Derek500 does, he has a sofa on tracks (no I i'm not kidding).

I agree with REPASSAC that The Deep was not good drama! but we are not discussing that here...

The first 4 episodes were DD2.0.
The last was 2 channel in DD5.1 carrier.
(It must have been The Deep or Coast, as that is all I watched in HD last week)

They did it to all broadcasts when Freeview HD was first launched too. It was well discussed here, and on the BBC HD blog - due to incompatibilities between playout systems or something.

Thats an understatement, it was horrendous in all aspects.

There are recommendations about how close you can get for any resolution.

But I don't think it's for anyone else to tell me how big a TV I have or that I should sit closer to it than I wish.

BTW, my comment was in response to this from nigelbb: "HDTV is a huge improvement in picture quality over SD if you don't recognise that then you either sit too far from your TV &/or your TV screen is too small."

No, it's for the "laws of physics" to do that

Just don't ignore them, then complain that HD is no good - HD is fine, it's your circumstances which presumably aren't?..

They don't do any such thing. They tell you how close you can get for a particular resolution if you wish to avoid certain undesirable phenomena.


You are confused.

I've never complained that HD 'is no good'.

I have a very large room and a large TV but I just don't particularly like sitting on top of it.

If I wished I could sit a good deal nearer the TV when it's showing HD (in fact, I could probably sit nearer when it's showing SD), and I did actually try that. I just didn't really like it.

I also tend to sit as far back as possible from the screen in a cinema.

I don't like sitting too close to my TV either.I find it causes eye discomfort.In any event I was always led to believe that sitting too close to the TV was bad for your eyes.

Contrary to what the experts say,like Jepson I can sit away from my TV and still enjoy the HD experience.I can certainly tell the difference between SD and HD.

It seems to me that you do acknowledge that HDTV is a huge improvement in picture quality over SD it's just that you choose not to take advantage of it by sitting where you would appreciate the difference. Which is of course your choice.

That's just nonsense that mothers told their small children in the days of CRT TVs. It's all different now with high resolution flat screen TVs. How close do you sit to your computer monitor? It's more likely to cause eyestrain sitting further away & have you squinting because you cannot make out the detail.

That's correct.

Which is why I queried the source of any authority that could tell me how close I should sit to the TV.

How close anyone chooses sit to their TV is a matter for them to decide, not some oik on a forum, or even some oik in a lab.

Of course, I'll accept that either of these said oiks can inform me of how far away I should sit to avoid unpleasant effects at any given resolution as that's a matter of scientific fact rather than personal taste.

Yes, it's a complete load of rubbish - it causes no problems whatsoever - like you say, it was something made up and told to kids.

You can provide proof that,that observation is nonsense can you?The fact of the matter is this how we view images on TV is personal preference.I certainly don't squint when watching TV,but I do suffer eyestrain if I sit too close to the set,in exactly the same way as I do when sitting at a computer monitor!!Which IMO leaves me repaying the compliment that perhaps what you have stated is nonsense!!
However I believe in freedom of choice irrespective of whether I agree with that choice or not.

It wasnt made up, CRTs are really tiring on the eyes. Try working on a 60hz CRT monitor and your eyes will hurt within minutes yet you can work on an LCD all day with no problems.

The sciences are called ergonomics and optics. The ideal distance is one that gives the best "immersive" effect without the viewer being able to see artifacts such as individual pixels or lines (on a CRT) In cinemas, the "ideal viewing position" is usually stated to be in the centre roughly one third of the distance between the screen and the projector from the screen. That however only held true if the cinema used a fixed focal length projector.

The 16:9 format was arrived at as being the closest to human vision or rather the central sharpest area. Superwide formats like Cinemascope, apart from the gimmick to compete with TV, was partly intended to fill the outermost periferal vision. What directors then did was to utilise the whole frame so the viewer scanned the image for the most important action. The same thing obviously happens with TV productions so as well as the theoretical best position, the ideal viewing distance will also be affected by the type of programme and its direction. To take a couple of contrasting examples:

For the grand nature documentaries with sweeping landscapes, you may well wish to be "fully immersed" as if you were there so you can scan the picture with the most sensitive and focused part of your vision. You would therefore sit closer than, for example, C4's Countdown where you would wish to see all the letters or digits spread across the screen in one glance.

As explained in this (US based) article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum...ewing_distance the usually quoted ideal is 2.5 times the diagonal of the screen and with UK using 1080i rather than the US and Blu Ray 1080p, this would seem to be sensible. Obviously if you have a 1080p display and source, you may like to get closer and even use the THX recommendations for a "fully immersive" effect. That rule of thumb is to take the diameter of the screen in inches, divide by ten and sit that number of feet away (so a 40" screen is viewed from 4 feet)

Where ergonomics come in is the placing of your screen. Neck strain and resulting headaches occur if you have to look upwards at a screen for extended periods. In offices, the recommendations are that, sitting upright, the top of the screen should be no higher than level with your eyes (as a side note, actually lower if you use bifocal or varifocal lenses)

Sticking a TV high on the wall is therefore asking for trouble unless your seating allows you to recline backwards with your head supported. Then your neck can be in a relaxed position with the top of your screen in line with the top of your vision. Otherwise you have to move further away to get your head into an easier position.

I know what the relevant topics are called and have read widely on them - some of them over many years and in relation to other activities as well as watching TV.

I just have a personal preference for not being as close to the TV as others. I'm watching TV and do not particularly want an immersive experience. I know from experience that others feel the same.

I don't know why people seem incapable of understanding this.

This is not universally true. Back in the early 90's I used a very high resolution screen that had to run at ~60HZ because the graphics card couldn't run at a better rate at it's highest resolution. And I could work on that for hours.

I would agree, though, that trying to watch a 50hz TV at typical analogue resolution very close would be tiring.

I do so lots of the day, as do millions of people, no problems - the problem is more likely you.

Ask a competent Optician or an Ophthalmologist, who will tell you it causes no damage whatsoever.

EDIT: - to be helpful, you need to see an optician anyway, as it sounds like you're long sighted - or if you wear glasses?, your prescription is wrong.

For the pedants, then.....

With my system DD 2.0 does sound better than mpeg1 layer 2.

However the point I made is still valid as far as my system and my hearing is concerned.

Does it in blind tests though?

No, my eyesite is very good. At the very least, working with CRTs is very, very tiring on the eyes.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6360663_cr...ye-strain.html

50% suffer from eyestrain. Theres also a recommended distances to sit from them between 20 and 40" so parents would be entirely correct in telling kids to move away from a TC CRT which has an even lower refresh rate with worse flickering.

"You should highly consider purchasing an LCD monitor to improve your visual performance, according to Alan Hedge of Cornell University"

Case closed, Id say.

A single quote from someone at a foreign university is hardly grounds for saying: "case closed".

I used flat screen CRT's for years without any eye problems whatsoever.

There were many places where you could find rooms full of people working all day with CRT's with no problems.

The people most likely to suffer from eye strain were those who were just starting to need glasses for close work and hadn't realised that yet.

I've got better things to do with my time.

The recommended distances are so you are far enough away not to see the lines or defects in SD, and don't apply to HD anyway.

Eyestrain is generally because of long sightedness, so staining to see close up - or incorrect prescription glasses.


Which makes no comment at all about 'damaging your eyesight' - LCD monitors are certainly better in some respects, but it's nothing to do with eye damage.

Because you probably used a high refresh rate, i have no problems with anything at 75hz or over but 60h monitor is bad and a 50hz TV is even worse.

Its quite clear that anyone who ignores expert opinion on matters is never going to change their mind, no matter what.

So how would you explain a 75hz monitor is perfectly fine but a flickering 60hz monitor causes strain?

Its got nothing to do with focusing or bad eyes.