5 ms·

To be replaced soon by "4k video is very silly indeed" If you look at the angular resolution of the eye, unless you are sitting very close to the screen, you c

To be replaced soon by "4k video is very silly indeed" If you look at the angular resolution of the eye, unless you are sitting very close to the screen, you can't resolve 4k video.

combatentropy 9y ago
Yes, I've measured my eyes' resolution to be about 60 pixels per degree. I made a black-and-white grid and set it as my desktop picture, with a one-to-one magnification. Then I backed away until I could not discern the pixels. There's even a moire effect, like with cameras, as I reached my threshold. Then I used trigonometry to calculate my angle of view. Most living-room TVs are probably placed at a 15- to 25-degree angle of view. 1920x1080 is enough for up to a 32-degree horizontal angle of view, which is 7 feet away from a TV with a 55" diagonal, for example. I will say, however, that movie theaters look a little better with 4K, since 30 degrees is supposed to be the back row, and the front row might be 60 or so.
jaquers 9y ago
Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but I think that's sort of the point. You want a high enough pixel density so you can't perceive pixels at normal viewing distance, and I can definitely see pixels on my 42in 1080p screen from across the room.
- sundvor 9y ago
  I'm going to go for "sarcasm" there. I use a 65" 4k TV with my HTPC in the living room, but often do desktop-ish things on it. (Logitech's wireless keyboards are great). The difference in resolution between 1080 and 2160 is huge. 1080 is just fuzzy.
  - quickthrower2 9y ago
    65 freaking inches! Of course you are gonna need 4k
stephen_g 9y ago
That's not true at all. I can visually discern 4K from 1080p on my desktop monitors (4K 27 inch) and even on my 15 inch Retina MacBook if I try. On a large TV it's generally fairly easy too. Sure, if you're looking at a little 40" TV five meters away, not so much, but for many screens in common use 4K is useful (but getting close to the point of diminishing returns, sure). Whereas as this article says, higher than 48kHz audio should be literally impossible to discern for any human in any setup.

To be replaced soon by "4k video is very silly indeed" If you look at the angular resolution of the eye, unless you are sitting very close to the screen, you can't resolve 4k video.

combatentropy 9y ago

Yes, I've measured my eyes' resolution to be about 60 pixels per degree. I made a black-and-white grid and set it as my desktop picture, with a one-to-one magnification. Then I backed away until I could not discern the pixels. There's even a moire effect, like with cameras, as I reached my threshold. Then I used trigonometry to calculate my angle of view. Most living-room TVs are probably placed at a 15- to 25-degree angle of view. 1920x1080 is enough for up to a 32-degree horizontal angle of view, which is 7 feet away from a TV with a 55" diagonal, for example. I will say, however, that movie theaters look a little better with 4K, since 30 degrees is supposed to be the back row, and the front row might be 60 or so.

jaquers 9y ago

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but I think that's sort of the point. You want a high enough pixel density so you can't perceive pixels at normal viewing distance, and I can definitely see pixels on my 42in 1080p screen from across the room.

sundvor 9y ago
I'm going to go for "sarcasm" there. I use a 65" 4k TV with my HTPC in the living room, but often do desktop-ish things on it. (Logitech's wireless keyboards are great). The difference in resolution between 1080 and 2160 is huge. 1080 is just fuzzy.
- quickthrower2 9y ago
  65 freaking inches! Of course you are gonna need 4k

stephen_g 9y ago

That's not true at all. I can visually discern 4K from 1080p on my desktop monitors (4K 27 inch) and even on my 15 inch Retina MacBook if I try. On a large TV it's generally fairly easy too. Sure, if you're looking at a little 40" TV five meters away, not so much, but for many screens in common use 4K is useful (but getting close to the point of diminishing returns, sure). Whereas as this article says, higher than 48kHz audio should be literally impossible to discern for any human in any setup.