i take the view that 4K and higher frame rates will benefit sports broadcasts, that's one example, i also think better colour, better bit depth and higher resolution can be of great benefit to us all.

Well excuse me for coming onto the post that I started and defending the misconception of 4K as this was the original reason I wanted to talk about this topic in the first place, If you truly wanted to help the average consumer then you shouldn't purposely try to confuse them. After all of that thanks for agreeing with me and common sense my friend. Now may we please move on....since we agree, no worries.

This should be interesting.....

AlaskanAVGuy said:

Well excuse me for coming onto the post that I started and defending the misconception of 4K,
If you wanted to help the average consumer then you shouldn't purposely try to confuse them. But after all of that thanks for agreeing with me and common sense my friend. Now may we please move on....no worries.

Click to expand...

This is a home cinema forum, i doubt the average consumer is reading your posts as they don't hang out here.

Let's stop the insults now! We don't allow such comments here. If you can't converse with each other in a respectful manner then place that other person on "ignore" and move on.

Interesting Articles:
Why 4K TVs are stupid
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/
Why 4K TVs are stupid (still)
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid-still/

Foxy: Noted.

Jeff: Not everything is entirely about facts it's also about attitude, experience, personal preferences and ability to discuss things with give and take. You've stumbled onto a chart that just about all of us have seen and agreed that it's a pretty good rule of thumb but it's not something we'd consider to be wrong should you fall on either side of it.

Now armed with your 'knowledge' are you on a campaign to tell everyone how right you are and how dumb they are? Your tenure is likely to be short here. You've already alienated one long time subscriber who provided you with some real world experience that cannot be accounted for in charts and I'll offer another: I'm nearsighted and sit 8 feet from 120 inch screen and am also multiple kinds of colorblindness and even with these weak eyes I'll upgrade as soon as it is economical to do so for a variety of reasons that, again, arent covered in a simple chart.

YMMV.

AlaskanAVGuy said:

As the maker of this chart clearly states, this is for 20/20 Vision because we clearly cannot go over every possible scenario their is. Strawman arguments aside, this is the Rule for the average person not the Exception.

Source: http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Click to expand...

This is based on one specific metric, that people can resolve about one arc minute separation between high-contrast lines. This is a useful metric, and I've used it over the years. But keep in mind it's not the whole story; it's not the one "rule" to explain all of human vision.

I tend to agree that higher pixel density is not the biggest benefit for the typical living room TV. For a middle aged person with decreasing vision, watching from 15 feet away, 4k won't really be perceptible.

But as someone who wants to install a 120" screen in my basement in the near future, affordable 4k projectors can't get here soon enough! And as Foxy says, upcoming new standards could bring other benefits: if "4k" brings improved color gamut and color depth, that will benefit everyone regardless of whether the pixels can be resolved.

DaveF said:

This is based on one specific metric, that people can resolve about one arc minute separation between high-contrast lines. This is a useful metric, and I've used it over the years. But keep in mind it's not the whole story; it's not the one "rule" to explain all of human vision.

I tend to agree that higher pixel density is not the biggest benefit for the typical living room TV. For a middle aged person with decreasing vision, watching from 15 feet away, 4k won't really be perceptible.

But as someone who wants to install a 120" screen in my basement in the near future, affordable 4k projectors can't get here soon enough! And as Foxy says, upcoming new standards could bring other benefits: if "4k" brings improved color gamut and color depth, that will benefit everyone regardless of whether the pixels can be resolved.

Click to expand...

Yes, I completely agree in your case I would ONLY purchase a 4K projector especially when going 120".....

Another REAL WORLD application would be for 4K Passive 3D compared with 1080p Active 3D.
I'm very interested to see how well 4K will stacks up in comparison.

60% of all HDTV sales according to recent data in 2013 purchase a 42" screen size and sit an Average of 9' feet away and only 0.10% even buy a 60". For most people 4K will NEVER benefit them at all, i'm just trying to spread the word so be don't shoot the messenger. This is mostly all a Hype Marketing Scam unless your buying a Serious Bigscreen like a projector or bigger than 77".

Ok, we're done. Alas, the OP is uninterested in discussing the topic sociably.