Pays thousands of dollars for a giant TV instead of just moving his chair/couch closer to a small TV for the exact same...

>Being too retarded to understand that it was just a captivating image to illustrate the point

Attached: 1566955224059.jpg (460x366, 22.66K)

Isn’t staring up close to the screen really bad for your eyes?

that's a meme made up by mothers who were tired of their piece of shit kids blocking the view of the tv

It depends in the size of your room. 40" is way too small unless you're talking about an apartment. If you're talking about a house living room, 55" minimum is the sweet spot.

did you really fall for that?

Bretty much this. 32" for really small apartments or rooms. 40" for apartments, and 55" for houses. The only time it's ever acceptable to get a TV larger than this is if you have an actual movie theater in your house for the meme "experience".

somehow the electronics industry managed to use marketing to trick retards into believing that large TVs are status symbols.

so mouthbreathers will literally go into debt to get a large TV to improve their social standing. take note that most people with retardedly large TVs are otherwise poor people who live on credit. not all, but most.

>boomer pays thousands of dollars on a pc and screens to play solitaire

it's hilarious when you see low IQ boomers who have 60 inch TVs and don't even know the difference between standard definition and high definition channels

>take note that most people with retardedly large TVs are otherwise poor people who live on credit
Literally me

Attached: 1573156918541.jpg (518x482, 36.08K)

I'd believe this meme if TVs weren't so cheap. Seriously, go look up some TV prices. My GTX1070 SC costs more when I bought it than a 55" LG TV does today (both around $700 CAD).

I watch all of my movies on my tablet with headphones. I tape the tablet around my head with the screen right in front of my eyeballs and its feels the same as being in an imax

Yes and if you cross your eyes they'll stay that way

No. In fact, screens are designed so that no amount of staring, and from any distance, could possibly cause eye damage

It's a general trend though and it isn't invalidated by TVs being cheap, quite the contrary. A general rule in the US and Europe is that the poorer someone is, the larger their TV is. Because a TV is where they can afford to up their social standing by a notch, rather than buying an expensive car or live in an expensive neighborhood like middle class people.

my 65 inch, 4k tv cost 500 bucks

Also, take note that the richer someone is, the less likelihood of them even having a TV. Usually they have a dedicated movie theater for when they want to enjoy film, while the living room is a no-TV-zone.
Just go look up real estate ads of really expensive houses. TVs are either small or there aren't any TVs at all.

Expensive cars are signs of retardation

Imagine dropping 200k on a fucking car that will get you from A to B exactly the same as a 5k car because you live in a fucking city

Ideal screen size and sitting distance from screen were worked out scientifically by ergonomicists decades ago. Here's a chart that factors in screen resolution.

Attached: viewingdistanceresolutioncomparison[1].jpg (875x625, 138.84K)

Yes, I agree. But expensive cars are just the middle class equivalent of expensive TVs for poor people. Both are used to appear or feel wealthier than they really are.

>1080 and 4k
>decades ago
Explain

PS basically the optimum size for your TV is a function of the size of the room it's in and where you want to sit. There is no one size fits all solution.

Attached: images[1].jpg (281x179, 10.52K)

That's an impressive amount of cope.

1 decade is ten years

Yes and "decades" means multiple decades. Meaning 20+ years. I didn't realize 4k was around 20+ years ago

Obviously the chart is more recent than when designers started researching the topic. People figured out how to build stairs scientifically back in the 17th century but that didn't stop the escalator from being invented.

that's sort of OPs point. moving your couch closer to the TV costs $0 and has the same effect as buying a much larger TV and leaving the couch where it is.

it's like buying a $1000 magnifying glass instead of just moving your head closer to look at something

Home video projection has been around much longer. Besides that chart is only from 2006

It wasn't. People started researching optimum screen sizes and sitting distances when televisions were first invented. Increases in resolution were later factored in as the field developed. I showed you a chart factoring in modern resolutions because it would be more helpful to you than showing you a room layout suggestion from a television owner's manual from the 1950s.

Moving your couch closer to the TV isn't ideal in a lot of rooms. You should just buy a TV that's actually fitted properly to your room.

I'm not sure I agree with that. It might have been true at one point in time, but I think it's no longer a trend, at least in the US.
I don't know any people I'd classify as truly poor nor have been in their houses so I can't speak for that demographic (I'd classify myself as poor but I have no TV, just a bunch of computers).
But as far as middle class suburbanites go, the TV sizes and likelihood are pretty random.
I think if there's a trend to be had, it's that people over 40 tend to have TVs, people younger than 40 tend not to have a TV, opting for watching their movies on PC, tablets, laptops, phones etc.
Especially young people who work simply don't have time to sit in front of a TV to watch something. They might watch stuff on their laptops in between reading/answering emails or on their phone while on the toilet. So as a result as part of the 'middle class' they have no use for a TV.
Also real estate ads of really expensive houses tend not to have TVs for other reasons, not specifically because the owners didn't have one. Appliances are pretty much the first thing people replace when buying a home. TVs are cheap and something people tend to prefer to buy to their own specifications, especially since smart TVs now are personalized with netflix/amazon logins linked to credit cards and people are technological noobs and don't know how to delete their credentials. For instance, some people might not like a TV in a certain room, so having it there just makes the property less appealing. People tend to replace virtually all the furniture in really expensive houses too, I don't know anyone that has purchased a fully furnished home and just moved in, instead of buying their own dining tables, lights, chairs, sofas etc.

But what if I want to watch movies and play games with my friens, while kicking back at the couch

Because dpi is shit and u can see the pixels moron

I can tell a 4k tv from the other side of a building.
Your graph is full of shit.

>imagine being american and habing to walk with your feet to measure distance between tv

>pay thousands

retard

Literally the only reason I have a TV is for when I have guests over - and it's linked to my PC anyway

If there's ONE item to really spend money on, it's a desk chair. If you're anything like me you'll be spending most of your off-hours in it. If you're just like me, you work from home too so you're spending anywhere from 8-16 hours a day in it. That shit better be good. I spent more time researching my desk chair than my fucking car or even my apartment.

I can't even tolerate 1080p monitors anymore let alone a tv