Looking here: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html and considering a standard distance of around 10 feet from the TV, you would need something like a 200 inch screen to be able to see 4K resolution, why would you ever need somethig like this? I guess if maybe that resolution was plastered over a 360 degree experience?
Just think about what people were saying about High Def back in the day DVDs came out... I know most people I talked to thought DVD was the greatest picture they would ever need and didn't see any reason to have anything better.
In fact, many people out there still don't see a need for it.
I will most likely have a 200 inch projection screen soon in my new house, since I dedicating a big rec room to my projector to make a nice home theater. So for me, this would be great. I'm sure you can tell the difference between Super Hi-Vision and HD even on a 30 inch screen, although it may be only a slight difference, and the bigger the screen gets, but bigger the difference. I can't wait for this technology, although I highly doubt it will be anywhere near mainstream in the next 10 years.
That site makes assumptions that I don't think are true.
With correction, I have 20/20 vision, and on a 150" 1080p projected image, sitting 10ft away, I can see the narrow gaps between the pixel rows. I think 4k at 100" is still a visible improvement, and UHDTV at 200" is probably still a visible improvement. I've seen the NHK UHDTV demo on a 300" screen. The funny thing is that it had a single stuck pixel.
I think this assumption "Based on the resolving ability of the human eye (with 20/20 vision it is possible to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc)"
Is based on the ability to see that two different shapes that size are indeed different (a square from a circle), which means that 20/20 human vision can probably resolve about 1/120th of a degree.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Nate Thelen @ Jan 14th 2008 1:50PM
Looking here: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html and considering a standard distance of around 10 feet from the TV, you would need something like a 200 inch screen to be able to see 4K resolution, why would you ever need somethig like this? I guess if maybe that resolution was plastered over a 360 degree experience?
Michael @ Jan 14th 2008 2:59PM
Just think about what people were saying about High Def back in the day DVDs came out... I know most people I talked to thought DVD was the greatest picture they would ever need and didn't see any reason to have anything better.
In fact, many people out there still don't see a need for it.
Marrvia @ Jan 14th 2008 4:42PM
I will most likely have a 200 inch projection screen soon in my new house, since I dedicating a big rec room to my projector to make a nice home theater. So for me, this would be great. I'm sure you can tell the difference between Super Hi-Vision and HD even on a 30 inch screen, although it may be only a slight difference, and the bigger the screen gets, but bigger the difference. I can't wait for this technology, although I highly doubt it will be anywhere near mainstream in the next 10 years.
JeffDM @ Jan 14th 2008 5:29PM
That site makes assumptions that I don't think are true.
With correction, I have 20/20 vision, and on a 150" 1080p projected image, sitting 10ft away, I can see the narrow gaps between the pixel rows. I think 4k at 100" is still a visible improvement, and UHDTV at 200" is probably still a visible improvement. I've seen the NHK UHDTV demo on a 300" screen. The funny thing is that it had a single stuck pixel.
I think this assumption
"Based on the resolving ability of the human eye (with 20/20 vision it is possible to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc)"
Is based on the ability to see that two different shapes that size are indeed different (a square from a circle), which means that 20/20 human vision can probably resolve about 1/120th of a degree.