Image Quality: Isn't Viewing Distance As Important As Resolution?
2024 ж. 29 Сәу.
24 269 Рет қаралды
► This clip comes from DF InDirect #1 - our Supporter-only Q+A show
► Support us on Patreon! bit.ly/3jEGjvx
► Digital Foundry KZhead: / digitalfoundry
► Digital Foundry Merch: store.digitalfoundry.net
► Digital Foundry at Eurogamer: eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry
► Follow on Twitter: / digitalfoundry
I'm short sighted and when playing games a couple feet away from my tv I basically get built in FXAA.
Left -12 Right -16 I feel you
@@danielwilliams3161 damn i thought i was the only one who has it this bad, cause it's so rare for people to have their myopia this high btw how old are you?
@@danielwilliams3161right - 24
@@danielwilliams3161 Just binoculars right?
This is how I'm going to start describing my eyesight now, I think
After suddenly losing sight in my right eye and failing sight in my left one I ended up getting a monitor and am more than happy with it as I experience a lot less eye strain.
That's terrifying to suddenly lose your sight like that
Digital Foundry x Vincent Teoh collab when?
Vincent would tear apart the very fabric of pc gaming resolution understanding
Thanks for your support
I don't think Vincent will collab with Cucks. But advertising and money talks.
My 65” OLED is 6 feet from my couch when sitting with perfect posture. The difference in immersion when I sit back on the couch vs sit forward (lean in) is significant.
My 65" 8K QN900B is 2 feet away from me, since I use it on a desk as my pc monitor. The immersion is IMAX level. And this is where I differ with Rich on the use case for 8K Resolution. It's amazing for PC.
@@badpuppy3Can you even use the whole screen?
@@FayezButts No, hes an idiot.
@@badpuppy3That's awfully close! 5 feet is too close to me, can't even imagine 2.
@@badpuppy3Pixel density on 8K 65 inch is similar to 4K at 32 inches. It's objectively a waste for a typical desktop setup, and terrible for posture. The only immersion here is a massive screen in front of your face, and having to turn your head constantly.
Thats why i say if you want an 8k tv, make sure you can sit close enough or get a gigantic one. Not sure id get much out of an 8k display in my living room unless it were the size of my wall.
Extreme example: been playing on a 5.5 inch Oled at 1080p recently on a tethered handheld setup (~1 foot away) and I can get away with a lot more upscaling than in nearly any other situation I’ve been in. Dlss performance still holds up shockingly well.
Nothing surpsing... The math is simple - 2x smaller = 2x further One foot (30cm) for 5.5 screen is like 22inches at 120 cm, but you sit around 60-80cm away from monitor, so your 5.5 screen is further away than your monitor, using the scale for comparison. You can drop resolution to 720p and it is going to be similar experience to 1080p 22inches at 60cm. To be clear 1366x768 is half of 1920x1080, so 720p is close, but not exactly half of the - 1080p This is why handhelds should have 1366x768 or a bit larger resolution, more is a waste of baterry. Smartfones have around 1080p to make scaling videos simpler + 720p has a lot of compression... But I would love small phone with oled and ~720p.
I use a 55" LG C1 OLED as my monitor on my desk, and I'm sat right in front of it. I absolutely love it, and it looks very crisp to me. I have my sofa just behind my chair so sometimes I'll sit on that with a controller or keyboard and mouse on my knee's. There's a bit of a difference in clarity, but I love the immersion of being sat at my desk.
I got a headache when I put my hisense u7g55 on my desk. Way too close
I also use my 55" LG CS (C1 panel with C2 processor) as a monitor. But I have it wall mounted at an ergonomic height and have a cantilevered sit/stand keyboard arm (made by Ergotron) that allows me to sit the correct height and distance away from it (usually about 1.1m - 1.2m) and just fold it out of the way to recline and put my feet up on a stool to watch TV (also have an Atmos soundbar mounted to the bottom of the screen).
@Hellknight27 That sounds like a great setup. I had to pull my tape measure out just out of curiosity, and I'm sat 95cm away from the screen when at my desk. I have a foot stool under my desk, too, and I slightly lean back in my chair when gaming. I love the big screen experience.
@@KriegersBeasts When I stay stool, I don't mean a foot stool (I couldn't actually find one tall enough). I am using a two step, step stool that also has a fold up padded cushion top (family relic from the 80's) and I also have the memory foam cushion off my Noblechairs Hero strapped on top of that to get it up to 68cm. So, when sitting normally and using the PC I can put my feet on the bottom step to be more comfortable (more like a regular office foot stool) and when I have the chair completely tilted back I can lay my calves on top of the memory foam. Makes it nice and comfy for my 6'4" arse! I am looking to get something custom made to replicate it though, because it is pretty jank with my nice setup :D
Maybe for gaming I would prefer the TV, but for work, I can't see myself to use MKB on a sofa, the times I tried, I couldn't find it confortable for the long run
I think that something that doesn't get mentioned all that often is the gaps between pixels. I had the chance to compare the active pixel area between a Samsung panel and an Insignia panel and at the distance I sat at I could see the gaps between the pixels on the Insignia panel but not the Samsung. Even getting right up next to the panel I have a hard time seeing the inactive areas on the Samsung. The overall effect on the cheaper panel was like the screen door effect in older VR headsets like the original Vive. Bear in mind that I was comparing 4k screens that are 55" in size, so the pixels were fairly large.
They do go hand in hand. The ratio between your screen size, resolution and distance you sit from it has always been very important. In my experience, general rule of thumb is 1:1 distance to size ratio is optimal for 4K to really see all the details. For 1080p, 2:1 is enough. At 2:1, 4K would barely look better than 1080p. People rarely sit as close as 1:1 from their TV in their living room and thus 4K is generally overkill for most TV setups.
What do those numbers mean?
@@DesenhoBoy For 1:1 I mean for example for a 55” display you’d need to sit at ~55” away from it to fully benefit from 4K. For the same 55” display, you’d need to sit at ~110” from it to fully benefit from 1080p, thus the 2:1 ratio.
The recommended optimal viewing distance for any 16:9 ratio display is around 1.6x the diagonal measurement of the display. This falls into the "comfort zone" when it comes to your field of view and reducing any eye stain or head/neck movement (between a 30-40 degrees viewing angle). For a 55 inch TV it's around 7 feet 4 inches away and for a 32 inch monitor it's around 4 feet 3 inches away. As for resolution and the distance that you need to be away until you cannot percieve any individual pixels. Then for 4K it's at least 1.6x times away as the vertical height of the screen, for 1440p it's 2.5x it's vertical height and for 1080p and 3.2x it's vertical height (also based on a 16:9 aspect ratio). BTW, that's anywhere over 4 feet 7 inches away from a 55 inch 4K TV or over 3 feet 3 inches away from a 32 inch 1440p monitor. However, as was pointed out in the video, it can also vary greatly depending on the condition of your eyesight.
@MerryBlind my intuition figured this out but my fingers already clicked the comments lol
@@DesenhoBoy Your average casual console gamer sitting 8 feet away from your typical 55 inch 4k TV isn't gonna notice the resolution. So to them, 1080p, 1440p, 4k doesn't matter. Yes if you are on PC sitting on a desk, you will notice. That's why people don't recommend 27 inch 1080p or 32 inch 1440p or 27 inch 4k monitors. The PPI is too low on those. Add in the forced V-sync, motion blur, and added input lag of a bluetooth controller, even 30fps feels fine to a console gamer. They only barely got a taste of 60fps with the current consoles when that's the bare minimum of PC gamers.
What about playing with projector? For minimalist room it's s great option. Also like using joycons due relaxed two handed design
Really interesting idea, though I doubt it'd end up being all that useful for the purposes of reviews. The older I've gotten the more I've found myself drawn to gaming on my weak HTPC in the living room, as the free "anti-aliasing" that a ~3m gap provides removes the temptation to crank everything up and I can focus instead on maintaining 120hz. I've also gotten lazier, so there's that too. Also, does Oliver live-stream at all? Could listen to that dude talk all day.
I am wrestling with this in the current generation of console games because I'm still using a 40" TV at 8' distance because that was pretty standard when I bought it 15 years ago. But games designed in the current generation (with this current slate of gigantic TVs) are full of tiny objects on the far distant horizon and unreadable tiny text. I CAN notice the aliasing on Switch games, but because the UI and FOV are designed to work for the 720p portable display I find them much easier to play while leaning back.
Another dimension to this that is important to factor in is whether or not the 1080p or 1440p visuals are being displayed on a 4K display or they're being displayed on their own native resolution displays. Because the same 1080p/1440p image is going to look sharper on a 1080p/1440p display than on 4K display where it will be subjected to upscaling that usually softens the image due to not being the native resolution unless, perhaps, the 4K display were to do a nearest-neighbour upscale in the case of a1080p image.
Another overlooked thing is the cleanliness of the screen and the settings of all devices, especially a TV.
Quality of the screen as well
People... You need to be closer to your TVs. 3 meters is just too far away for a 4k display. Even for 1080p display you still LOSE details at 3 meters on a 55 inch display. You don't perceive them. For 55 inch you need to be at about 1.6 meters a distance to RESOLVE by your eyes 4k image. Anything further then that and you are literally losing on the 4k details because your eyes physically can't resolve them at increased distances. The smaller the display the closer you need to be, the larger the display, the farther you can be away from the display in order to keep the same resolve of details.
I have a 20-inch Toshiba 20AF45, and while I wish the dot pitch was a little better, I'm content to stick to it!
In VR there is like the concept of Distance-Independent Millimeters, something similar for resolution and view distance would be interesting
I just sit 2ft away and bump up the sharpness. It’s so immersive especially on a big screen. Though I wouldn’t recommend it for competitive gaming. For competitive gaming I think 48 lower is good. But it depends on your seating distance.
I've been using an AIO 1080p 27 inch for almost a decade and now planning to build my first PC. 4K sounds nice but 27 inch 1440p 144hz-240hz I think is enough, not sure about OLED and other features so I need to do more research on that as I also want to use it on a Mac Studio. My build is 13600k w/ 4070 TI Super, I wanna game, video edit/YT, stream and everyday usage...
Oled monitors are currently quite expensive and in my opinion not worth it. Maybe when you upgrade from this monitor, you can get an oled with matured technology at a lower price.
There's a noticeable difference in perceived clarity from my 55inch LG oled at 2.5 meters distance and my 27 inch va curved Samsung gaming monitor at 1-3 ft distance.... It depends what I'm watching but on the whole I get the feeling id need a bigger screen or to sit closer to the TV to really appreciate the benefit of the 4k image but as Alex suggests things like flickering and as oliver suggests blurriness are very noticeable when on the couch.
It's why console games can usually get away with lower resolutions as you're usually going to be sitting further away from the display. A 1440p image on a 65 inch 4k TV at 8 feet away might look just as sharp and crisp as a 4k image on a 28 inch 4k monitor sitting 2 feet away. In regards to Helldivers 2 on the PS5, they really need to drop FSR1 and go with FSR2 or checkerboard rendering, both are superior to FSR1 and would make performance mode look much better.
I still use a 1080p tv mainly for movies but its ok for ps4 pro. PC though gotta have 4K due to versatility eg photo and video editing, researching, gaming up close etc... i have tried comparing 4K movies vs 1080p on my 4K monitor and the difference just isn't worth it even up close.
While I wouldn't use this as the sole method of testing (due to the discussed variables) adding a few notes to a review about a subjective opinion on overall IQ in say "living room" and "desktop" (just examples) settings could be of interest. I play everything but FPSes on my 86" living room TV at around 3.5M distance, and FPSes at my desk (for KB+M). Even on that large of a display, I use 1080 more than 4K just because I prefer 120Hz with all in-game eye candy options to 4K with more IQ options. I grew up in arcades and early computers, so seeing some pixels isn't a big deal to me, whereas frame rates, smoothness, and fancy over the top effects whizzing around ARE that important to me.
I thought about this a while ago. I use dlss performance at 4k on a 50 inch TV. I sit 2 metres away and it looks great. This is a massive factor and no one talks about it. Dude brought up a great point. I'm taking cyberpunk btw
Similar idea and concept to how the smaller 720p screen of Switch masks issues in handheld play. 4K and 1080p screens do have viewing distance differences for legibility
On 42 inch OLED on max settings don't see difference between 1440p and 4k playing 3 meters away. No aliasing or flickering, same perfect picture.
At 3 meter away from a 42 inch screen you probably won't be able to see the difference between 1080p and 4K, especially if you turn on the setting that some TVs have that "integer scale" 1080p to 4K without any additional filtering/processing that might distort the image.
@@samh58861080 looks a bit softer for me. Got 4k/120fps HDR on Windows plus VRR. No upcalers, blur, frame generation. Don't see a point going over 2560x1440 if everything maxed.
Yes, distance from the tv matters. I have my xbox series S working on a 65" tv and unfortunately i cant get too far away from the tv because i have a small living room, so i notice the low resolution on some games specially those that are not native 1080p. Dynamic 1440 is really nice on the other hand.
What is the distance?
Kindly Test viewing Distance for TVs and Monitors for the standard 43 to 77 inch sizes on TVs that most people use for example… what would be ideal viewing distance range for example of 55 inch OLED TV for gaming vs cinema content… stuff like this makes a real big factor in what size a person purchases
Another thing to factor is pixel density. My 1080p 6.4in phone is sharper than my 4k 48in TV, and aliasing is less noticable too. I did a test where I hooked my phone up to my PC and used it as a sort of "monitor", both with anti-aliasing on and off, and different AA techniques to see what looks better in each situation (ignoring size of course). Interesting results I still have written down in my notes.
True but the tradeoff to the smaller display being sharper is that you can see less detail compared to a bigger monitor with higher resolution
Probably why phone companies quote density over resolution on their specs
This is due to density. The point and apple will agree is the have such a high density that you can't recognize pixels. The entire industry wants this. That's why 8k will become a thing and 16k would be the holy grail.
A 1080p 15.6" Display is Equal to a 32" 4k monitor...Play on Laptop to Get More FPS and Equally Sharper Image..
Viewing distance and resolution already has an established criteria ... for YEARS now. This shouldn't even be a question and I am surprised at the responses from df team as most are basic in understanding. The smaller your screen the less high resolution matters, fact. The higher the resolution the closer you can be to the display, fact. There are industry guided and accepted angles of view which dictate distance from display based on display size and resolution. Low resolution equals a farther minimum seat distance threshold and higher resolution equals a closer. This is why you get comments about people complaining when df shows 200% and 400% closeups berating fsr for instance when at normal distances the negatives aren't really an issue. The problem is people buy a nice 32" 1080p display for example and they are sitting too close for the display size and resolution. The reason people see 1440p at the same size as better is because they are now roughly at the right distance and they see 4k as not required because the visual acuity distance has become shorter.
💯
PPD! There are even tools online you can use to calculate at what distance your monitor would have a retina-display level of sharpness.
what are some of the tools?
I've always stuck to the thx guidelines. One and a half times the length of whaever display im viewing on.
27" 1440p is almost parity, pixel wise, as a 24" 1080p monitor. You gain like 20ish pixels per inch at 1440p. I don't think 1 meter makes that much difference between the two.
From experience, I can tell that for TV shows I cannot perceive the difference between 720p and 1080p in a 55'' HD TV at a 2-meter distance.
Absolutely, when playing 7th gen games (PS3 and Xbox 360), there were no noticeable differences between games displaying in HD or FHD for me, when switching to 4K on newer consoles there starts the difference.
Viewing distance can also affect gameplay. When I play a game that requires more focus and skill, I sit up close. If I'm just grinding or the game is otherwise easy, I can sit on the couch. The game looks sharper to my eyes but some detail is lost. But yeah, when I was a kid playing Final Fantasy on PS1, I learned early on that the video quality was poor because it had to fit on regular discs. I would sometimes go watch the cinematics from outside my room because it would look "sharper," but with the loss of detail and obviously a smaller apparent image.
Want to see the video that comes out of this question
I game on my television. But I have my gaming room setup so I'm 6' feet away from a 4k 65'' tv. So I notice the resolution bump and stuff
This is so odd that I thought of this recently! When I play games I play exclusively from a 16inch laptop screen roughly 3 quarters of a meter away in a dark room with headphones in. The screen is 1440p @165hz. I realised that I have the same amount of eye movement to follow the action at the edges of the screen as when I was in a cinema sat about in the middle seating rows, just on a smaller scale. Being that close to the screen makes all the difference at 1440p compared to 1080p. Did I just misunderstand the question? Sorry, I got a little drunk :(
Not really.just like how when the iPhone 4 came out they said it was impossible to get a clearer display (or some such) just simply not true
1:29 20/15 vision! Oliemack? More like Owliemack! Here I am needing glasses just to make out text on a screen 2.5m away...
Draw distance handling makes the biggest difference when gaming at a distance.. hated the immersion breaking shadow pop In witcher 3 ray tracing where the max settings without RT looked better
Problem is we're not just talking about a movie or image with resolution changing. Increasing render resolution improves image quality even if output resolution is the same.
how far do you expect someone to sit from a 1080p monitor? TAA is just awful for blur during movement.
I’m over here still using a 1080p TV. I’ve actually never even seen a 4k image, so I literally do NOT know what I’m missing.
you arent missing anything, we have a samsung 4k 75 inch tv downstairs, and i have an Epson HC 1080p Projector upstairs projecting at 100 inches. The seating distance is about the same for both and there is ZERO perceivable difference between the two, and i in fact prefer the 1080p projector over the 4k tv because the image is larger and more immersive. 1440 and 4k are really only useful for monitors where you sit close and even then im fairly close to my 32 inch 1080p monitor and the pixels are 'barely' visible. You would get a benefit in text from a resolution bump on a monitor but otherwise resolution is just how they keep selling you new panels every few years, and the masses fall for it every single time.
@@thefilmdirector1 I always wonder what kind of features these current consoles would be capable of if they shot for 1080p rather than obsessing over higher & higher resolutions. I’m sure it’s not as simple as just reallocating resources to other areas, but I really wanna know what could be done graphically, or game mechanics-wise at 1080p that couldn’t be done at 4k or 1440p
It’s funny that as I watch this on my tv a lot of the comparison videos look the same
My PC is plugged both to my TV and Monitor and the all idea of picture quality can be pretty different depending on which one i'm using, that's for sure ! :)
Come from the age of a meter long controller cables so i've always been that far from my screen since : p
It is but people don't know or don't care. There are charts and calculators online that help you manage this. I can't believe most games still play 1080p at that distance.
Viewing distance does matter. I’ve been using a 1080p TV and never felt lack of resolution or discomfort for anti-aliasing from the distance I watch. Even though it could be because I’m easily satisfied with image quality or fps in gaming.
I have a 50 inch 1M away at 1080P and when there is resolution scaling in game I see fuzzy pixels.
That’s like playing in low resolution VR. My god, man. 50 inches 1 meter away is crazy. 😂
The loss of sharpness from a distance can be seen even better, another article that tries to justify the cons of the consoles. What movements are you talking about in low res? Don't you see the upscaling shimmering nailed into every console game? What kind of test is image freezing? The game is played on the go. What does slightly softer image mean? Which is a better form of antialiasing? The search term becomes minimized, the image is blurry and particularly shaky, and the native resolution would go into the density account. It's ridiculous, on console the image is a bit soft from 720-1080p to 4K, on Switch the small screen hides the problems. Do you see the problems in practice only on PC? Does the middle ground become a problem? The cover image does not represent the average distance from which they play on consoles, I have seen many put the chair in the middle, so as to play 2 meters from a 65 inch. If you have to go outside the room, why not use a 1080p screen with a sharp filter, so at least you avoid the upscale defects, which are very visible and anything but softening? Simple, because the consoles must be stuck to a 4K which is now dragging you down, so that will necessarily become the best method.
This is why VR gaming looks super blurry bc you have your headset so close to your eyes and the screen it projects around you is huge feels like 5-10 meters. Even the highest top of the line VR headsets that are 5 or 6K are blurry AF. You need like at least 16K for VR to look even half as sharp as a flatscreen. Plus reprojection makes it even worse because it completely stretches out the image further making even blurrier
I sit far enough away from my TV that DLSS Balanced and even Performance sometimes are great options at 4K
You are wrong. the resolution of retina is a fixed thing for humans, therefore the angle resolution is dependent of, drums, angle , and angle is dependent on size and distance. And yes, its true, hence we have foveated rendering and variable rate shading techniques. trying to make it subjective is stupid. Differences are there, but they small enough to be negligible for majority/average. Fringe cases are not a valid point of reference.
For me, the distance I sit from my display while gaming isn't so much about image quality as it is about the field of view. If the FOV in the game is wider, I can comfortably sit closer. If the FOV is more narrow, I need to sit farther back to feel as though I am not looking through a straw.
My PS3 on my 4K TV looks great despite much titles being 720p. A bit of AA, reduced clarity on the TV's settings can do wonders
i play on a 65 inch LG C1 at just over 3ft away on my pc its so much more engaging up close and my eyes are used to it i cant game from a distance
This is why resolutions over 4k are virtually useless on a single monitor. if you're close enough to see screen pixels, then you're simultaneously so close that you have to move your head to see the sides the picture. 4k is the sweet spot where the resolution exceeds your own eyeball up until that short distance where you need to move your head around, where typical users will just back away from the screen in discomfort. Hopefully this means we'll see greater graphical improvements, as games won't need to keep resolving to higher and higher resolutions each generation. BTW how come nobody is talking about bringing foveated rendering to non-vr games? Seems like a waste to be rendering the whole screen when our eyes only focus on one portion at a time.
I can barely see my TV, everything looks good 😂
it is a very valid question. It is the very reason why 8K is in most cases a joke (except VR environment) compared to 4K but unfortunately most people are ignorant enough to worship irrelevant numbers.
Sure but I would also say people really underestimate what resolution is actually resolvable by human eye. Apple calls this pixel density "retina" and mainstream devices are still nowhere near it (for 32" monitor it's around 6k), so it always annoys me when people bring this point as if we are already at the peak resolutions now like on smartphones. If you are not concerned with a non-native resolution on a 4k TV screen thinking 1440p is fine, you need to go to oculist and buy binoculars as you are pretty much blind.
The point here is that having the pixel density of a cellphone on a 32 inch monitor or a 55 inch TV is pointless, because you still need to see the whole image, so you want to sit further away, from where you would barely appreciate the small pixels, if at all. IIRC, the human eye has a peak resolution of about 30 arc-seconds. You can't just use a set DPI across all mediums.
@@Riboshom That's why I said retina is 6k at 32" monitor (which usually sits at similar distance to you for everyone). For 27" retina is 5k so they assume the same PPI, but retina for iPad is different PPI altogether. What I'm hinting at is that 4k TV at 55" is nowhere near retina and going lower than this is just silly. Some people think even 4k monitors are the end of the line, but those who seen 6k vs 8k screens know that you can tell the sharpness difference between those still (even research behind Apple's "retina" points at the bare minimum for the screen to be "sharp" and the point of diminishing returns - not your actual ability to resolve sharpness. 8k on TV - this is where we can argue, but non-native on 4k TV screen literally gives me eye fatigue and I can see the blur clear as day.
I had to reaarange my living room because od the resolution of most games of this generation. If they were in at least native 1440p I wouldn't have to do it, but... 😅
720p on a big TV from far away isn't even that noticeable
65in 4k tv at 8ft away looks incredible and sharp. Pixel density is negated the farther away you are
Is it just me, or does Olie look kinda CGI in this video?
I’ve seen some crazy comments in here of people playing on huge screens super close. “50 inch 1 meter away”, “65 inch 3 feet away”, “100 inch 3 meters away”, “10 feet from 85 inch”. I’m mind blown that people use screens like that. I get it if you’re playing a top down strategy game but how in the world do you even see the rest of the outermost part of the screen? Surely you can’t and it’s just a waste screen real estate, right?
i sit about 7 feet back from my 100 inch projector screen, but im also the type who buys front row seats at the movies. I want the screen to fill my field of view during movies. With games though i would agree, i tend to sit back a bit further from my monitors and TV while playing games.
4k 48inch ~1 yard away :)
Personally I sit 1 cm away from my screen. I paid for all those pixels and you'll be damn sure I'll see them all
I sit 4 feet from my 48" 4k oled. It's very nice
Until you play a game that's 720p in performance mode °XD
Definitely for us over 50 folks 😂
In my opinion if games have better anti aliasing, resolution doesnt matter .having a big screen is immersive
Im sitting 3 meters away from my 55“ and I can’t tell the difference between 1440p and 4k at this distance, this has been the case since the ps4 pro and Xbox one x days, where digital foundry tried to tell me Xbox looks so much better but it looked absolutely the same
That house in the thumbnail though….
r/tvtoohigh 😅
I'm playing on 100 inch from 3 meters
I have a 55 lg c3 and sit about a millimetre away from the screen when gaming 🤣
I would like to see PS5 running at 1080p monitors. What's the difference of FPS then?
Nothing since it's just downscaling to 1080p
Don't forget about your individual visual acuity. I have very good sight. The last time an ophtalmologyst checked it, it was above 20/20 (equivalent to 24/20 according to him). So I usually need to sit further from the screen than most people in order to not see the individual pixels, but in reality, I'm pretty used to see them and it doesn't bother me to a certain degree. That said I find anything less than 4K unacceptable and it really ruins my experience until my brain forgets about it 😂
I mean I don’t have a great sight , but I use a very modern, recently invented thing called glasses. So I see pixels too.
@@lawyerlawyer1215lol
@@lawyerlawyer1215yeah lol with glasses my vision gets better than normal. 5/6 or something i think
ofc, sit distance is just as important.. no brainer (shouldn't even be a question)
I sit pretty far from a TV and still see TAA and TAA affected motion, and if BFI is on, the blur in motion is even more horrible. TAA has nothing to do with screens, it's terrible and DLAA is the same mess.
I'm currently on a 1080p monitor sitting 30cm in front of me.
I returned a Lg 42 c3 OLED because my 24 in tv looked so much better sitting from my couch. I hate being within a few feet of a screen. I feel TVs are best 8-9 feet away minimum then start scaling due to size from there.
Moral of the story. Keep up with your eye doctor regardless of how you sit. 😂
Your average casual console gamer sitting 8 feet away from your typical 55 inch 4k TV isn't gonna notice the resolution. So to them, 1080p, 1440p, 4k doesn't matter. Yes if you are on PC sitting on a desk, you will notice. That's why people don't recommend 27 inch 1080p or 32 inch 1440p or 27 inch 4k monitors. The PPI is too low on those. Add in the forced V-sync, motion blur, and added input lag of a bluetooth controller, even 30fps feels fine to a console gamer. They only barely got a taste of 60fps with the current consoles when that's the bare minimum of PC gamers.
Meanwhile my gfs dad wants to use a 75 tv as a monitor sitting 2 ft away 😭 I can’t even imagine the ppi ☠️
Yeah, when I stand within 2-3 feet of my 99" TV, sitting in the living room of my 5,250 square foot McMansion, the details really do pop. That said, I'll just keep gaming on the couch, even if it is 14 feet away.
Well Xbox 360 on 4K tv looks like super shit, so i got a Retrotink 4K for many of my old consoles and for VHS capture, night and day boys, night and day... Games look more crisp. Also being 2 meter from a 4K 43" for me its the best distance.
Most 360 games run at 720p/540p so yeah, it's going to look like shit stretched out to 4k unless you are sitting far enough away you need to squint to see it.
@@devilmikey00 Yup thats why i bought the RT4K, to upscale all my old consoles in a proper way
Battlefield 2042 and frostbite engine has the SUCH BAD draw distance… I’ll drive over a land mine because it will render last second at max seconds at 1440P….
I sit 10 feet away from my 85 inch.
I sit close to the tv because my house is small
I have my PC hooked up to a 4k TV and use it like a console and I'm theoretically far enough away where I'm not supposed to be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k but I sure as shit can. Now 1440p to 4k on my TV? Nah, looks basically identical which is nice because on more demanding games I can turn down my resolution to 1440p and not really miss anything. Anything too far from 1440p looks blurry though. Probably comes down more to how post processing or how AA works but it's definitely blurrier at 1080p.
Sitting two feet from 1080p on a 24 inch monitor is basically 4K. Yes, you’ve all been scammed by advertising.
more pixels means more information
Sitting two feet from a 4K 24 inch monitor is better. Not necessary, but objectively better.
Brother, I wish that were the case for me. At 2 feet I can absolutely tell you which is which. Especially in things like games. The further away something is in game the worse the difference is. When I am looking at someone's head mid map of a shooter on 4k there is definitely a difference in the clarity of said head. Even something as simple as text. Text at 2 feet on 1080p is more jagged to my eyes. Same for windows icons. In fact after I got my first 4k monitor and moved my 1440 p monitor over next to it as a second screen it wasn't long before I replaced the 1440p monitor because even that change was enough to bother me when going from the 4k to the 1440p then back to the 4k. I couldn't stand it. Difference is night and day to me.
@@Grawbad I don't think he actually ever used a 4K screen. No one who has would say they are the same as 1080p.
You people are just trying to be polite. That question is nonsensical. personal viewing distance and size of your tv is your own personal choice just like the Color of your walls
I really don't think viewing distance is as important as resolution, viewing distance is somewhat relative, for example I have extremely good eye sight from around a meter away from anything, where as someone else might be able to resolve a lot of detail from far away. I also think the notion that 4k or 8k is unnecessary or that not being able to tell the difference between 1440p and 4k on a 27-32inch monitor is somewhat subjective. I think beyond 55 inches 4k begins to lose some of it's sharpness and that's where I think 8K becomes warranted.
It's subjective to a point. There is a point for everyone where in terms of clarity it is going to just look the same no matter what. Are eyes, no matter how good, have a distance where we can no longer see the higher/lower pixel density for a given resolution/display size. like they said, it's going to come down to how the AA/post processing/upscaling is going to resolve the image where having a lower resolution is going to give you worse image quality even when you are far enough away for the pixel density to not really matter.
Also screen size is inversely proportional to pixel density so the bigger the screen the lower the pixel density and vice versa. This is why I game on a 24" monitor as the perfect sweetspot to achieve that high pixel density. The bigger the screen the higher the res it needs to be to look sharp. This is the main reason why monitors will always be vastly superior to TVs bc of the huge pixel density advantage of smaller screens. Also panel quality is another important aspect many people ignore. You can have 2 same screen size and resolution monitors but the one with better panel quality will look sharper and have better colors. TVs 50" and bigger need 8K-16K res to look sharp bc 4K starts becoming an issue once you reach 50"
I actually think you're kind of missing the whole point because when you sit farther away pixel density becomes less important. Big 4k TV at a distance looks just as sharp as a smaller 4k monitor up close. That's literally what the question was about lol
@@halo2bounceguy never said distance is not important. If you cant sit farther out then you absolutely need all the pixel density you can get especially with displays 27" and above. I included PD as it is usually left out of the conversation. Main reason why VR looks extremely blurry because their screens are gigantic like a 5 meter screen around you for both eyes combined so 4K looks very bad for VR. Even 8K VR is pretty terrible. VR needs at least 16K to look decent. This is why all VR gaming is a huge flop. You are spending thousands of dollars for a top of the line PCVR headset and still looks blurry AF bc there is no distance at all when your headset is strapped on your eyes and the 4K and even 6K res means nothing
Well changing your viewing distance is almost never possible.
I play Halo Infinite on a 4k 48" 120HZ OLED using my PC. We're moving and I packed away my 48" and hooked up my 1080p 24" 60Hz monitor. My eyes got so red after playing 2 matches with friends.
Who plays Halo Infinite?
It's pretty fun now@@Polesca
Weak sauce 😂😂😂 Yes, 1440-4k @ 120hz is certainly better… but suggesting your eyes got physically irritated from 1080/60 makes you sounds frail af lol
@@jarde1989 “Fortitude is when no eye strain!” Wow, what a take.
@@TehPwnographerwith a 24inch 1080p monitor? Yeah.
Common sense has entered the chat... at last.
On average if you play on a TV you need a 75-77 inch TV to really get the benefit of 4K according to the Rtings calculator which is expensive.
Cap
pixel peepers would tell you otherwise.
i have 8k 65 inch lol
Or a 48" 4K OLED on your desk.
I severely doubt that, going from a 1440p 32 inch monitor to a 4K one was a COLOSSAL improvement in clarity, the pixel density is shockingly better. Also the viewing distance they use for those tests must be way too far away, I like sitting close enough to my TVs so that they fill my vision, I have a 60 inch screen in my tiny bedroom and absolutely it needs to be 4K.
1440p does not look good from normal monitor distance. Looks like 1080p
I didn’t watch the full clip because the question is weird. You will never have same quality at 1080p as with 4K. The relation is not between resolution and viewing distance but rather between screen size and viewing distance.
I suggest you watch full clip then revisit your comment and adjust it
@@environm3ntalist549 I did watch it just for you and my comment stands. Of course if you have a smaller screen and/or use scaling techniques the perceived quality might appear the same if you sit far enough from the screen. But it's still a compromise. 1080p will never be as good as 4K no matter what distance you're viewing from. But maybe the discussion is more about budget, than actual quality? Like if you can't afford 4K and the hardware to support it then maybe some combination of aliasing and viewing distance to a 1080p screen may give you a good enough result.