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

[ultrabiome]

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).

So the basic equation for FoV is this:

Full FoV = 2*arctan((width/2)/viewing distance).

So for you: 2*arctan(24/2/36) = 2*arctan(1/3) = 38 degrees. You probably sit closer, as I recalculated for my monitor and I sit more like 1 foot away which is about an FoV of 80 degrees. So it gets you close.

If you really sit more like 2 feet away, then it's 51 degrees.

Although maybe you should add 10 degrees due to human's having two eyes and we're sitting close enough to matter.

Could you tell with the 80 degrees whether it was too tight or too spread out? Given what we calculated, maybe try 70 and see if it improves and if not, go the other way.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I don't have much choice, considering the size and configuration of my room. I reckon I set about 2.5 meters away from a 1080p 32" TV for consoles and controller-PC gaming. For my monitors on my desk it's about a meter.

I don't like sitting too close. It narrows my field of view and gives me too much eyestrain, not to mention hunching forward is absolutely awful for your back. Remember kids; sit in a 135 degree-ish angle. None of that outdated 90 degree shit. My health is a little more important than optimal viewing quality.

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.

Because when those came out there wasn't really a lot of HD content. That problem's even bigger with 4K. Technology is progressing faster than content. No doubt it's going to be real rad in a few years, but until content catches up 4K is mostly for the e-peen factor and early adopters.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

If your display is good quality no additiona adjustment is needed. Tuners are all external (cableboxes are common name for them) nowadays and they even have seperate remotes. Modern monitors have as much inputs as TVs do. and they come with speakers (in fact i had to actually search to find mine to be without them since i use external audio system), though admittedly quite a few are still a mono speaker.

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.

90 and up, really. anything lower than 90 will look weird regardless of distance because our brains interpret the things we see on screen differently. if you were looking at a window you would have a low FOV in there, but you are not. in fact you are looking at what you think is a simulation of somone elses eyes or a camera that is supposed to simulate that visual. thus the brain interprets the need for FOV to be high enough to match real vision. Real vision is above 90 FOV. and it has nothing to do with distance to the screen, thats just a myth consoles use to justify low FOV which saves processing power.

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

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.

They are bulky, but there definatelly is a need for higher resolution. at 32" a 4k resolution is perfectly justifiable.

actually monitors tend to have deeper blacks, unless you go plasma TV route in which case your too rich to care anyway. especially now with new LED technology that lets selectively shut down parts of the back-lighting meaning they can achieve true black. VA technology is a variation of IPS which is generally considered to be inferior to modern IPS panels, so im not sure why you are trying to sell them so hard here. IPS has the best color reproduction out there nowadays. Their downside of course being the higher input lag (which is irrelevant if your using it as a TV). Another correction - cheap monitors tend to have backlight uniformity issues. avoid those if your budget allows it. the only real difference you mentioned is that TVs are generally made with higher size and lower PPI because it ias assumed people will want to watch them from afar while monitors tend to not exeed 37" still. but that is, for the most part, labeling difference rather than technological one.

 

[1981]

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.

If your display is good quality no additiona adjustment is needed.

I think what they meant by adjustments is the processing that TV's do. Those adjustments are vital to getting a pretty picture, but they also cause a massive input lag. That's why TV's have a game mode that disables most of the processing.

VA technology is a variation of IPS which is generally considered to be inferior to modern IPS panels, so im not sure why you are trying to sell them so hard here.

If you look at reviews, virtually all of the high-rated ones have a VA. Though I just read that "IPS LCD TVs have received a distinctly negative backlash among the British press over the course of 2014" [http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-cr850-201502264018.htm]. So HDTVtest may be biased in that sense. Do you know of any other professional review sites? Ones that present numbers instead of using scales from "not as good as we had hoped for" to "extremely impressive". I'm not saying subjective assessments are useless, but you gotta back them up somehow.

especially now with new LED technology that lets selectively shut down parts of the back-lighting meaning they can achieve true black.

Local dimming was a joke four years ago. It seems it has improved. But I won't believe it until I see it.

 

[Guffe]

I bought a new TV about 2 years ago and asked for a seller in the store who "knew about techstuff, and gaming".
A pretty young chap, my age, came along and I asked him that very question.
He said it doesn't matter with todays TVs (and this was 2 years ago). He said technology has advanced so much that sitting close doesn't damage your eyesight like older TVs could and that the resolution doesn't change "for your eyes" depending on distance either.
I didn't look anything up, other than that the manual for the TV said the same thing as the seller, and he was very convincing.

 

[Aesir23]

I usually sit roughly five from my television which is a 1080p 40" Samsung. Close enough that I can see with my rather crummy eyes (with glasses that are sorely in need of an updated prescription) but not close enough so as to actually cause eye strain as far as I can tell.

My sister likes to sit about three feet from the television but I'll admit that always makes me a bit anxious. I'm always worried she'll knock it over with an errant swivel of the chair and I can't exactly replace it easily while I'm relying on money made from odd jobs.

 

[Leg End]

I bought a new TV about 2 years ago and asked for a seller in the store who "knew about techstuff, and gaming".
A pretty young chap, my age, came along and I asked him that very question.
He said it doesn't matter with todays TVs (and this was 2 years ago). He said technology has advanced so much that sitting close doesn't damage your eyesight like older TVs could and that the resolution doesn't change "for your eyes" depending on distance either.
I didn't look anything up, other than that the manual for the TV said the same thing as the seller, and he was very convincing.

Sitting close to a TV isn't about it shooting stuff into your eyes at such a close range, more that it is about sitting that close to anything and focusing on it in bad lighting for many hours on end.

As for the ability to perceive the resolution difference, that varies between people but seems that distance can have an effect but most people don't actually care about seeing the benefit, more just want their stuff to not look like shit on a larger screen, which some people still don't care even then because they don't actually know what resolution actually IS.

Source: Someone who played close to CRTs and an HDTV his entire life and now can't see the menu at most fast food places without severe blur and at a distance, can't see shit like restaurant signs. Though this doesn't mean you can't sit close, it just means, know the effect of sitting next to a bright screen at about 3-5 feet away in the dark for about 8 hours a day constantly, though I used to actually sit about one foot away from a 13" CRT so that really didn't help.

 

[chuckman1]

I sit very close always. Is it true that it's bad for your eyes?
I think it's a 720p 32 in.

I see pretty bad.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

If your display is good quality no additiona adjustment is needed.

I think what they meant by adjustments is the processing that TV's do. Those adjustments are vital to getting a pretty picture, but they also cause a massive input lag. That's why TV's have a game mode that disables most of the processing.

VA technology is a variation of IPS which is generally considered to be inferior to modern IPS panels, so im not sure why you are trying to sell them so hard here.

If you look at reviews, virtually all of the high-rated ones have a VA. Though I just read that "IPS LCD TVs have received a distinctly negative backlash among the British press over the course of 2014" [http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-cr850-201502264018.htm]. So HDTVtest may be biased in that sense. Do you know of any other professional review sites? Ones that present numbers instead of using scales from "not as good as we had hoped for" to "extremely impressive". I'm not saying subjective assessments are useless, but you gotta back them up somehow.

especially now with new LED technology that lets selectively shut down parts of the back-lighting meaning they can achieve true black.

Local dimming was a joke four years ago. It seems it has improved. But I won't believe it until I see it.

Yes, i know what they mean. it is in no way vital to getting a pretty picture. In fact many video enthusiasts suggest turning it off.

I dont really care about TV reviews, i care about real life performance and measurement data. im not even surprised the reviewers colluded for this, it seems to be almost daily now that we uncover a new journalist collusion.

Local dimming was indeed a joke 4 years ago. not so now. it has improved a lot with the improvements made to LED based LCDs.

I sit very close always. Is it true that it's bad for your eyes?
I think it's a 720p 32 in.

I see pretty bad.

No, the distance does not have an impact to your eyes. that is a myth.

 

[1981]

I dont really care about TV reviews, i care about real life performance and measurement data.

Reviewers are the only ones who can provide meaningful measurement results. If a person gets their hands on dozens of thingamajigs and writes about them, then what they're doing is reviewing them.

Yes, i know what they mean. it is in no way vital to getting a pretty picture. In fact many video enthusiasts suggest turning it off.

We're still not talking about the same thing. It's not just one adjustment. On my TV, game mode disables at least the 10-point white balance system (which no purist could do without) and Motion Plus. That brings the input lag down from 95ms to 45ms. It's still too high for non-casual gaming, but I bought it strictly for watching movies and TV shows.

 

[Strazdas]

I dont really care about TV reviews, i care about real life performance and measurement data.

Reviewers are the only ones who can provide meaningful measurement results. If a person gets their hands on dozens of thingamajigs and writes about them, then what they're doing is reviewing them.

Yes, i know what they mean. it is in no way vital to getting a pretty picture. In fact many video enthusiasts suggest turning it off.

We're still not talking about the same thing. It's not just one adjustment. On my TV, game mode disables at least the 10-point white balance system (which no purist could do without) and Motion Plus. That brings the input lag down from 95ms to 45ms. It's still too high for non-casual gaming, but I bought it strictly for watching movies and TV shows.

not really. there are many ways to benchmark things without writing a review. but yeah, i mean reviews in more traditional sense here and it still probably apples to what i look at.

actually pusits would always prefer the original recording, even if its bad quality input to begin with. its the casuals that think "TV should do its magic and ill get a better picture". purists hate alteration of original media, even if its color balance improvements.

 

[WolfThomas]

I have a 42" Sanyo I think it's only 720 as it's 5years old. I sit ~2.5metres away. I keep talking about another tv but I keep spending that money on other things.

 

[Batou667]

Best viewing distance? Preferably so 90 degrees or so of my field of vision are taken up by the screen - that's the optimal experience according to cinema theatres, so who am I to argue.

I remember back in the 90s reading video game instructions advising "sit as far back as the cables will allow" - oh, sure, I'll sit across the room from my 14" CRT screen, most immersive experience evar. Not.

 

[kasperbbs]

I have a 40 inch 4k TV and i sit 2 meters away because i don't really have a choice in the matter and i don't really have anything to complain about. A bit further and i probably wouldn't be able to read some of the smaller text.