Do you guys care about the best viewing distance from your TV when gaming?

[Something Amyss]

I sit/stand/slump wherever's most comfortable. For some games, it's a lot closer than others.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

for size, bigger isn't always better, quality counts for a lot. you can really tell the difference between a good TV and a crap one so don't look at reviews, go into bust buy(US) or currys(UK) or something simler and look at them, compare them side by side. then go home and find one at a reasonable price as both of those stores mark stuff up to ridiculous amounts

There's no point to going to best buy or any other retailer really to see the TV you want in person. The display models there are never set up correctly (color balance is always way off) and are usually showing things that are being broadcast in crap quality. Half the TVs at my local best buy are playing stuff at 480p, and the only ones playing blue-rays are the huge super expensive TVs that cost you an arm and a leg. The side by side comparison will only tell you what they want you to see, that the bigger more expensive TV looks better, that way you're more likely to buy the bigger more expensive TV from them.

 

[FPLOON]

My gaming domain, per se, is only big enough to hold a 30" HDTV... It costed 200 bones and yes, it can run at 1080p... With that said, I'm only about a meter or so away from said TV, for the most part, and up to 5 people can sit side-by-side while everyone still getting a clear view of the action in question... "Why just 5", you're not asking? Because my bed and my desk doesn't count in this situation...

Anyway, I say work with the gaming space that you have, figure out where you feel the most comfortable gaming overall, and then work from there... Besides, anything over 30 inch should still suffice anyway, in my opinion...

 

[Savagezion]

Bah, I have a 60inch LED 1080p screen and sit about 2-3 meters from it anyways. Just close enough so I don't have to move my head to see something.

 

[1981]

Input lag is the most important thing with regards to a TV and gaming.

Yes. And in terms of aesthetics, things like black level and color reproduction are important factors. Assuming that consoles can't output 1080p if a game runs at a lower resolution, the quality of the TV's scaler also matters. Though I've barely looked at other TV's since I got my Samsung four years ago, so I don't know how much they've improved.

Oh, and I see absolutely zero need for a 4k and up screen.

wasn't that long ago people were saying that about 720 and 1080 screens.

Once console gamers start benefitting from 4k resolutions, they can probably buy the same TV for much less, or get a superior TV for the same money.

 

[Strazdas]

Its quite simple for me really. take a spot that allows the TV to cover your entire sight when looking at the center. The only exception is if it is uncomfortable to sit in that position and thus one has to be further away from the screen.

wasn't that long ago people were saying that about 720 and 1080 screens.

anyway, I wasn't saying GET one, just thats the direction the technology is going and there's no point getting less than a 1080 as that is becoming the current baseline for TV's. have to really look to find a 720 only, or an SD TV these days

admittedly the current gen struggle with full 1080 at decent framerates, but still in this day and age there is little to no reason to go below 1080

not really. Since 720/10080p as we know now came AFTER we already had higher resolution tvs for CRTs.

The only people saying you dont need 720p at that point were hired shills part of the TV manufacturers collusion to keep prices artificially high [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1317_en.htm]

I don't see pixels at 1080 on a screen this size anyway.

Its not about seeing pixels, its about aliasing and visual real estate at this point. for one, high resolution tvs remove the need for antialiasing and allows you to see more things in things like web enviroments. Also you can most definatelly see pixels on a 1080p screen.

 

[ultrabiome]

Unless you're really broke though, or you can only fit a tiny TV, go 1080p if you can. You're future-proofing yourself - over air TV (at least in the US) is now broadcast in 1080p

just to clear up a misconception from when I worked for a cable company. HD despite what advertisements or sales reps might tell you doesn't mean 1080p for TV. The only people who get that or better from the local stations are the cable companies who have a direct fibre link to the station, if they have to get the signal via a satellite uplink they have to drop down in quality, and then resending it means heavily compressing the image stream

I get 1080p over the air broadcasts in the DC area from the major networks. Other local channels are in SD or just 720. Haven't paid for cable TV in a year or more.

 

[haplo99]

not really. Since 720/10080p as we know now came AFTER we already had higher resolution tvs for CRTs.

I did a quick search to make sure I wasn't mistaken and some had slipped by me. as far as I'm aware and have been able to check, they never released 1080 capable CRT's for anything but computer monitors, and yes they've been available there for a long time and higher resolutions.

but they never made tv's capable of it

you never heard the arguments "but dvd's don't show up that, it'll look horrible upscaled" and the famous "but only one or 2 channels bother with it"

I get 1080p over the air broadcasts in the DC area from the major networks. Other local channels are in SD or just 720. Haven't paid for cable TV in a year or more.

if you actually do get 1080 I would be amazed, and you would be insanely lucky. especially over the air and not through a cable. if they advertise 1080 broadcast, what they usually mean is 720 unscaled which is much easier and not nearly as bad to transmit. Admittadly, the places willing to invest that kinda money would be places like DC, NY and LA and other big cities

 

[ultrabiome]

I get 1080p over the air broadcasts in the DC area from the major networks. Other local channels are in SD or just 720. Haven't paid for cable TV in a year or more.

if you actually do get 1080 I would be amazed, and you would be insanely lucky. especially over the air and not through a cable. if they advertise 1080 broadcast, what they usually mean is 720 unscaled which is much easier and not nearly as bad to transmit. Admittadly, the places willing to invest that kinda money would be places like DC, NY and LA and other big cities

I said that, but I came home and checked. I was wrong, none of the channels I get are 1080p. NBC and USA (is it CBS too here?) is sending 1080i, but the other major networks are at 720p. (the reason I thought this was that my TV tells me automatically what the incoming resolution is when I switch inputs... but it doesn't when using the tuner - unless I click info as well) Even at 1080i, the picture is sharper, but I'm pretty sure there still is some compression as logos and graphics still have some compression artifacts.

 

[Strazdas]

I did a quick search to make sure I wasn't mistaken and some had slipped by me. as far as I'm aware and have been able to check, they never released 1080 capable CRT's for anything but computer monitors, and yes they've been available there for a long time and higher resolutions.

but they never made tv's capable of it

you never heard the arguments "but dvd's don't show up that, it'll look horrible upscaled" and the famous "but only one or 2 channels bother with it"

TV and Monitor is just labels. you can use then interchangingly. Monitors are usually better quality (and in CRT cases, this also meant higher resolution and frequency). TV Channels back then all tramsitted in either 480p or 360p in 4:3 aspect ratio so there were very little comparison. also worth mentioning that most people at least around here used air antennas so quality was bad regardless of transmission quality. As far as DVDs go, mostly the lack of complains were there because there were no real alternative. blurays didnt exist yet and very few people knew about digital video (forget about streaming, that didnt really exist). You cant miss something you dont know exists. PC gamers did raise some concerns about DVD being low quality since they saw what could be done with high quality video. but gamers were a small minority back then. Also DVDs are sinful in many ways. for example they dont use square pixels, which is ok if you use outdated LCD TVs and not ok for everyone else.

if you actually do get 1080 I would be amazed, and you would be insanely lucky. especially over the air and not through a cable.

depends on compression. resolution is quite meaningless nowadays when it comes to video broadcasting/streaming because you can compress a 1080p video to take as much space as a 480p video by killing quality. it will transmit fine and the device will see it as 1080p but the quality will still be shit. Also im not well wetsed on TV transmission codecs, but as far as digital broadcast ones, there were massive strides in compression quality and same bitrate 10 years ago looks horrible compared to same bitrate today. nowadays you can actually get 8000kbps bitrate 1080p videos that dont look horrible. just another reason why formats like DVDs are so outdated they became a joke.

I said that, but I came home and checked. I was wrong, none of the channels I get are 1080p. NBC and USA (is it CBS too here?) is sending 1080i, but the other major networks are at 720p. (the reason I thought this was that my TV tells me automatically what the incoming resolution is when I switch inputs... but it doesn't when using the tuner - unless I click info as well) Even at 1080i, the picture is sharper, but I'm pretty sure there still is some compression as logos and graphics still have some compression artifacts.

1080i is still same resolution as 1080p, you just get sent half of the screen at a time instead of entire screen at a time (hence - interlaced as opposed to progressive). your still watching it in 1920x1080, just at half the framerate (and hence half the data needed to transmit)

 

[FalloutJack]

Not so much, really. Being able to see the details of the screen is enough.

 

[Dango]

For TVs I'd say I sit somewhere right in the middle between very close and very far. I guess I tend to sit about 6 or 7 feet away.

I get right up on my PC monitor though, most of the time my face is about a foot and a half away.

 

[ultrabiome]

TV and Monitor is just labels. you can use then interchangingly. Monitors are usually better quality (and in CRT cases, this also meant higher resolution and frequency). TV Channels back then all tramsitted in either 480p or 360p in 4:3 aspect ratio so there were very little comparison. also worth mentioning that most people at least around here used air antennas so quality was bad regardless of transmission quality. As far as DVDs go, mostly the lack of complains were there because there were no real alternative. blurays didnt exist yet and very few people knew about digital video (forget about streaming, that didnt really exist). You cant miss something you dont know exists. PC gamers did raise some concerns about DVD being low quality since they saw what could be done with high quality video. but gamers were a small minority back then. Also DVDs are sinful in many ways. for example they dont use square pixels, which is ok if you use outdated LCD TVs and not ok for everyone else.

TVs and Monitors are not the same. The display technology might be similar or even the same nowadays but Monitors just display the signal sent to them, TVs have tuners and usually more inputs and settings because it assumes that you have little control over the quality or resolution of that signal (Broadcast, Cable, DVD/Blu-rays). These extras are also what drives up input lag in TVs while Monitors assume that the computer or other device is sending it a very specific signal, so the Monitor can display it with minimal adjustments or lag. Monitors also rarely come with speakers, although that may not be an issue to you.

 

[Barbas]

Well, I don't use a TV, but I sit about 5 feet from a 1920x1080 monitor (and try, sometimes unsuccessfully, not to lean closer out of habit) . Yo, can anyone tell me whether there's an optimal FoV for that setup? I keep fiddling around with settings and nothing quite seems right yet.

 

[EHKOS]

I use a 720p 32" Samsung. It will say it's displaying 1080p when the source is sending it, but it doesn't have the capability so I don't know what it's on about.

Anyways, I simply sit where I can see and operate as well as I am capable. If I can't see where I'm shooting, or the end of the draw distance, I sit closer. It shouldn't be as complicated as you're making it unless your setup restricts movement. In that case...idk I use a rolling computer chair and keep my TV in the same room as my computer desk.

 

[1981]

as far as I'm aware and have been able to check, they never released 1080 capable CRT's for anything but computer monitors, and yes they've been available there for a long time and higher resolutions.

but they never made tv's capable of it

you never heard the arguments "but dvd's don't show up that, it'll look horrible upscaled" and the famous "but only one or 2 channels bother with it"

As far as DVDs go, mostly the lack of complains were there because there were no real alternative. blurays didnt exist yet and very few people knew about digital video (forget about streaming, that didnt really exist). You cant miss something you dont know exists.

CRT TV's are bulky. There's no need for higher resolutions when the practical upper limit is 32".

TV and Monitor is just labels. you can use then interchangingly.

To some extent. But there are a few key differences. TV's are meant for entertainment. The best ones have VA panels. They produce deeper blacks but have a higher input lag and poor accuracy (which is usually due to miscalibration). Monitors are meant to be viewed from a closer distance so the pixels are packed into a smaller area. When someone's looking for a monitor you assume they want no bigger than 30". With TV's it's 40" and up. Most monitors have a TN or IPS panel. 120Hz TN's are fast. IPS's have an acceptable input lag and a better picture, but compared to VA's they look washed out. All monitors tend to have backlight uniformity issues.

 

[ultrabiome]

Well, I don't use a TV, but I sit about 5 feet from a 1920x1080 monitor (and try, sometimes unsuccessfully, not to lean closer out of habit) . Yo, can anyone tell me whether there's an optimal FoV for that setup? I keep fiddling around with settings and nothing quite seems right yet.

As someone sensitive to FoV, if your monitor is around 20" and displaying 1080p, I've found that I need an FoV of 90-100 degrees to match. But I sit around 2 feet max from my monitor. You'll have a hard time seeing anything at that size and distance. If you have a bigger monitor, you can sit farther back proportionally with the same FoV.

What is your display size?

 

[Barbas]

Well, I don't use a TV, but I sit about 5 feet from a 1920x1080 monitor (and try, sometimes unsuccessfully, not to lean closer out of habit) . Yo, can anyone tell me whether there's an optimal FoV for that setup? I keep fiddling around with settings and nothing quite seems right yet.

As someone sensitive to FoV, if your monitor is around 20" and displaying 1080p, I've found that I need an FoV of 90-100 degrees to match. But I sit around 2 feet max from my monitor. You'll have a hard time seeing anything at that size and distance. If you have a bigger monitor, you can sit farther back proportionally with the same FoV.

What is your display size?

Good gracious, that seems rather high (and sadly would, I imagine, result in disembodied arms in a lot of FPS games). I run at 1920x1080 resolution. I tried about 80 and that seemed...not quite right, but close.

 

[ultrabiome]

Well, I don't use a TV, but I sit about 5 feet from a 1920x1080 monitor (and try, sometimes unsuccessfully, not to lean closer out of habit) . Yo, can anyone tell me whether there's an optimal FoV for that setup? I keep fiddling around with settings and nothing quite seems right yet.

As someone sensitive to FoV, if your monitor is around 20" and displaying 1080p, I've found that I need an FoV of 90-100 degrees to match. But I sit around 2 feet max from my monitor. You'll have a hard time seeing anything at that size and distance. If you have a bigger monitor, you can sit farther back proportionally with the same FoV.

What is your display size?

Good gracious, that seems rather high (and sadly would, I imagine, result in disembodied arms in a lot of FPS games). I run at 1920x1080 resolution. I tried about 80 and that seemed...not quite right, but close.

I mean, what is the physical size of your display? How many inches? And you sit 5 feet away right?

Surprisingly, it doesn't usually mess up anything but add a little distortion in the corners to go up that high. And for my display and viewing distance, it matches.

 

[Barbas]

I mean, what is the physical size of your display? How many inches? And you sit 5 feet away right?

Surprisingly, it doesn't usually mess up anything but add a little distortion in the corners to go up that high. And for my display and viewing distance, it matches.

Oh, right. The monitor's 24 inches wide:

Spoiler: Iiyama ProLite E2407HDS

Eh, call it about...3 feet from the monitor (I'm close enough to the desk to rest my wrists in front of the keyboard).