4K TV - 10ft away?

“i dont know perhaps all teh errors point out in this thread that you havent done anything about.”
What errors? I keep asking what errors I missed and all you keep saying is all the errors but you never say what since I started asking what I missed. Also what lies? You never once said what my lies are. So you are failing to provide evidence.


“well done i even said it was a minimum, but guess what it tallys up with the chart but you say the chart is wrong. you can do the calculation for the other end if you wish. “
The chart says at 65" 4k there is no difference out past 8.6 feet away but your average healthy under 50 can see a difference out past 8.6 feet. The chart is wrong as it doesn’t represent your typical healthy 20 to 50 year old. The chart is based on the average eye sight of 20/20 which most healthy people after correction don't degrade to that bad until age 75. If you take out all the age 75 to age 90+ data average eye sight after correction is better than 20/20.

To put it another way the chart is based around people who cannot read past the 4th from bottom line in the Snellen test and after eye correction most healthy under 50’s can read beyond the 4th line.



“there is plenty of information out there for acurity, field of view etc, go read it. no one else is agreeing with you, I wonder why. “
I have and it doesn’t agree with what you are saying. In healthy people average visual acuity is 20/12.5 for 20 to 40 year olds, Eye don’t degrade to 20/16 until 50’s and degage to 20/20 at around age 75 in healthy people. Even the older 1962 data says the average under 50 has better then 20/20 version.





“How did you mitigate against the source material biassing the results ? –“.
Lots of different source material under lots of different situations including winter and summer sun light. A good test is http://carltonbale.com/pixel_by_pixel_checkerboard/ stand back until it goes grey.



“Did you establish at what distance/screen size you did not see a benefit from 4K, so how should the chart be adjusted ?”
The main reason behind my testing was to setup camera rooms so I only got data points at selected ranges. I didn’t test outside the range of the rooms as the only thing that mattered to me is what difference it made within seating ranges available. I did notice resolution impacts 3d rendered graphics are a lot more then films. There were people who couldn’t spot the different in resolution with films but could with 3d rendered graphics. Yes projector material matters some are pretty terrible with a low viewing angle. Just the act of standing up and sitting down blurred the top of the screen with some of them. I found a lot of the gray and black material will make the blacks deeper but the trade-off is poor viewing angle and some of them have sparkles.



“(I had read previously, with respect to cinema screens, you do not see strong pixellation close up like an emissive)”
Unless the projector is out of focus the projector screens have strong pixilation if you get to close. Modern projectors are sharp enough that pixilation can be a problem. 1024x768 or 720p at 100” creates really bad pixilation within an average sized house room. At 90” to 100” I would say 1080p at a minimum, 4k if you can afford it.
 
Last edited:
just no, lss than 1/2 the population have 20/20 3.65 far sighted 33% near sighted. and 36% astigmatism. even after correction only 50% acheive 20/20
so just yet more rubbish you are posting.
 
just no, lss than 1/2 the population have 20/20 3.65 far sighted 33% near sighted. and 36% astigmatism. even after correction only 50% acheive 20/20
so just yet more rubbish you are posting.
Less than half the population have 20/20 as a large amount of the population are older then 55 which is when eyes start to degrade. When you look at healthy sub 50 year olds the data changes a lot. I looked at 4 visual acuity changes with age studies from 1962 to 1999 and to quote.

“We see that normal eyesight is about 20/14 at age 20 which slowly deteriorate to 20/19 about age 75. Interestingly, old eyes only begin in your late 50”

http://www.vision-training.com/Images/clip_image006_0004.jpg

Yet again you refused to answer my questions or provide any evidence you falsely accused me of telling lies. Before you accuse me of more rubbish look at how you are acting which is far worse.
 
Last edited:
Nicely using old data before phones etc. Near aightedeness has massively increased over the last 3 or so decades http://www.allaboutvision.com/cvs/children-computer-vision-syndrome.htm

I'm not refusing anything, its been pointed out to you many times in the thread, if you can't grasp it, nothing will change.
You keep veliving what you want.
We are not talking about America and even factoring in that data the majority of healthy under 50’s have better then 20/20. So you are still wrong.

I am still waiting for you to point out my errors and so called lies. The only error you pointed out I discredited. Now you keep saying there is another error but you refuse to say what it is. Just like you keep saying I lied but you refuse to say how.
 
Wow this thread didn't turn out the way i expected :p

Yeah it did ;)


Pottsey isnt wrong about the chart being based on a visual acuity that the likes of us nerds will mostly all exceed (with glasses :p), but he's overplaying the whole it's rubbish thing just a little bit lot, and Pottsey you are fully aware you're doing it.

Quote:
Pottsey said:
Its well known rubbish. That guide is so wrong. I tried to setup my screen and in the end I ignored the guides as they are so far out.

It filppin' isnt and you know it. And funnily enough after *I* said the chart was based on 20/20 vision you've gone from calling it rubbish to spewing all the stuff about snellen that you no doubt read on wiki last night. Eurgh just reading your posts annoys me lol
 
Last edited:
Yeah it did ;)


Pottsey isnt wrong about the chart being based on a visual acuity that the likes of us nerds will mostly all exceed (with glasses :p), but he's overplaying the whole it's rubbish thing just a little bit lot, and Pottsey you are fully aware you're doing it.

Quote:


It filppin' isnt and you know it. And funnily enough after *I* said the chart was based on 20/20 vision you've gone from calling it rubbish to spewing all the stuff about snellen that you no doubt read on wiki last night. Eurgh just reading your posts annoys me lol
Fair enough about calling it complete rubbish, I was too harsh in saying that as there is some use in it as long as you factor in average under 50's can see better then what the chart says.

I shouldn't have needed to go into the other bits but I felt like I had to defend myself against Glaucus saying I was fall of lies when I wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Getting back on Greebos' earlier comment about 4K tv's being better maybe we did not explore that....

This angry-about-contrast article showing that abilty of the tv to show high contrast will change perception of resolution detail - seems like taking one of these Campbell-Robson Contrast Sensitivity Chart to an audition would help determine on and off axis/bed viewing quality and some of the 4K benefits.
 
Back
Top Bottom