Howard, seriously mate, you are kidding right?

 

Obviously it has to to be filmed in HD, that's obvious, but you were referring to the screen, not the footage..

It also has nothing to do with "designer labels", not even close, because who makes a TV is irrelevant, so that analogy doesn't even apply.

 

Marketing ploy.... PMSL :LMAO:

No offence mate, but me thinks you need some new books..

 

You can film it on the highest resolution available, but if your watching it on some pile-o-shite screen, its gonna look like a pile-o-shite..

 

The screen size itself is simply relevant to the distance your watching it from as the pixels are bigger..

Hi Richard, with my entire career spent both as a photographer and a TV cameraman, I feel my opinion regards to image capture and display is somewhat relevent. Perhaps I did not communicate my point very well and for that I apologise. What I tried to say, quite simply, is that the term HiDef is purely subjective. I have seen socalled HiDef TV's that are sold as being HiDef where the image has been quite frankly, crap. The term HiFi is another term that has been completely hijacked and bludgeoned. Go into any Tescos or Argos and see how many 'HiFIs' they are selling for under £150! No, the term HiFi, or to be correct Hi Fidelity is a term that relates to the highest possible quality of sound that audiophile fanatics would pay good money for. The same applies to HiDef TVs, Ok a TV has to adhere to a certain resolution requirement, but beyond that it appears that anything goes. So for me, simply because a monitor or TV reproduces an image at a specific resolution, does not mean it's HiDef. As I say, the term HiDef is purely subjective IMO :smile:

Absolutely, your opinion is totally relevant, but the facts don't match that, because HD relates purely to the resolution that content is recorded in(Primarily) and played back on(Secondary)..

With so many different lenses/cameras/dvd players and lighting conditions, I'm sure no 2 pieces of video would ever look the same from different devices, hence why HD refers simply to the resolution, and nothing more..

 

Sure you can watch 1080 HD on a £100 TV or a £3000 TV, and the differences will also be reflected in the quality of what your watching it on, but its not subjective at all, its simple resolution, period. Its the difference in quality that's subjective, not if its HD or not... What you watch it on is your loss/gain but its still HD if the pixel count is correct.

 

That's what I was trying to get at..

The screen size itself is simply relevant to the distance your watching it from as the pixels are bigger..

So for 1920x1080 screens:

1) Is there an optimum screen size for a typical sim pit?

2) Can someone suggest an optimum screen size vs distance relationship?

3) Where does the pixel density fit into all this?

1) You have to decide what works for you. I find 40" to be the best compromise. Any larger and you'll really want more resolution (4K), but 40" is still way to small to get lifesize cockpit instruments and still have view outside of the cockpit. I'll be gettting a 50"+ 4K TV next time around.

2) I use a 40" behind a Saitek cockpit setup. I'm about 0,6-0,8 meter away from the screen.

3) The larger the size ot the screen, the less dense the pixels are, hence image quality becomes poorer. If you increase the viewing distance the lack of proper resolution becomes less noticable.