Display Technology

Why smaller pixel pitch isn’t always better

The right pixel pitch doesn’t begin with resolution. It begins with reality.

Photo: Generated by AI. Adobe Stock.

August 7, 2025 by Alex Lau — Manager, Ekintry

You'd be surprised how many times I've seen people rush into buying an indoor LED screen just because it has the smallest pixel pitch on the spec sheet. There's this assumption that smaller automatically means better, sharper, more premium. It makes sense if you're staring at a product catalog — but in real-world projects, that logic doesn't always hold up.

If you've ever actually stood five meters away from a screen, I mean really stood there and looked, you'd notice that the difference between P1.5 and P2.5 isn't always obvious. At least not to the naked eye. But the price difference?

Oh, you'll feel that.In indoor settings, where viewers aren't walking around at random distances like in a stadium, pitch selection becomes more predictable — and more strategic. We often go back to this rough but helpful rule: 1mm of pixel pitch corresponds to about 1 meter of optimal viewing distance. So if people are going to stand two to three meters away, a pitch somewhere between P2.0 and P2.5 is usually more than enough.

Context is everything

But here's where it gets tricky. That logic doesn't show up in spec sheets. What you get there are numbers and marketing terms. You don't get the context — the layout of your space, the lighting, the way people move around the screen. And that context is everything.

Take retail, for example. In a storefront display, the viewing distance might be 2.5 meters at most. You might be tempted to go ultra-fine, something like P1.2. It sounds great. But once installed, no one notices the finer resolution—what they do notice is the vibrancy, the brightness, and whether the content actually fits the environment. And you've just spent thousands more for clarity that's invisible in practice.

Now on the flip side, there are situations where going too coarse doesn't make sense either. I've seen people use P3.9 modules in boardrooms where everyone is seated just two meters away. Not ideal. You can start to see the pixel structure, especially on static text. So again, it's not about bigger or smaller — it's about what fits.

There's another angle to this too. When you go ultra-small on pitch, you're not just paying more for panels. The whole system ramps up. Power consumption increases, heat becomes a factor, and you need better ventilation. Maintenance gets more complicated. In some cases, you're locking yourself into a narrower range of supported video resolutions just to match the screen's pixel matrix. All of that, and again, for what? A difference the viewer can't perceive?

In one setup I visited — this wasn't a client of mine, just something I saw while traveling — they had a massive wraparound screen used for a flight simulator arcade game. Looked amazing, sure. But when I got closer, I realized it was running P2.5, and from the 2.5-meter player position, it looked just right. Crisp, immersive, not overkill. Would P1.5 have been better? Maybe. Would anyone have noticed or cared?

Questions to ask

What I'm getting at is this: don't get seduced by the spec sheet. Walk the space. Measure the viewing distance. Think about the type of content you're going to show.

Is it fast motion? Static text? A looping visual brand message? How long will people stand in front of it? Are they seated? Moving? Looking sideways?

These are the questions that lead to good pitch choices.

I'm not against high-res displays — far from it. In the right setting, they're incredible. But a well-selected P2.9 display in a shopping mall can do more for impact and engagement than a P1.2 that's misused in a space that doesn't need it.

If you're ever in doubt, start with the people, not the pixels. The right pixel pitch doesn't begin with resolution. It begins with reality.

About Alex Lau

---