Wall color for HT

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your inherently wrong there. Your basing your opinion on an idea that all people have similar visual acuity. This is simply not so. Although it's been getting worse, my eyesight is a measured 20/15 with my left eye closer to 20/10. Many people have similar ability natually, and also with optically corrected vision. 20/10 is TWICE the resolution of 20/20, which is what I assume your measurment is for. So taking your measurments and adding in my personal data I could be sitting somewhere between 50% to 100% FURTHER away and still manage to pick up all the available detail.

The standards for viewing are not built around individual eye issues, they are based around 20/20 viewing. So i am not inherently wrong here. Your personal issues are your personal issues, this has nothing to do with establishing a standard viewing distance.

Of course none of this takes into account the temporal aspect of visual observation. Movement, especially fast movement, lowers the brains ability to process detail in real time. So with fast moving action I should be sitting even CLOSER. Studies have shown that in high detail situation that are moving fully 90% of the detail is discarded by the brain. If we take this into account and use your numbers then I should be sitting 90% closer to the screen! That would put me about 1ft away from my 60" screen. It would be quite absurd to sit that close, but at least I would get all the detail. On the other hand, I think I'll stay about~12ft away for now.

Since you have no definition of what is considered fast motion, then I cannot see how your theory would oppose and nullify the standards that are set. This is an air sandwich as far as I am concerned. What is fast motion, define the speed. How does that correlate to moving action on a television screen. Does this indentifiy the outdoors, or watching television. Is this based on movement of both objects, or a single object with the viewer stationary. In other words, How does this "information" fit into television viewing, of which we are stationary, and the object travel to fixed distance defined by the size of the screen?

Without some sort of context, you last paragraph is meaningless. SMPTE and THX came to their conclusions based on testing with TELEVISIONS specifically, not just regular everyday viewing we do outdoors.

[Geoffcin]

The standards for viewing are not built around individual eye issues, they are based around 20/20 viewing. So i am not inherently wrong here. Your personal issues are your personal issues, this has nothing to do with establishing a standard viewing distance.



Since you have no definition of what is considered fast motion, then I cannot see how your theory would oppose and nullify the standards that are set. This is an air sandwich as far as I am concerned. What is fast motion, define the speed. How does that correlate to moving action on a television screen. Does this indentifiy the outdoors, or watching television.

Without some sort of context, you last paragraph is meaningless. SMPTE and THX came to their conclusions based on testing with TELEVISIONS specifically, not just regular everyday viewing we do outdoors.

Again, your just posting what you've been told. These guidelines are meaningless unless you can understand what they convey. And what they convey is a simplistic understanding of visual acuity at best. To say that this "seating distance rule" should be based on the simple 20/20 arc-minute acuity rule that sitting an exact distance from the set and viewing a static image would get you, as if you were watching a screen like you reading a Snellen test chart is absurd. Everything is in motion on screen.

I am a little shocked though that someone working for the industry has never heard of static visual acuity vs.dynamic visual acuity. In my field, Aerospace engineering, we've heard of these terms, and they are in regular use when it comes to engineering displays for aircraft.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Again, your just posting what you've been told. These guidelines are meaningless unless you can understand what they convey. And what they convey is a simplistic understanding of visual acuity at best. To say that this "seating distance rule" should be based on the simple 20/20 arc-minute acuity rule that sitting an exact distance from the set and viewing a static image would get you, as if you were watching a screen like you reading a Snellen test chart is absurd. Everything is in motion on screen.


I am a little shocked though that someone working for the industry has never heard of static visual acuity vs.dynamic visual acuity. In my field, Aerospace engineering, we've heard of these terms, and they are in regular use when it comes to engineering displays for aircraft.

The Aerospace field is different from the movie industry, wouldn't you agree? So it would stand to reason their recommendations would be based on different principles.

An Aircraft display is quite different than a consumer display right? So it would stand to reason there would be different reasons why different standards would be applied to different displays.

None of what you are saying here is applicable to why the standards were developed. So you have a complete understanding of why SMPTE and THX have recommended the viewing distances they have might be better served by just reading their justifications

THX

THX recommends that the “best seat-to-screen distance” is one where the view angle approximates 40 degrees (the actual angle is 40.04 degrees). Their recommendation was originally presented at the 2006 CES show, and was stated as being the theoretical maximum horizontal view angle, based on average human vision. In the opinion of THX the location where the display is viewed at a 40 degree view angle provides the most “immersive cinematic experience”, all other things considered. For consumer application of their recommendations, THX recommends dividing the diagonal screen measurement by .84 to calculate the optimum viewing distance, for an 1080p resolution.

SMPTE

Viewing an HDTV from a position where the display occupies a 30 degree field of view is widely quoted as the SMPTE (or SMPTE 30) recommendation. This recommendation is very popular with the home theater enthusiast community, appears in books on home theater design, and is also supported by a white paper produced by Fujitsu

So while you are looking at other issues, they base their recommendation on the most "immersive experience", not static versus kinetic visual acuity which you are addressing.

It is not wise to try and apply principles directed at the Aerospace industry towards the film industry. Their reasoning for their principles are quite different.