You have a penchant for stating the obvious, it seems. It's widely known that smaller (and lower volume) premium displays are far more expensive than their high-volume large size counterparts. And I never mentioned changing scaling as a function of
both screen size
and viewing distance, just that having the display further away necessitates higher scaling at a give size and resolution at any given size. Pixel density and thus perceived resolution is a function of actual resolution and the field of view taken up by the display after all, the latter of which is largely down to panel size and viewing distance, so in theory scaling can be kept at the same level for any two displays of the same resolution but any size as long as viewing distance is adjusted accordingly. My HTPC is set to 250% scaling, which I find comfortable and usable at ~10 feet, 55" display size and UHD resolution.
As for using a 55" display at four feet? No thanks. That would make something like 3/4 of the screen essentially useless, as you'd need to crane your neck to see anything on it. That's a recipe for neck and back problems. Just as an example, the THX recommendation for movie viewing (which mostly assumes a focal point at the centre of the display, with edges relegated to peripheral vision, unlike PC monitors which are typically actively used across the majority of their surface), a 4-foot viewing distance would mean a 36" recommended panel size. For a 55" display size, the recommended THX viewing distance is 6 feet. Factoring in the different use cases of PCs vs. movie watching, even 6 feet for a 55" monitor would be an ergonomic nightmare, and would make the vast majority of the panel essentially useless as you wouldn't be able to use more than a tiny portion of it at a time. Humans are able to keep roughly a 5-8° field of view in focus at any time, and comfortable eye movement expands that a little, but nowhere near the 53° of a 55" display at 4' (even if our total field of view is ~210°). That means that you'd need to actively move your head to even be able to perceive what is actually going on on the rest of the display. Use cases like that work in highly dynamic workflows (where a lot of data needs sporadic monitoring) or highly static workflows (where work is done on one area for a while, then moves on to another, like in multi-monitor setups), or where the peripheral areas can be used for peripheral, non-specific information (colored labels indicating various data, etc.). For gaming? It would be
terrible, as you'd need to rapidly move your head around to both gain an overview of the field of play as well as simple tasks like monitoring the GUI. A few hours of that and your neck muscles would be hurting badly. That's why I said 10' for a 55" panel - as that results in a 22.6° field of view coverage for the panel, which makes it relatively accessible. 8-10' would likely be fine, with 6' good for movies but not gaming or work, and 4' essentially unusable for anything unless you're happy treating the monitor as if it's a multi-screen setup where only a small portion is used at a time.
Seems like we have some more details on the 32" one, which is called the PG32UQ (no pricing, NA availability in Q2):
ASUS has unveiled a ROG Swift PG32UQ gaming monitor that can handle your PS5 and Xbox Series X games at 4K and 120Hz.
www.engadget.com
32" HDR600, 98% P3, 120Hz HDMI 2.1/144Hz DP 1.4 DSC
It's probably going to be ridiculously expensive, but I still want one. Looks pretty much exactly like what I want in my next monitor.
