9 ms·

There are a lot of comments debating whether 8K is worthwhile vs 4K, and whether we can see a difference. I decided to do some math. Let's assume someone has a

There are a lot of comments debating whether 8K is worthwhile vs 4K, and whether we can see a difference. I decided to do some math. Let's assume someone has a 65in (165cm) TV and sits 6.5ft (~2m) away. This is a larger TV than most people have, and a closer viewing distance than most people sit. Let's also assume that the viewer has 20/12.5 (6/3.75) vision. 20/20 (6/6) is the low end of normal, and it isn't uncommon to have slightly better vision. My optometrist (my fiancée) can correct me to about 20/15, but 20/12.5 is unusually good. The screen width is 56.65in. At this distance, that subtends an angle of about 40 degrees: >>> math.degrees(2 * math.atan(56.65475464133182 / (2 * 6.5 * 12))) 39.9191582380095 20/12.5 vision corresponds to 48 cycles per degrees, or 96 pixels per degree, distinguishable (20/20 is generally accepted to be 30 cycles per degree). Therefore, the viewer can distinguish 96 * 40 = 3840 pixels horizontally. Which is UHD 4K resolution. I chose the inputs to get to that result, but my point is that viewers would need to have unusually good vision, and unusually large TV, and be sitting unusually close to hit the limits of 4k. And that's only for very high contrast images, like black text on a white background. Our eyes are less sensitive to low contrast transitions, as found in most videos. Try reading an eye chart with the letters printed in gray on a lighter gray background. It's more difficult! I think there are much better things we can use our limited bandwidth for than increasing resolution: we could use better compression codecs at higher bitrates, reduce or eliminate chroma subsampling, increase color depth and/or gamut for HDR content, or use higher framerates for content where that is appropriate. EDIT: Here's a source for 20/20 = 30 cycles per degree, and 20/12.5 vision being unusually good: https://www.opt.uh.edu/onlinecoursematerials/stevenson-5320/L08Acuity.pdf https://www.opt.uh.edu/onlinecoursematerials/stevenson-5320/...

the8472 8y ago
Is there a difference between visual acuity for static and moving images? What about the square pixel grid, I've read that a hexagonal one would be better in principle for our visual system. Basically, could higher resolution help in some edge cases? > we could use better compression codecs at higher bitrates, reduce or eliminate chroma subsampling, increase color depth and/or gamut for HDR content Those are likely to be rolled out in tandem with new resolution standards[0] [0] https://i.imgur.com/phONmPZ.jpg https://i.imgur.com/phONmPZ.jpg
- the_clarence 8y ago
  What really matters there is not the resolution but the refresh rate, which is already good with modern TVs so what really matters are directors upgrading to HFR (48 frame per sec) or 60FPS. It’s coming :)
  - kristianp 8y ago
    That would be nice, but is it really coming? The first hobbit movie was a big introduction to hfr movies and the reviews were very negative. There hasn't been much interest in 60fps movies since then.
    - the_clarence 8y ago
      Same for color and sound when it came out. It’ll take some time for people to adjust but it is definitely coming.
conanthe 8y ago
You are assuming that people keep their heads static whilst they are watching which is not true. If you move your head you'll see any subset of that 8k picture which makes it more "real" to the viewer.
- tigershark 8y ago
  How moving your head increases the maximum resolution of your fovea?
  - conanthe 8y ago
    It is not but you'll see different image depending on your eyes position when looking at higher resolution image. Think of it as 8k image resampled to 4k but at different offsets. You'll effectively see more detail when moving your head than looking at 4k image.
    - conanthe 8y ago
      Why downvotes? It is essentially the same thing when you can read plates from a low resolution movie where on a single frame you can see indecipherable number of pixels but if you combine the pixels from multiple frames and recover the car's offset you can compose higher resolution picture of the plates effectively being able to read them.
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    Some speculate that microsaccades actually increase resolution and perceivable detail in static scenes by basically offsetting the retina a tiny bit. The concept definitely works and is used in practice to boost the resolution of digital image sensors ("superresolution").
woah 8y ago
Your calculations are all based on the questionable assumption that details smaller than someone can reliably distinguish in a vision test do nothing to improve the perception of clarity to the viewer.
- pistachiopro 8y ago
  Specifically, here's a good blog post explaining hyperacuity, and why 8k is at least marginally better: http://filmicworlds.com/blog/visual-acuity-is-not-what-the-eye-can-see/ http://filmicworlds.com/blog/visual-acuity-is-not-what-the-e...
  - kibwen 8y ago
    Interesting, thanks. "for complex objects stereo acuity is similar to visual acuity. But for vertical rods it can apparently be as low as 2 arc seconds (1/30th of an arc minute). In other words, 30x as strong as typical visual acuity." Assuming that the author of the blog post picked 30x as representative of the most extreme cases, and if we take the root commenter's word that 4K is approximately 1x visual acuity, and if 8K is double the width and height of 4K (is that correct?), then that suggests that by the time we reach 128K resolution (32x visual acuity, >8 billion pixels) we'll have finally mastered screen resolution, which, alas, will be of little comfort to laptop users, whose screens will inevitably still be 1920x1080. :P
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      That's only for detecting depth. The worst case a flat surface is 'retina' multiplied by 5-10.
pkulak 8y ago
Is being able to distinguish a single pixel the same thing as noticing that text is sharper? I've noticed that you can't stop doing subpixel font rendering on displays until they get far above a density that optometrists say shouldn't matter anymore.
- ramraj07 8y ago
  This. People always keep forgetting that our brain is definitely capable of some amount of superres lotion calculations especially for very specific types of structures. One aspect I've always been fascinated about is how far away someone can be when I can still tell that they're looking at me and not the person next to me. Most of the time I can definitely not read any text (even at 16 pts) if it was held at that distance but I can subconscuously tell the subtle differences in the angle their eyeballs are at. Same thing with 60fps vs 120fps. People keep saying you can tell them apart but I sure as well can at least in some instances.
  - Paperweight 8y ago
    It's also annoying when they say you shouldn't be able to tell that PWM headlights/taillights are flickering but I sure as hell can, at least!
    - freyir 8y ago
      Yeah, and when they say Wi-Fi shouldn't make my brain tingle
      - tokyodude 8y ago
        you're being downvoted and I have no idea if it would actually be possible to be sensitive to wifi but I can hear my 2014 MacBook Pro process certain things and I don't mean the fan. No idea what triggers the processing "buzz" because it's not constant but certain cpu intensive operations make a buzz I can hear so I can certainly believe a similar buzz could come from a router's processor
Keyframe 8y ago
One thing, while "minor", is that with higher dpi you get a lot less aliasing issues. With sufficiently high dpi (I've read somewhere around 800), you don't get aliasing anymore. Is that worth the bandwidth? No, of course.
- aidenn0 8y ago
  Yes, sufficiently high DPI corrects for bad mastering. If they low-pass (i.e. blur) the source before sampling then there are no aliasing artifacts.
  - justAnotherNET 8y ago
    but if you blur then you've reduced quality.
antpls 8y ago
I'm not an expert, but I think people in the comments missed a use case : you could have 1 image @ 8k, or 2 images @ 4k each, which could then be used to broadcast VR? Or 3D 4k video?
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  Lowest-common denominator will win again with yet another failed 3D format. :(
nwienert 8y ago
The sibling comments point out correctly that our brain likely can use the extra sharpness. The other thing to point out is progress. I used to think 60 inch was massive but of course it’s not that big. Our field of view is incredible, and if we’re going to admit we like watching movies we may as well do the best we can to make the experience immersive. So I’d hope the advent of 8k will also bring about 90, 120, and beyond. I think in a decade or so this will be the norm for most new TVs, and so this calculation also ignores technical progress which is good as we certainly aren’t near the maximum of an ideal cinematic experience.
- vosper 8y ago
  > So I’d hope the advent of 8k will also bring about 90, 120, and beyond. I think in a decade or so this will be the norm for most new TVs, and so this calculation also ignores technical progress which is good as we certainly aren’t near the maximum of an ideal cinematic experience. I agree, I think these screen sizes must be where the industry is going. As someone who also likes movies, and owns a 65" TV, I would love if it literally twice the size and mounted flat on/in the wall. This kind of mounting is definitely where the industry is heading, too: the highest-end TVs from LG and Samsung are ultra-thin and have the screen detached from the processing unit.
  - cgriswald 8y ago
    Past a certain size, I think I'd just go the projector route despite some of the disadvantages. I have a 78" TV and a projector shooting onto a wall roughly equivalent to a 110" television; so my threshold is somewhere between 78" and 110"... I'll also say that although I love TV and movies, there's something really nice about not having a television staring you in the face all the time.
- NewEntryHN 8y ago
  > Our field of view is incredible, and if we’re going to admit we like watching movies we may as well do the best we can to make the experience immersive. Except that the actual part of our field of vision our brain can focus on is relatively small and cinema favors pictorial representations where it's appropriate to grasp the "whole image". What you're describing is VR, whose tech isn't TV.
ahuibers 8y ago
These are good calculations. I think many people would like to go to a significantly larger field of view than 40 degrees. 40 degrees horizontally is not that much: the human visual field is over 200 degrees. OLED-on-glass-substrate is allowing TVs to get lighter making them more installable. OLED-on-plastic-substrate TVs could be shipped rolled up. They may not be that far away (<10 years).
- jnwatson 8y ago
  Or, you could just sit closer. My day-to-day monitor is a curved 49” screen? I typically sit 2-3 feet with about an 80 degree FOV. No special technology required.
antongribok 8y ago
My current setup involves a projector, where the screen width is just over 118 inches, and I sit ~ 8.5 feet away. Plugging that into your formula we get ~5780 horizontal pixels, or about 75% of 7680 provided by 8K. In the future it's easy to imagine going even more extreme if you look back to the past where the first mass-produced TV looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television#/media/File:RCA_630-TS_Television.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television#/media/File:RCA_630...
hanoz 8y ago
I'm sitting about 1.8m away from a 720p television showing a standard definition UK terrestrial signal (which is 576p) and I'm honestly baffled how anyone could want any higher res. In fact the only issue I notice is the poorer picture quality on some of the lower bitrate channels, the major channels are as clear and sharp as I'd ever want.
- iainmerrick 8y ago
  Have you tried Freeview HD? It honestly looks a lot better, even on a 720p screen. Maybe you don’t care about the difference in quality, and if so that’s totally fine, but it is definitely noticeable.
  - hanoz 8y ago
    Although my tele's Freeview decoder is SD I do get to see in all its 'full' 720p glory when using the Chromecast or Blu-ray player, and okay, if pushed I can tell the difference, but I really do not miss it at all when it's not there.
- behringer 8y ago
  Because details matter. Here's an 8k image on one side and a 576 screen on the other side. https://imgur.com/a/yqMu5VU https://imgur.com/a/yqMu5VU Don't forget to blow it up to 8k to see the full effect. Bear in mind, if you're on a 65" screen you have to be at 2 feet to appreciate the image. Unrealistic for most purposes I understand, but at 1080p, you should be at 10 feet which is about normal. 4k should be about 8 feet which is the best viewing distance in my opinion for a theater type room. It is how my theater room is personally laid out. 8k in my opinion is probably as large as any home theater screen will ever need to be. I would not turn up my nose at being able to pause the move and step up to the screen to see some details. I already do that now on my screen.
  - willtim 8y ago
    I think the parent point was that there is currently insufficient bandwidth to even make 576p look good for many channels. Given even a high bandwidth slot, 4K with low compression might look better than 8K with high compression. Specifying just "8K", is no guarantee of a quality picture.
z3t4 8y ago
Reading small text is probably where you will see the biggest difference. Higher resolution will also make a bad (but capable) screen look better (eg 4K JPEG upsampled to 8K on a good display vs 8K on a worse display)
nkkollaw 8y ago
True. However, one thing that 8K would be really good at is zooming content: even if zoomed at 10x, the image would still look good. Admittedly, I have no idea why someone would want to zoom video content.
- rangibaby 8y ago
  it will be nice for watching TV shows on YouTube that are a little postage stamp in the corner to fool content id
bitL 8y ago
Now having 4k at 4:2:0 is equal to having 4:4:4 1080p. There is hope that having 8k at 4:2:0 will be like a proper 4:4:4 4k ;-)
zmarty 8y ago
Whenever I see these kinds of calculations I just roll my eyes, because video is compressed. There is a very good practical reason why you want 8K. It's the online streaming bitrate! Today if you watch 4K video on Netflix they use 20 Mbps, give or take. That in my opinion is NOT good enough for 4K (UHD). The reason why I am looking forward to 8K is that then they will finally have better video bitrate. So 8K bitrate would be probably be equivalent to reasonable 4K video bitrate.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  You're not necessarily wrong per se, but it's really, really stupid that we need to buy higher res screens as an end-around to getting streaming content providers to give us higher bitrate videos. You can increase bitrate without increasing the resolution.
lostmsu 8y ago
For that calculation to work, the pixels of the screen must have 1:1 match with eye sensory elements, and must be positioned perfectly on (sensory element-lens center-pixel) line. Since it's not the case, you will see the difference. It will become completely indistinguishable when error caused by that imperfection will be less than some threshold, for which you'd need higher density. Of course, the positive effect of density diminishes as it goes up, and only makes sense if you want absolute realism of the picture, which would also require sensory-element perfect 3D mapping.
pasbesoin 8y ago
What happens when you throw the motion of somebody's head and/or eyes into the mix? When you are not viewing from an absolutely fixed position? This isn't a troll. I don't know, so I'm asking whether it can be a factor.
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
It will make for some amazing interactive display screens. The latest video slot machines with vertical curved screens are already impressive. Imagine having an immersive touchscreen console for something more productive than gambling. For media consumption at longer viewing distances is is clearly pointless.

the8472 8y ago

Is there a difference between visual acuity for static and moving images? What about the square pixel grid, I've read that a hexagonal one would be better in principle for our visual system. Basically, could higher resolution help in some edge cases? > we could use better compression codecs at higher bitrates, reduce or eliminate chroma subsampling, increase color depth and/or gamut for HDR content Those are likely to be rolled out in tandem with new resolution standards[0] [0] https://i.imgur.com/phONmPZ.jpg https://i.imgur.com/phONmPZ.jpg

the_clarence 8y ago
What really matters there is not the resolution but the refresh rate, which is already good with modern TVs so what really matters are directors upgrading to HFR (48 frame per sec) or 60FPS. It’s coming :)
- kristianp 8y ago
  That would be nice, but is it really coming? The first hobbit movie was a big introduction to hfr movies and the reviews were very negative. There hasn't been much interest in 60fps movies since then.
  - the_clarence 8y ago
    Same for color and sound when it came out. It’ll take some time for people to adjust but it is definitely coming.

conanthe 8y ago

You are assuming that people keep their heads static whilst they are watching which is not true. If you move your head you'll see any subset of that 8k picture which makes it more "real" to the viewer.

tigershark 8y ago
How moving your head increases the maximum resolution of your fovea?
- conanthe 8y ago
  It is not but you'll see different image depending on your eyes position when looking at higher resolution image. Think of it as 8k image resampled to 4k but at different offsets. You'll effectively see more detail when moving your head than looking at 4k image.
  - conanthe 8y ago
    Why downvotes? It is essentially the same thing when you can read plates from a low resolution movie where on a single frame you can see indecipherable number of pixels but if you combine the pixels from multiple frames and recover the car's offset you can compose higher resolution picture of the plates effectively being able to read them.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  Some speculate that microsaccades actually increase resolution and perceivable detail in static scenes by basically offsetting the retina a tiny bit. The concept definitely works and is used in practice to boost the resolution of digital image sensors ("superresolution").

woah 8y ago

Your calculations are all based on the questionable assumption that details smaller than someone can reliably distinguish in a vision test do nothing to improve the perception of clarity to the viewer.

pistachiopro 8y ago
Specifically, here's a good blog post explaining hyperacuity, and why 8k is at least marginally better: http://filmicworlds.com/blog/visual-acuity-is-not-what-the-eye-can-see/ http://filmicworlds.com/blog/visual-acuity-is-not-what-the-e...
- kibwen 8y ago
  Interesting, thanks. "for complex objects stereo acuity is similar to visual acuity. But for vertical rods it can apparently be as low as 2 arc seconds (1/30th of an arc minute). In other words, 30x as strong as typical visual acuity." Assuming that the author of the blog post picked 30x as representative of the most extreme cases, and if we take the root commenter's word that 4K is approximately 1x visual acuity, and if 8K is double the width and height of 4K (is that correct?), then that suggests that by the time we reach 128K resolution (32x visual acuity, >8 billion pixels) we'll have finally mastered screen resolution, which, alas, will be of little comfort to laptop users, whose screens will inevitably still be 1920x1080. :P
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    That's only for detecting depth. The worst case a flat surface is 'retina' multiplied by 5-10.

pkulak 8y ago

Is being able to distinguish a single pixel the same thing as noticing that text is sharper? I've noticed that you can't stop doing subpixel font rendering on displays until they get far above a density that optometrists say shouldn't matter anymore.

ramraj07 8y ago
This. People always keep forgetting that our brain is definitely capable of some amount of superres lotion calculations especially for very specific types of structures. One aspect I've always been fascinated about is how far away someone can be when I can still tell that they're looking at me and not the person next to me. Most of the time I can definitely not read any text (even at 16 pts) if it was held at that distance but I can subconscuously tell the subtle differences in the angle their eyeballs are at. Same thing with 60fps vs 120fps. People keep saying you can tell them apart but I sure as well can at least in some instances.
- Paperweight 8y ago
  It's also annoying when they say you shouldn't be able to tell that PWM headlights/taillights are flickering but I sure as hell can, at least!
  - freyir 8y ago
    Yeah, and when they say Wi-Fi shouldn't make my brain tingle
    - tokyodude 8y ago
      you're being downvoted and I have no idea if it would actually be possible to be sensitive to wifi but I can hear my 2014 MacBook Pro process certain things and I don't mean the fan. No idea what triggers the processing "buzz" because it's not constant but certain cpu intensive operations make a buzz I can hear so I can certainly believe a similar buzz could come from a router's processor

Keyframe 8y ago

One thing, while "minor", is that with higher dpi you get a lot less aliasing issues. With sufficiently high dpi (I've read somewhere around 800), you don't get aliasing anymore. Is that worth the bandwidth? No, of course.

aidenn0 8y ago
Yes, sufficiently high DPI corrects for bad mastering. If they low-pass (i.e. blur) the source before sampling then there are no aliasing artifacts.
- justAnotherNET 8y ago
  but if you blur then you've reduced quality.

antpls 8y ago

I'm not an expert, but I think people in the comments missed a use case : you could have 1 image @ 8k, or 2 images @ 4k each, which could then be used to broadcast VR? Or 3D 4k video?

brokenmachine 8y ago
Lowest-common denominator will win again with yet another failed 3D format. :(

nwienert 8y ago

The sibling comments point out correctly that our brain likely can use the extra sharpness. The other thing to point out is progress. I used to think 60 inch was massive but of course it’s not that big. Our field of view is incredible, and if we’re going to admit we like watching movies we may as well do the best we can to make the experience immersive. So I’d hope the advent of 8k will also bring about 90, 120, and beyond. I think in a decade or so this will be the norm for most new TVs, and so this calculation also ignores technical progress which is good as we certainly aren’t near the maximum of an ideal cinematic experience.

vosper 8y ago
> So I’d hope the advent of 8k will also bring about 90, 120, and beyond. I think in a decade or so this will be the norm for most new TVs, and so this calculation also ignores technical progress which is good as we certainly aren’t near the maximum of an ideal cinematic experience. I agree, I think these screen sizes must be where the industry is going. As someone who also likes movies, and owns a 65" TV, I would love if it literally twice the size and mounted flat on/in the wall. This kind of mounting is definitely where the industry is heading, too: the highest-end TVs from LG and Samsung are ultra-thin and have the screen detached from the processing unit.
- cgriswald 8y ago
  Past a certain size, I think I'd just go the projector route despite some of the disadvantages. I have a 78" TV and a projector shooting onto a wall roughly equivalent to a 110" television; so my threshold is somewhere between 78" and 110"... I'll also say that although I love TV and movies, there's something really nice about not having a television staring you in the face all the time.
NewEntryHN 8y ago
> Our field of view is incredible, and if we’re going to admit we like watching movies we may as well do the best we can to make the experience immersive. Except that the actual part of our field of vision our brain can focus on is relatively small and cinema favors pictorial representations where it's appropriate to grasp the "whole image". What you're describing is VR, whose tech isn't TV.

ahuibers 8y ago

These are good calculations. I think many people would like to go to a significantly larger field of view than 40 degrees. 40 degrees horizontally is not that much: the human visual field is over 200 degrees. OLED-on-glass-substrate is allowing TVs to get lighter making them more installable. OLED-on-plastic-substrate TVs could be shipped rolled up. They may not be that far away (<10 years).

jnwatson 8y ago
Or, you could just sit closer. My day-to-day monitor is a curved 49” screen? I typically sit 2-3 feet with about an 80 degree FOV. No special technology required.

antongribok 8y ago

My current setup involves a projector, where the screen width is just over 118 inches, and I sit ~ 8.5 feet away. Plugging that into your formula we get ~5780 horizontal pixels, or about 75% of 7680 provided by 8K. In the future it's easy to imagine going even more extreme if you look back to the past where the first mass-produced TV looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television#/media/File:RCA_630-TS_Television.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television#/media/File:RCA_630...

hanoz 8y ago

I'm sitting about 1.8m away from a 720p television showing a standard definition UK terrestrial signal (which is 576p) and I'm honestly baffled how anyone could want any higher res. In fact the only issue I notice is the poorer picture quality on some of the lower bitrate channels, the major channels are as clear and sharp as I'd ever want.

iainmerrick 8y ago
Have you tried Freeview HD? It honestly looks a lot better, even on a 720p screen. Maybe you don’t care about the difference in quality, and if so that’s totally fine, but it is definitely noticeable.
- hanoz 8y ago
  Although my tele's Freeview decoder is SD I do get to see in all its 'full' 720p glory when using the Chromecast or Blu-ray player, and okay, if pushed I can tell the difference, but I really do not miss it at all when it's not there.
behringer 8y ago
Because details matter. Here's an 8k image on one side and a 576 screen on the other side. https://imgur.com/a/yqMu5VU https://imgur.com/a/yqMu5VU Don't forget to blow it up to 8k to see the full effect. Bear in mind, if you're on a 65" screen you have to be at 2 feet to appreciate the image. Unrealistic for most purposes I understand, but at 1080p, you should be at 10 feet which is about normal. 4k should be about 8 feet which is the best viewing distance in my opinion for a theater type room. It is how my theater room is personally laid out. 8k in my opinion is probably as large as any home theater screen will ever need to be. I would not turn up my nose at being able to pause the move and step up to the screen to see some details. I already do that now on my screen.
- willtim 8y ago
  I think the parent point was that there is currently insufficient bandwidth to even make 576p look good for many channels. Given even a high bandwidth slot, 4K with low compression might look better than 8K with high compression. Specifying just "8K", is no guarantee of a quality picture.

z3t4 8y ago

Reading small text is probably where you will see the biggest difference. Higher resolution will also make a bad (but capable) screen look better (eg 4K JPEG upsampled to 8K on a good display vs 8K on a worse display)

nkkollaw 8y ago

True. However, one thing that 8K would be really good at is zooming content: even if zoomed at 10x, the image would still look good. Admittedly, I have no idea why someone would want to zoom video content.

rangibaby 8y ago
it will be nice for watching TV shows on YouTube that are a little postage stamp in the corner to fool content id

bitL 8y ago

Now having 4k at 4:2:0 is equal to having 4:4:4 1080p. There is hope that having 8k at 4:2:0 will be like a proper 4:4:4 4k ;-)

zmarty 8y ago

Whenever I see these kinds of calculations I just roll my eyes, because video is compressed. There is a very good practical reason why you want 8K. It's the online streaming bitrate! Today if you watch 4K video on Netflix they use 20 Mbps, give or take. That in my opinion is NOT good enough for 4K (UHD). The reason why I am looking forward to 8K is that then they will finally have better video bitrate. So 8K bitrate would be probably be equivalent to reasonable 4K video bitrate.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago
You're not necessarily wrong per se, but it's really, really stupid that we need to buy higher res screens as an end-around to getting streaming content providers to give us higher bitrate videos. You can increase bitrate without increasing the resolution.

lostmsu 8y ago

For that calculation to work, the pixels of the screen must have 1:1 match with eye sensory elements, and must be positioned perfectly on (sensory element-lens center-pixel) line. Since it's not the case, you will see the difference. It will become completely indistinguishable when error caused by that imperfection will be less than some threshold, for which you'd need higher density. Of course, the positive effect of density diminishes as it goes up, and only makes sense if you want absolute realism of the picture, which would also require sensory-element perfect 3D mapping.

pasbesoin 8y ago

What happens when you throw the motion of somebody's head and/or eyes into the mix? When you are not viewing from an absolutely fixed position? This isn't a troll. I don't know, so I'm asking whether it can be a factor.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

It will make for some amazing interactive display screens. The latest video slot machines with vertical curved screens are already impressive. Imagine having an immersive touchscreen console for something more productive than gambling. For media consumption at longer viewing distances is is clearly pointless.