That is an enormous TV that would dominate the decor of almost any living room. Even if it was a The Frame tv it still would be too dominant a piece.
OP is right, at the typical TV pixel per angle (TV distance + screen size), 2160p is a waste. That's also why I always tell people to switch on performance mode on all console games that support it. Doubling your FPS for an imperceptible resolution decrease is a golden trade-off.
Ironically, monitor pixel per angle is still often too small. For typical desk viewing distances, you want 2160p at 21" and 2880p at 27". Most people that have big monitors have 2160p at 27".
Note that ultra-wide or not doesn't matter if you express the resolution you want in the vertical
Not aware of viewing distance recommendations differing between monitors and TV; it's the same 30°-40° of horizontal field-of-view for both, with 32° being a notable notch along the range.
This is then usually combined with the 60 PPD visual acuity quasi-myth, and so you get 1800px, 1920px, and 2400px horizontal resolutions as the bar, mapping to FHD and ~WQHD resolutions diagonal size independently. From these, one could conclude even UHD is already overkill. Note for example how a FHD monitor of exactly standard density (96 PPI, so ~23") at 32° hfov results in precisely 60 PPD. That is exactly the math working out in its intended way afaik.
At the same time, Mac users will routinely bring up the Pro Display XDR and how they think it is the bare minimum and everything else is rubbish (*), with it coming in at a staggering ~200 PPD, 188 PPD, and ~150 PPD at 30°, 32°, and 40° hfov respectively. Whether the integer result at 32° is just the work of the winds, who knows. It is nonetheless a solid 3x the density that was touted so fine, you would "not be able to see the individual pixels". But if that was a lie back then...
The pixel density (PPI, PPD), viewing distance, and screen real estate discussion is not one with a satisfying end to it I'm afraid. Just a whole lot of numerology, some of which I sadly cannot help but contribute to myself.
(*) not a reliable narration of these sentiments necessarily
> Not aware of viewing distance recommendations differing between monitors and TV
Uh.. what?
You usually sit 60cm from your monitor, but 3-6m from your TV. It completely changes the math, which lets you "cheat" with ordinary TV sizes (50"-65") because you will not or barely notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p.
The other way around, your monitor won't really get the 'retina' effect of not discerning pixels until you hit ~220 PPI.
> 3-6m from your TV (...) lets you "cheat" with ordinary TV sizes (50"-65") because you will not or barely notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p.
Yes, at those sizes and distances, all the usual rules of thumb will report that the difference will be indistinguishable between FHD and UHD. We're in agreement there.
It's just that if "cinematic immersion" is among the goals at all, I really don't think e.g. viewing a 50" TV from 6 meters away can provide it. That's more like "something is making noise while I'm having a pop and scrolling social media on my phone" at best. A lot of TV watching happens like that, but then resolution is rarely a concern during those anyways.
> You usually sit 60cm from your monitor
> the 'retina' effect
So we're selecting for 60 PPD ("retina") at 60 cm of viewing distance, let's see:
21" -> 42.352° hfov, 2544 × 1431, ~139 PPI. At UHD, it's ~210 PPI. WQHD would be enough though, and that'd be ~140 PPI.
All of this is to say, I have no idea where you're pulling that ~220 PPI figure from, especially when it comes to higher sizes.
You can also see the PPI slowly descending from some maximum value (eventually reaching 0) since we're talking about a flat panel, and so the math slowly gives out. If you assume a curved display and make the viewing distance the curvature radius (600R) to compensate, you can calculate that maximum value to be ~145.5 PPI. In that case, this value would remain fixed no matter the diagonal size. Not anywhere close to 220 PPI still however.
That said, I definitely sit further than 60 cm too.
> That said, I definitely sit further than 60 cm too.
I've tried sitting closer than 1 metre / (3ft) from a flat 32" 4K display, and I find it kind of overwhelming. At 60cm viewing distance I end basically up keeping one window down the middle of the display that is in focus, and put utility windows off to the sides - and then I physically translate my head to look at then, because the corners of the screen are distorted if I just pivot.
I used to have a 40" 4K display, back when such things were available on eBay from SK, and I had to wall mount it some ways behind the back of my desk to use it comfortably.
I'm sure a curved panel would help with the corner distortion up close, but it kind of seems like a solution in search of a problem.
> The differency between FullHD and 4K is very noticeable with THX-recommended viewing angles. I watch 98” from 3 meters.
I think you'll find fairly few people (outside of serious TV enthusiasts) have their living room setup like this. It's a massive amount of wall space to dedicate to a TV, and a pretty tight sofa <-> coffee table <-> TV placement.
The thing is, this upgrade you two are praising is designed to satisfy the original article's needs and no one else's.
Why do all those devices need to talk to each other btw? It's never specified. Is it a user need or a data collection/spyware need?
In a world where security articles make the news saying that you could obtain access to something IF the attacker already has local root and IF the moon is in a quarter phase and IF the attacker is physically present in the same room as the machine and this means the sky is falling...
... we should be questioning why disparate devices on unrelated home networks need to talk to each other.
Peer-to-peer requires that devices from different home networks talk to each other. Gaming, audio/video chat, screen sharing, file sharing (torrents), etc.
The whole idea of the internet from the beginning is that devices can talk with each other.
The need is real. You are a service provider. You need to manage equipment at customer sites. You need to access them simultaneously. But all the customers are using the same subnet...
If Bell gave out cellphones with the same phone number, how can you call anybody? But they still do.
Many devices have cloud access, but every manufacturer is different. It is a nightmare at scale.
The old JS Date API is far from perfect and I'm happy it being replaced, but part of the problem is various string-based formats and people being sloppy using them. Not to mention general complexity in time/date concept with timezones, summer time, leap seconds, etc.
For string format, just stick with ISO 8601. If you need to parse less-standard formats, use a robust library of your choise. The standard library should not try to support parsing zillion obscure formats. Outputting localized / human-readable format should be a responsibility of localization API anyway.
I also think that many libraries/APIs involving formatting things have some US centric design limitations, i.e. tendency to treat US formats as native and international support is often a bit after-thought. Especially with older stuff like the JS Date API.
The problem with the date format is that the US one absolutely totally insane. Whenever you use something ordered you have to choose ordering. For date US choose the absurd kind. Y-d-m should never have been used. Remove that and around 90% of the string based format problems disappear.
...it will come up with what I have used in the last few conversions.
Though I have seen Quinn Nelson (Snazzy Labs on YouTube) released a video recently that shows his process which is a bit more involved, but better. Apparently his method is better to remove risks of power surges from the controller board (I haven't experienced it yet...!), but his method also retains the speakers, and relocates the I/O inputs to be more accessible.
A good hybrid can do very well. Presumably by keeping the engine in exactly its sweet spot and designing aggressively for that. BYD for example claims 46% thermal efficiency. [0]
LFP is so cheap that small-scale thermal battery makes not sense for electricity generation. Even in big scale (like OP) it mostly makes sense for heat, e.g. district heating systems, industry process heat, etc.
I have worked as dev since age of 18, I am now 42. Never had any health problems. I do some irregular sports but not very much. I don’t pay much attention to ergonomics, I just simply change my sitting position often and also take short walks. I do use standing desk sometimes but not for whole day, just for short periods.
Congratulations, you're a sensible human being who has figured out that listening to your body and intuition works much better than all these "optimal" solutions everyone is chasing after. I've suspected for a long time that much of ergonomics is just snake oil and hardly based on any evidence at all. If sitting upright or in some specific allegedly ergonomic position is making me feel tense and wears me out, how is that helpful? I prefer to go with what millions of years of evolution have coded in me. Fortunately I don't have a desk job anymore so it's not of much concern to me.
The differency between FullHD and 4K is very noticeable with THX-recommended viewing angles. I watch 98” from 3 meters.
reply