Earlier this week, Damon Darlin of the New York Times conducted a phone interview with me. The article (It’s O.K. to Fall Behind the Technology Curve) was published today. For those finding my site because of his article, here are links to some relevant pages on my site:

• 1080p Does Matter - Here’s When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)
• Home Theater Seatings Distances: Field-of-View vs. Resolution
• Visual Acuity Viewing Distance: Test It for Yourself

This has been a month of Linux for me. I've worked with Linux and Unix for years (webservers, TiVo) but never on a daily basis. I just now made the switch on my main desktop PC (which is also my file server for music and movies).

So far, Ubuntu Desktop 6.10 has been somewhat frustrating but tolerable. I dislike how it's not as easy or familiar as Windows. My biggest complaint is that many of my media programs don't have suitable equivalents (such as a CD ripper with AccurateRip support or an easy-to-use Video editing program for TiVo files.) But those problems aside, the file server feature (that serves movies to my home theater computer) is running much better than it did under Windows Server 2003 and there are fewer glitches in general.

What finally prompted me to make the switch? A drive in my HD TiVo failed, so I spent a bunch of time backing up shows, re-imaging, and re-modifying my TiVo. Pretty much all of that time was at a Linux command prompt. Forgetting which command I needed to type into the command prompt was frustrating. But figuring out what to do and doing it properly was rewarding. The experience was positive overall and is really what gave me the courage to switch my server over to Linux. I felt working with it on a regular basis would keep me thinking and better prepared for future trials.
I've also started writing Linux shell scripts to automate some tasks on my TiVo. It's very similar to some DOS scripting I did years ago. I read a couple of tutorials, looked at a sample scripts, and had very few problems with my first attempt. I guess I like the challenge of learning something new, because I've definitely spent more time working on the scripts than I did saving time running them.

This is a follow-up to my article on HDTV screen resolution vs a persons ability to perceive any advantage. Before the link to the test pattern, I want to make it clear that the results vary greatly with the content. With an anti-aliased image (i.e. a photograph of a person with many color gradients), it would be much more difficult to detect a single pixel. With a non-anti-aliased image (solid single-color lines), pixels become much more apparent.

To allow everyone to conduct a simple test for themselves, I created a sample a page that is half-way in between the scenarios described above. It is a pixel-by-pixel black and white checkerboard background covering the entire page. When you are very close to the screen, you can tell it is 1-pixel by 1-pixel black & white checkerboard. Farther away, it looks like a gray box. The idea is that you find the distance at which it looks like a gray box, and that is the visual acuity viewing distance for your display.

Disclaimer: this test page is designed to work only on an LCD monitor with pixel-perfect rendering. In other words, the LCD monitor must be running at its native resolution. If you have an analog LCD or a CRT monitor, this test will not work. If it works, you'll see a page entirely covered with an extremely tiny pixel-by-pixel checkerboard. If it doesn't work on your monitor, you'll see a wavy red-green-blue shifting pattern that it totally useless.

Here is the link to the pixel-by-pixel test pattern for LCD monitors:
http://www.carltonbale.com/pixel_by_pixel_checkerboard/

Determining your Visual Acuity Viewing Distance: The point at which you stop seeing a black and white checkerboard and see instead a gray box is the visual acuity viewing distance for your LCD monitor and your eyeball.

So, what is your visual acuity viewing distance? I'm interested to see the results others get. Please include the following in your comment:

• Your LCD monitor native resolution
• Your screen size (diagonal)
• Your Visual Acuity Viewing Distance

Here is some high-magnification photographic proof that this is a perfect pixel-by-pixel checkerboard (at least on my monitor).

Nicole had another doctors appointment today. Since it was going to be a multi-hour ordeal and I was working, I didn't go with her. She called me and I was nervous as to whether or not it would be good news or bad news. I was afraid to ask and we talked for a minute or two before she casually mentioned that she heard the heart beat. I can't believe it — our little speck has a heart beat! I could hardly speak I was so surprised and excited! This is definitely good news!

I was curious what our little speck was like, so I looked-up some info on wikipedia:

Week 4 (6th week of pregnancy)

• The embryo measures 4 mm (1/8 inch) in length and begins to curve into a C shape.
• Somites, the divisions of the future vertebra, form.
• The heart bulges, further develops, and begins to beat in a regular rhythm.
• Branchial arches, grooves which will form structures of the face and neck, form.
• The neural tube closes.
• The ears begin to form as otic pits.
• Arm buds and a tail are visible

Late Saturday night I started noticing a few more comments than usual on my site. On Sunday, I received even more. Wondering what was going on, I logged into my Google Analytis account and found that the largest referrer to my site was engadgethd.com. Hmmm, now that's something now. I figured I must have written something to warrant a post from them and found out I did. They've referenced that same post in a couple of other articles as well. Thanks to EngadgetHD for the link and for sharing info on when high def screen resolutions are important (and when they're not).

Edit: My article is also mentioned in the podcast from that week.  Well, at least someone named "Carlton Babble or something" is.
For anyone curious, the result of the link was an increase in site traffic from an average of 1,200 page views/day to 21,000 page/views per day. There was also an increase in referrers from stumbleupon.com and del.icio.us as well, probably because of the EngadgetHD article. I'm not sure how word got out, but my best guess is that the article was first posted on digg.com, then was referenced on avsforum.com, and finally picked-up by EngadgetHD.com. Here is a graphical summary of the change in site traffic:

There are two different factors to determine how close a viewer should sit to the screen of their home theater (field-of-view and picture resolution). To choose a proper distance, it is necessary to understand the impacts of both, and understand when trade-offs occur.

There are multiple ideal seating distances depending on the equipment and the preferences of the viewer. Here the details of these two separate factors:

1. Field-of-View based viewing distances: The THX and SMPTE specifications are based on a field-of-view being a certain width or wider, meaning that all seats must be closer than a certain distance to the screen. In general, the wider the field of view (the closer the viewer sits to the screen), the better. This specification does not take screen resolution into account.
2. Resolution based viewing distances: The Visual Acuity distance is based on resolution of the screen vs. the resolution capability of the human eye. Unlike the field-of-view based distances, this occurs at a fixed distance from the screen (where eye resolution = screen resolution). If the viewer moves further than this distance from the screen, they start losing out on the available resolution of the screen (eye resolution < screen resolution). If the viewer moves closer than this distance to the screen, the deficiencies in the projected image start to become more apparent (eye resolution > screen resolution). This specification does not take field-of-view into account.

With a 1280×720 projector, the viewer must make a decision as to which is more important: no visible resolution deficiency or adequate field-of-view width. If the THX specification is used, the viewer will be close enough to detect resolution deficiencies at the max seating distance (or closer). If the Visual Acuity distance is used, the user will be too far away from the screen to have a wide enough field-of-view. Here is a chart comparing the two:

As is discussed in this previous post [1080p does Matter. . .], the significance of the 1920×1080 resolution is that it is the lowest resolution at which there is overlap between the Field-of-View based viewing distance and the Resolution based viewing distance. In other words, these two specifications are no longer mutually-exclusive. The resolution of the screen is significant enough to match the resolving capability of the human eye and, at the same time, give an adequately wide field-of-view. (Note: 1920×1080 resolution-based viewing distance falls slightly short of the THX Recommended Max Viewing Distance, but it does meet the SMPTE Max and THX Allowable Max distances.)

I was recently asked if sitting 2/3rds of the way back in a commercial theater is too close. The answer is: it depends. You would need to 1) specify the resolution of the screen (pixels or film grain size) and 2) specify which is more important to you: a wide field of view -or- no apparent resolution deficiencies -or- both. Maybe the resolution is so high that sitting even closer would result in both better perceived picture quality as well as a more immersive field-of-view. Maybe not. It depends on the image resolution.

In my personal opinion, I think that having a wide field-of-view is the most important factor. Also, resolution-based seating distances are subject to much more person-to-person variation and are more of an estimate than are field-of-view calculations. However, every seating distance that meets the THX specification is not necessarily a great place to sit because the THX specification does not take screen resolution into account. It is important to understand the limitations of the THX spec, understand the interaction with screen resolution, and then choose the equipment and the seating configuration that best fits your needs.

I know of no published minimum seating distance specification based on field-of-view. At some point between the rear row (a 36 degree field-of-view) and the front row (approaching a 180 degree field-of-view) in a commercial theater, viewing becomes sub-optimal because the pixel density/film grain structure is insufficient and/or the field-of-view becomes too wide. I believe that, for practical reasons, THX has not published a minimum seating distance. No theater would pay for the THX certification if it meant that they had to remove the front 20 rows from every theater (they probably just assume most shows won’t be sold-out and the bad seats in the front rows usually go unoccupied.)

“Proper seating distance" is not an easy value to define and is truly in the eye of the beholder. But it is worthwhile to understand the various factors when looking for it.

If you're wondering what the proper seating distance should be for your specific home theater, you may be interested in my Home Theater Calculator Spreadsheet.