Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the surgically-grafted-to-the-inside-of-the-eyelids dept.

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This discussion has been archived.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.
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 VLM on Wednesday January 11 2017, @02:03PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @02:03PM (#452491)

    My MiL found it impossible to buy a TV that wasn't "smart" so it takes like 30 seconds to boot up or switch inputs or do much of anything. Smart TV UIs always suck. Thankfully it doesn't nag her about her lack of internet access.

    I would imagine there are interesting differences in standards for stuck pixels. In the oldest days of LCD displays there certainly were.

    When I set up my TV in my living room the fad at the time was to provide the user with an infinite number of video processing features that mainly degrade the experience, eventually I figured out that "game" mode was pretty much pass thru unmolested but it took some work. Monitors don't have that anti-feature, do they?

    They seem to put a lot of effort (for a widely varying result) into the audio for TVs.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2