Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Is Screen Resolution Good Enough Considering the Fovea Centralis of the Eye?

posted by on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the surgically-grafted-to-the-inside-of-the-eyelids dept.

SC Red Baron writes:

The top google hits say that there is little or no benefit to resolution above 4k. I recently bought a 40" 4k tv which I use as a monitor (2' viewing distance). While this is right at the threshold where I'm told no benefit can be gained from additional resolution, I can still easily discern individual pixels. I'm still able to see individual pixels until I get to about a 4' viewing distance (but I am nearsighted).

I did some research and according to Wikipedia the Fovea Centralis (center of the eye) has a resolution of 31.5 arc seconds. At this resolution, a 4k monitor would need to be only 16" at a 2' viewing distance, or my 40" would need a 5' viewing distance.

Now the Fovea Centralis comprises only the size of 2 thumbnails width at arms length (2° viewing angle) and the eye's resolution drops off quickly farther from the center. But this tiny portion of the eye is processed by 50% of the visual cortex of the brain.

So I ask, are there any soylentils with perfect vision and/or a super high resolution set up, and does this match where you can no longer discern individual pixels? Do you think retina resolution needs to match the Fovea Centralis or is a lesser value acceptable?

My 40" 4k at 2' fills my entire field of view. I really like it because I have so much screen real estate for multiple windows or large spreadsheets, or I can scoot back a little bit for gaming (so I don't have to turn my head to see everything) and enjoy the higher resolution. I find 4k on high graphics looks much nicer than 1080p on Ultra. I find the upgrade is well worth the $600 I spent for the tv and a graphics card that can run it. Have you upgraded to 4k and do you think it was worth it? I would one day like to have dual 32" 8k monitors (not 3D). What is your dream setup if technology and price weren't an issue?

Written from my work 1366 x 768 monitor.

Related discussions: First "8K" Video Appears on YouTube
LG to Demo an 8K Resolution TV at the Consumer Electronics Show
What is your Video / Monitor Setup?
Microsoft and Sony's Emerging 4K Pissing Contest

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Is Screen Resolution Good Enough Considering the Fovea Centralis of the Eye? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 66 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:52AM

    by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:52AM (#452428)
    One thing to consider is that a larger monitor is going to require less scaling. For example, I have a similar setup to the OP, a 40" 4K main monitor, and it requires no DPI scaling to make it usable. Text, icons, and GUI elements are large enough that it's not an issue. It looks about the same as a 27" 1080p (rough visual comparison, I didn't do the math). On the other hand I have a laptop with a 15" 4K screen, and I use 1.75x scaling on that otherwise everything is impossibly tiny. Doesn't make it look terrible, BTW. Everything is still sufficiently sharp and I get to keep some of the extra screen real estate, which is the reason I have that laptop in the first place.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:54AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:54AM (#452452) Homepage Journal

    Another thing to consider is a larger monitor is going to require more physical real estate. My poor little TV cart is already maxed out with a 24" 16:9 and a 19" 4:3. I guess I could wall mount up to a 50" or so but anything bigger than that and I'd have to relocate everything.

    Oooh, a 50" mounted on the wall above the two I already have... that could work...

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by EvilSS on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:57AM

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:57AM (#452464)
      True. I cheated and bought an inexpensive dining room table to use as a desk. I lose drawer space of course, but I gain a huge desktop, particularly the depth compared to most desks. Drilled some holes for 2" cable management grommets, and I mounted one of those big 16 outlet, 48 inch lab power strips under it. Monitor sits about 2/3 of the way back, with my switch, router, and a few other things I rarely need to touch behind it.

      • (Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Thursday January 12 2017, @12:14AM

        by Appalbarry (66) on Thursday January 12 2017, @12:14AM (#452781) Journal

        Back in the day, the best cheap and rugged workspace was an interior door (knobs and hinges removed) laid across a pair of two drawer file cabinets.

        • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:11PM

          by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:11PM (#452937)
          True, but have you seen what goes for an interior door these days? I surprised most can support their own weight.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:43PM (#452533)

    40" 4k screen is basically four 20" 1080p monitors stacked in a square without a bezel.