2 ms·
This article seems to assume that in order for resolution to have an effect on perceived picture quality, you need to be able to discern individual pixels in th
by runaway 14y ago
This article seems to assume that in order for resolution to have an effect on perceived picture quality, you need to be able to discern individual pixels in the image and I haven't been convinced this is the case. Couldn't the image just "look sharper" without the viewer being able to pinpoint the extra pixels? Anecdotally, I can instantly tell the difference between broadcast 720p and a 1080p Bluray on my 50" from 13 feet away, but that might also be due to compression/encoding/etc.
Also, I'm not convinced that in the future we won't commonly have 60"+ screens in our homes. If you could afford it, why not have a true home theater? The bigger issue with 4K for the moment is getting actual 4K content.
- Alex3917 14y ago"Couldn't the image just 'look sharper' without the viewer being able to pinpoint the extra pixels?" Yes. The movie Baraka was shot in 8K. When they released the remastered DVD it looks much better for having been shot in 8K first, even though the end product was only at DVD resolution. It's not just a matter of how many pixels you can see, the very fact that there are more pixels in the raw footage means the colors will be more vibrant and accurate is the final product. If nothing else the existence of 4K TVs will cause directors to shoot in 4K, which will make the end product better regardless of how many pixels you can actually see. Also, if you haven't seen Baraka I'd highly recommend it. It's widely considered the best DVD of all time in terms of picture quality, and it's also the one movie that Roger Ebert says we should show aliens to explain the human race.