General > General Technical Chat

Just because technology can do something, doent meant its always right

<< < (19/43) > >>

tggzzz:

--- Quote from: Simon on June 20, 2022, 05:26:53 am ---Yes and as soon as you move further away your screen gets bigger. I have a 42" monitor and 27" monitors. Both 4k, both look the same because I sit as close as 0.5m from the 27" ones but will be about 1.5m from the 43" one. The eye has an angle of view, The pixels actually take up an angle of our vision so it is about angular resolution. if we can see 150 degrees across and want a 4k monitor that is 150/4k gives you the angular resolution. That is fixed because we will always change our distance from the monitor based on it's size unless you are like my ex colleague with eye sight problems that had a 32" and put his eyes up to it with enlarged text.

--- End quote ---

My point was about TV, not computer monitors, and in conditions where they cannot change the distance.

Hence your statements, while correct, do not refute the two differing reasons for interest in HDTV when it was being developed.

ebastler:

--- Quote from: tggzzz on June 20, 2022, 08:27:06 am ---
--- Quote from: Simon on June 20, 2022, 05:26:53 am ---Yes and as soon as you move further away your screen gets bigger. I have a 42" monitor and 27" monitors. Both 4k, both look the same because I sit as close as 0.5m from the 27" ones but will be about 1.5m from the 43" one. The eye has an angle of view, The pixels actually take up an angle of our vision so it is about angular resolution. if we can see 150 degrees across and want a 4k monitor that is 150/4k gives you the angular resolution. That is fixed because we will always change our distance from the monitor based on it's size unless you are like my ex colleague with eye sight problems that had a 32" and put his eyes up to it with enlarged text.

--- End quote ---

My point was about TV, not computer monitors, and in conditions where they cannot change the distance.
Hence your statements, while correct, do not refute the two differing reasons for interest in HDTV when it was being developed.

--- End quote ---

Seems to me that the two of you are talking about the same thing. The point is that a TV in a small room, where you need to sit close to the screen, should not be a huge 80"+ screen. It would be very inconvenient, since you can't even see the full field of view without constantly turning your head like watching a tennis match...

So you choose a smaller screen size which gives you an agreeable field of view, and hence the pixels will be smaller too. You don't need higher resolution than for a large screen which sits at a larger distance.

One can argue whether the step from 2k to 4k is worthwhile (it is probably noticeable enough for most people). But there seems to be a broad consensus that the proposed step to 8k is just marketing hyperbole.
 

tggzzz:

--- Quote from: ebastler on June 20, 2022, 08:37:40 am ---
--- Quote from: tggzzz on June 20, 2022, 08:27:06 am ---
--- Quote from: Simon on June 20, 2022, 05:26:53 am ---Yes and as soon as you move further away your screen gets bigger. I have a 42" monitor and 27" monitors. Both 4k, both look the same because I sit as close as 0.5m from the 27" ones but will be about 1.5m from the 43" one. The eye has an angle of view, The pixels actually take up an angle of our vision so it is about angular resolution. if we can see 150 degrees across and want a 4k monitor that is 150/4k gives you the angular resolution. That is fixed because we will always change our distance from the monitor based on it's size unless you are like my ex colleague with eye sight problems that had a 32" and put his eyes up to it with enlarged text.

--- End quote ---

My point was about TV, not computer monitors, and in conditions where they cannot change the distance.
Hence your statements, while correct, do not refute the two differing reasons for interest in HDTV when it was being developed.

--- End quote ---

Seems to me that the two of you are talking about the same thing. The point is that a TV in a small room, where you need to sit close to the screen, should not be a huge 80"+ screen. It would be very inconvenient, since you can't even see the full field of view without constantly turning your head like watching a tennis match...

So you choose a smaller screen size which gives you an agreeable field of view, and hence the pixels will be smaller too. You don't need higher resolution than for a large screen which sits at a larger distance.

One can argue whether the step from 2k to 4k is worthwhile (it is probably noticeable enough for most people). But there seems to be a broad consensus that the proposed step to 8k is just marketing hyperbole.

--- End quote ---

While I take your points about what is sensible and/or desirable, it comes down to the available screen sizes and room size. It is wrong to assume that the room size is the same in Asia and Europe/USA.

While I too was surprised at the differing incentives for HDTV, that statement came from people developing the HDTV standards and technology.

2N3055:
The human eye has an angular resolution of about 1 arcminute (0.02 degrees or 0.0003 radians) .

That is 0.3 mm at 1 m distance.. or 85 DPI... Ever wondered why that 85 DPI was so prevalent with monitors?
So if you where to watch a 42" screen at 1m distance (16x9 930mm W x 520mm H) that would need only 3100x1734 pixel to be as good as eye can be.
And you won't be watching from 1m like somebody well said above.

Super high res is bulls**t and waste of resources..


tggzzz:
I've seen two picture technologies that stand out from the rest.

35mm stereoscopic pictures on 100ASA slide film, i.e. about 5000x3000 pixels per eye. It is necessary to have the maximum possible depth of field, since people's eyes wander around the scene scene looking for details. If they can't focus on the details, it is uncomfortable.

Showscan movies, which I saw in the late 80s. They were much superior to the IMAX movies in the neighbouring theatre, and I saw the Showscan movies a several times. It is difficult to determine the resolution, but it was a 65mm image on 700 film, projected at 60fps. As far as I can tell, that equates to a resolution of around 5000x2500 pixels, but the high frame rate will improve the apparent resolution.

Thus, without experiencing the pictures myself, I would expect that 5k*3k is worthwhile, and that 60fps is definitely preferable for moving pictures.

If you want to, say, have multiple documents visible simultaneously even though you can only perceive one at any given instant, then higher resolution might be useful.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod