TOO-CLOSE-4K

Too Close for Comfort – How 4K Encourages Potentially Dangerous Viewing Habbits

by Andrew Robinson on January 16, 2013

The story below was originally published on Theo’s Roundtable, for which I am contributing writer.

Having recently returned from CES 2013 in Las Vegas, the trend I found most disturbing at the show was just how readily people were willing to—as well as encourage others to—part with safe viewing habits in order to see 4K in all its splendor. Looking past the arguments for and against 4K in the home for a moment, the issue I saw at CES was one of health and safety—specifically with regards to viewers’ ocular health.

One of the key selling points to 4K in the home is that it will let you quite literally get closer to the action without having to endure visible pixels. But just because 4K may afford you the ability to sit closer to your TV set, that doesn’t mean you should. At CES, viewers were literally viewing 4K displays of all sizes with their noses mere inches from the screen in an attempt to catch manufacturers napping on their claims. Countless super-close-up shots were taken of the various 4K displays in attempt to communicate to non-attendees just how fine 4K’s resolution is. The problem with these approaches to viewing—and reporting—is that neither is realistic, let alone safe.

Manufacturers want you to get up-close and personal with their 4K displays because it’s the best chance they’ll have to get you to see, and thus quantify, the difference between 4K and HD resolution. But, in doing so, they’re potentially creating a dangerous situation in that viewers will now be sitting closer than ever to brighter and brighter displays, which will result not just in fatigue but an increased risk of ocular damage. Just because a display is 4K doesn’t mean normal viewing practices should be ignored.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST AT THEO’S ROUNDTABLE

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • •
 
  • Michael TLV

    So how do this bugger up the entire audio side of the equation? It’s like encouraging people to sit in row 5 in the theater. Great for visuals, but now the audio experience becomes a big problem.

  • http://twitter.com/ARobinsonOnline Andrew Robinson

    Didn’t even take that into consideration. GREAT POINT!

  • http://www.facebook.com/lawlessmark Mark Lawless

    So then if I sit close to my computer monitor (or at least close enough to type this) am I also ruining my vision? Come to think of it if I sat this close to a 65 inch tv I would probably only be able to see half of the picture the rest would be out of my peripherial vision. Maybe we should all sit back far enough to at least see the whole picture and that would solve both problems. I too looked at the 4k and 8k tvs up close close enough to notice that pixelation was a thing of the past and that is more an issue of grain as in photos or film. But I don’t think most would sit that close to watch a movie of broadcast.

  • http://twitter.com/ARobinsonOnline Andrew Robinson

    I think you hit on my larger point regarding proper distances -clearly, my point above was slightly unclear -but to suggest that just because a display is 4K and you technically CAN sit closer without seeing pixels doesn’t mean you should as your overall enjoyment of said viewing would be diminished which you pointed out.

    The reason -I believe- that 4K advocates want you to sit closer or at the very least like to push the idea that you should is so that you can more clearly see the difference between 4K and HD on a smaller screen. But once you increase your distance to say 3 or more feet, even when viewing content on a 100-inch screen, the differences between the two formats isn’t all that dramatic.

    I don’t know exactly if the light output of LEDs versus sitting to close has long term, negative or medical effects -there seems to be arguments on either side of that debate -but what I do know is that my eyes rest about 2 feet from my computer monitor for a good portion of my day and after said time my eyes can feel fatigued. I don’t type nor work in the dark either. Now, two feet from my 23-inch screen isn’t overwhelming nor crazy -in fact, it’s probably normal. Now two feet from a 50-inch LED 4K display, that’s just silly, even though it does fall within the minimum recommended distance of what is deemed to be acceptable viewing for 4K. Thank you so much for reading and for your comment I sincerely appreciate it! Take care!

  • Art Feierman

    Greetings Andrew, I’m strictly a projector guy. 4K can’t come soon enough, especially for 3D. Thanks to the pitiful dpi of 1080p on my 124″ screen (2.35:1), any attempt to sit closer than about 9 feet the image just isn’t smooth, and even if individual pixels are just below visibility, the image is soft. Sadly, that limits us home theater folks to viewing a screen that might be similar to sitting in the furthest back 1/3 of a movie theater.
    That’s just not enough immersion.
    And when it comes to 3D, resolution notwithstanding, where I want to be is no more than 6 feet from that screen, so that the screen becomes most of the world (especially in the dark).
    I had the pleasure of working with the Sony VW1000ES at my home for a couple of months (twice). I was provided some great content by Sony at 4K – Stephen Low’s (Ultimate Wave, Tahiti…) new Rocky mountain train ride (not sure about the name of the video, also the Spiderman trailer in true 4K. No problem at 6 feet! Beautiful.

    But it’s 4K 3D that I can’t wait for. Best I can tell, 3D is mostly a waste on the average 65″ LCDTV, because in most rooms, people will be sitting where the size of their LCDTV screen appears a good deal smaller than viewing a movie from the last seat in any theater.
    OK, that’s my 2 cents.
    On your discussion of brightness in the 4K article. I’m not sure what the relevancy is of SMPTE standards, in terms of viewing on LCDTVs. I say that because consumer viewing habits still rarely include watching an LCDTV with all the lights out. Perhaps that will change with 80 and 90″ sizes? The LCDTV sets ARE, I agree, too bright for a fully darkened room. The SMPTE standards though are for an almost fully darkened room. (If we only could get a reasonably dark room in California’s movie theaters – due to minimum lighting used, always being too bright. Ah, for the good old days, when the only lights on were a couple of red, not green exit signs, period!
    Use of a backlight system (LED, colored) behind the LCD, as Sharp (If I recall correctly), in particular, started offering years ago, and now also seen as options on Stewart and SI screens, help mitigate the brightness issue, as the eye, apparently doesn’t fatigue as much (working from memory here).
    My point (I guess there had to be one), is that 4K will allow us to have a much sharper image – those of us with projectors – and better still, allow us to sit closer to the ideal for immersion. I’m not exactly sure what that relative size is, but I’m pretty sure that it’s between 1 and 1.5 times screen height, closer to 1. -art

  • Art Feierman

    PS. Regarding the audio issue, technically that could be a problem, being too close, but it can be dealt with. I use left and right imaging speakers (ancient IMF RSPM MKIVs), no center channel. Imaging is spectacular, with placement of instruments, etc. being rather precise. At 9 feet seating (my normal) from that screen, I end up with a really good “sound stage” I really haven’t tried configuring for 6 feet, but I think I’ll see what these can do. The two speakers I have sit just to the left and right of the screen. 9-12 feet seems to be the sweet spot, curious if it will hold down to 6 feet. I was a fanatical audiophile before projectors, still can’t break the habit, even if I’ve retired my turntable. (Still waiting for great digital audio.) -art

  • http://twitter.com/ARobinsonOnline Andrew Robinson

    Thank you so much for your insight and comments. I sincerely do appreciate it and love hearing from readers, especially when I’m able to learn a thing or two from them. I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree to disagree on 4K with front projection as I too had the opportunity to live with the Sony 4K projector -complete with 4K content -and in my head to head tests with it (the Sony) against HD (JVC, SIM2) from distances of 4 or more feet from a 110-inch screen the differences were negligible.

    Now, the Sony is a bit of a light cannon and when shown upon a screen out of the box it does look considerably “sharper” and thus more “4K” if you will when compared to HD. However, after calibration (you can’t perform a full calibration on the Sony due to its lack of internal CMS), with its light output brought to the high side of the SMPTE/THX standard for front projection the differences become less apparent. If you’re going to leave the light output alone then yes, the Sony is impressive, however, if image accuracy is priority one than I’m not sure it’s worth the money -even though it is 4K.

    But your experience seems to have differed from mine and that’s what makes this hobby and what I do so great, there’s more than one opinion, and more than one way to achieve a result. If 4K excites you and you can’t wait for its arrival than more power to you. I’m excited that you’re excited, for that’s what this hobby needs more than anything -individuals who are legitimately excited about this stuff. Thanks again!

  • http://twitter.com/ARobinsonOnline Andrew Robinson

    I too was amazed by how I managed to over look the whole audio side of the argument. Forrest through the trees I guess. It will definitely be interesting to see how folks will balance the two once 4K becomes more mainstream. Thanks again!