3 ms·

I doubt this will ever make sense. An 8k screen that is full field of view is already big enough that the pixels aren't visible.

wongarsu 4y ago
An 8k screen has about 33 million pixels. The first google result claims that the human eye contains about 91 million rods (and 4.5 million cones). So just from a sensor-pixel vs image-pixel standpoint, there are gains beyond 8k. From the top of my head, going up to about 32k is meaningful if you account for the fact that what you're really catering to is central vision: the 2-5° of visual field where most of your cones are packed together, giving you much higher resolution for the point you're looking at. And of course that's assuming that the viewer is static. If you assume that viewers can move to a point where the screen is bigger than their field of view (say a large display in a museum) or that the viewer can zoom the video (just as we routinely zoom images today) there are even fewer limits to reasonable resolutions.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  > there are gains beyond 8k. Sure if you had pinhole irises to look through instead of blobs of organic tissue.
- giantrobot 4y ago
  It's not about the number of rods and cones, the question is the optical acuity of the eye. Someone with 20/20 vision has an acuity of about 1 minute of arc (1/60th of a degree). At living room distances a 4K 65" TV has pixels so small someone with perfect vision can't make them out. An 8K resolution is a waste. For 8K to be actually visible you're talking about TVs that take up the whole wall of a living room.
  - redox99 4y ago
    There are other types of acuity, such as vernier acuity, that are much more accurate. If you had a "human sized" display (let's say 2m x 2m), that you could stand next to, and it showed footage of a real size analog caliper that you had to read, I wouldn't be surprised if you needed something like 128K video or more. But I agree that for regular video content, 8K is good enough.

wongarsu 4y ago

An 8k screen has about 33 million pixels. The first google result claims that the human eye contains about 91 million rods (and 4.5 million cones). So just from a sensor-pixel vs image-pixel standpoint, there are gains beyond 8k. From the top of my head, going up to about 32k is meaningful if you account for the fact that what you're really catering to is central vision: the 2-5° of visual field where most of your cones are packed together, giving you much higher resolution for the point you're looking at. And of course that's assuming that the viewer is static. If you assume that viewers can move to a point where the screen is bigger than their field of view (say a large display in a museum) or that the viewer can zoom the video (just as we routinely zoom images today) there are even fewer limits to reasonable resolutions.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
> there are gains beyond 8k. Sure if you had pinhole irises to look through instead of blobs of organic tissue.
giantrobot 4y ago
It's not about the number of rods and cones, the question is the optical acuity of the eye. Someone with 20/20 vision has an acuity of about 1 minute of arc (1/60th of a degree). At living room distances a 4K 65" TV has pixels so small someone with perfect vision can't make them out. An 8K resolution is a waste. For 8K to be actually visible you're talking about TVs that take up the whole wall of a living room.
- redox99 4y ago
  There are other types of acuity, such as vernier acuity, that are much more accurate. If you had a "human sized" display (let's say 2m x 2m), that you could stand next to, and it showed footage of a real size analog caliper that you had to read, I wouldn't be surprised if you needed something like 128K video or more. But I agree that for regular video content, 8K is good enough.