4k resolution coming

[UniversalTruth]

Interestingly, if you sit 3 meters in front of a 42" TV, 8K resolution is very similar to looking at a retina resolution smart phone from around one foot. That's very near the limit of normal human eyes.

My Xperia S has ppi of ~342, while Sony Xperia Z is even more brutal with ~441 ppi.

7680 X 4320 on 42 inch display would result at ~209 ppi.

Yes, with this distance of 3 m you will offset the difference to some extent but still...

I think that resolution would fit better on 32 inch displays.

 

[lanek]

Im not sure its a good idea to compare PPI of a 5" 1080p phone as S4, xperia, and a 40 to 55" TV.. so much pixels on TV could cause problem with motion really different of what we see on a tiny smartphone display.

 

[Blazkowicz]

My Xperia S has ppi of ~342, while Sony Xperia Z is even more brutal with ~441 ppi.

7680 X 4320 on 42 inch display would result at ~209 ppi.

Yes, with this distance of 3 m you will offset the difference to some extent but still...

I think that resolution would fit better on 32 inch displays.

32 inch would make sense as a desktop monitor, sitting at a desk in front of it.
It's a nice 3x 2560x1440 on both directions so you can even run legacy apps with pixel tripling just fine, or have the option of pixel tripling and pixel doubling for games along with other scaling methods.
For all the native res stuff, wow that's a giant monitor that looks like paper

If it's for TV use I think a 80" display or more is a better fit or well a projector that outputs a many meters wide picture.

 

[UniversalTruth]

If it's for TV use I think a 80" display or more is a better fit or well a projector that outputs a many meters wide picture.

Really? It would be a really hard job to find apartments with rooms enormous enough to fit 80 inches display

Im not sure its a good idea to compare PPI of a 5" 1080p phone as S4, xperia, and a 40 to 55" TV.. so much pixels on TV could cause problem with motion really different of what we see on a tiny smartphone display.

That is certainly a thing which I would love to know more details about.
8K pixels are not that many. I don't know why you think it is a lot...

Crazy nokias come with 41 MPs camera

 

[Silent_Buddha]

My Xperia S has ppi of ~342, while Sony Xperia Z is even more brutal with ~441 ppi.

7680 X 4320 on 42 inch display would result at ~209 ppi.

Yes, with this distance of 3 m you will offset the difference to some extent but still...

I think that resolution would fit better on 32 inch displays.

Except that you have just exposed a common fallacy that many people fall for. A 1 inch surface that is 1 foot away from your face looks significantly larger than a 1 inch surface that is 3 meters away from your face. That 42 inch display will have an apparent PPI (pixel density) quite significantly higher than either of the phones you mentioned.

Take a look here for a quick guide on how close the average human eye has to be to be able to resolve one pixel.

http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/image-distance-is-everything-4k-and-hidpi-displays/

Sitting 6 feet 6 inches (over 2 meters) away from a 50" 1080p TV gives the same apparent pixel density (PPI) as looking at an iPad's retina display (2048×1536) from 1 foot 1 inch away. To the human eye, at those distances, they will appear to have the exact same pixel density.

[edit: had to fix the distance for the 50" TV as I got it wrong initially 6.6 meters instead of 6'6", oops]

Regards,
SB

 

[Blazkowicz]

Uh? If hung on a wall this probably is easier to fit than the 22" CRT I had.
But hell, I need a 50 square meter room just to listen to my speakers. Nothing fancy, a pair of non powered speakers (2.0) that cost 200 euros about eight years ago but I think the sound is crap in a 20 square meter room, or less.

So let's say an 8K setup costs you $10K, now you need $300K to $500K in real estate to use it or much more, or live in the sticks.

 

[lanek]

Really? It would be a really hard job to find apartments with rooms enormous enough to fit 80 inches display



That is certainly a thing which I would love to know more details about.
8K pixels are not that many. I don't know why you think it is a lot...

Crazy nokias come with 41 MPs camera

I could be wrong, but on actual TV LCD, for dont get ghosting, and have smooth motion, they need use a tons of "features"; 400hz, frame interpolation, etc etc.. I can imagine even just doubling the pixel density to 4K need some special treatment for it. the image is sharp due to pixel number, but im not sure about the pixel response time on fast movement on the screen.

Now that i think to it, the effect could be the invert. ( a bit tired today. )

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Crazy nokias come with 41 MPs camera

That's principally to enable either cropping for digital zoom or low light wuality by super-sampling. 41 MPs is a pretty useless size for any actual image on account of being huge and very niche display formats requiring that resolution. It's equivalent to a 2 foot long photo. Who needs a 2' long photo to have the resolution needed to view it from a few inches away?!

Except that you have just exposed a common fallacy that many people fall for...

And I had only just posted saying we need to update reference to display tech to an angular perception metric. I think that's proof enough it'll never happen and we'll be stuck with pixel counting until such time as we beam images directly into our brains.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

And I had only just posted saying we need to update reference to display tech to an angular perception metric. I think that's proof enough it'll never happen and we'll be stuck with pixel counting until such time as we beam images directly into our brains.

Yes, the problem is that people in general have a hard time with angles. If you tell someone that a Galaxy S4 screen (1080p) at 8 inches from your face fills up approximately the same field of view if your vision as a 100" projector (1080p) at 13 feet (over 4 meters) away, they'll have a hard time grasping that. Then telling them that you'll have the same pixel resolving visual acuity at those distances and those pixel densities and their brain just locks up.

A discrete PPI number is easy for them to understand. Once you go beyond that and require them to think about it, they kind of fall apart. Hell I had a devil of a time just trying to explain to people that higher resolution is meaningless if you don't take into account screen size (hence pixel density). Now we're talking about a concept one step further out from that.

And that's only when dealing with the same resolution when talking about visual field of view. That get's further complicated when you throw in higher pixel densities. You have to be 6 feet 6 inches away from a 100" projector at 3840x2160 in order to resolve the pixels whereas you have to be 13 feet away for a 100" projector at 1920x1080. This gets into your point where at a higher pixel density you can get closer and thus have a screen fill more of your FOV without the pixel size becoming a potential issue. I can already smell some people's brains frying at this point.

And I have to fix my previous post as I just realized I got the numbers wrong.

Regards,
SB

 

[DuckThor Evil]

8K pixels are not that many. I don't know why you think it is a lot...

Do you even know how many it is?

 

[UniversalTruth]

*snip*

I can already smell some people's brains frying at this point.

I think you severely underestimate the capabilities of nature and specifically of human vision and brain. Once you get rid of it and accept that human vision can adopt and get used to very high ppi...

Do you even know how many it is?

No, would you please be so kind to tell me?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

No, would you please be so kind to tell me?

33.2 million.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think you severely underestimate the capabilities of nature and specifically of human vision and brain. Once you get rid of it and accept that human vision can adopt and get used to very high ppi...

He wasn't talking about people's ppi capability being an issue, but their ability to understand the principles of vision and why 2D pixel counts are pretty meaningless, which you quite conveniently prove.

Human vision doesn't work in terms of pixels per inch. It works in terms of degrees of angle resolving power, which equates to decreasing ppi the greater the distance from the eyes. Human beings can resolve 300+ ppi up close, but that drops towards 100 ppi at a short distance, 50 ppi at a longer distance, and one pixel per metre over a very long distance. That's why video displays at a ball game can be a few ppi and still look like actual images instead of discrete red, green, and blue dots.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

33.2 million.

Which is 100 MB a frame at 24 bit colour, 264 MBs for an HDR16 frame. It'd take about half a second to load such an HDR image from a fast SSD, so a good minute to load and display the contents of a folder of 100 photos (which of course would have thumbnails produced and cached to make using such high res images realistically possible).

 

[UniversalTruth]

LG Display, a leading innovator of display technologies, announced today that it has developed the world’s first Quad HD AH-IPS LCD panel for smartphones. At 2560 X 1440 with 538 ppi, the new 5.5-inch Quad HD panel is the highest resolution and ppi (pixel per inch) mobile panel to date, and provides a glimpse at what’s next after current Full HD smartphone panels, critical given the growing trend towards larger displays.

http://www.overclockers.ru/hardnews...tfonov_s_razresheniem_2560_h_1440_tochek.html
http://koreaandtheworld.blogspot.ru/2013/08/lg-display-develops-worlds-first-quad.html

 

[mrcorbo]

LG Display, a leading innovator of display technologies, announced today that it has developed the world’s first Quad HD AH-IPS LCD panel for smartphones. At 2560 X 1440 with 538 ppi, the new 5.5-inch Quad HD panel is the highest resolution and ppi (pixel per inch) mobile panel to date, and provides a glimpse at what’s next after current Full HD smartphone panels, critical given the growing trend towards larger displays.

http://www.overclockers.ru/hardnews...tfonov_s_razresheniem_2560_h_1440_tochek.html
http://koreaandtheworld.blogspot.ru/2013/08/lg-display-develops-worlds-first-quad.html

Give me an OLED-based panel with this PPI for Occulus Rift use and I might be interested.

Otherwise? Meh. Just bigger numbers for the marketing folks to use to influence the underinformed.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

LG Display, a leading innovator of display technologies, announced today that it has developed the world’s first Quad HD AH-IPS LCD panel for smartphones. At 2560 X 1440 with 538 ppi, the new 5.5-inch Quad HD panel is the highest resolution and ppi (pixel per inch) mobile panel to date, and provides a glimpse at what’s next after current Full HD smartphone panels, critical given the growing trend towards larger displays.

http://www.overclockers.ru/hardnews...tfonov_s_razresheniem_2560_h_1440_tochek.html
http://koreaandtheworld.blogspot.ru/2013/08/lg-display-develops-worlds-first-quad.html

Completely pointless, which you seem to have trouble understanding. Your eyes will not be able to resolve the difference between 300 dpi and 538 dpi unless you hold the screen a few inches from your face (assuming of course those are real dpi. Arrangement of some screen pixels can result in mild fuzziness at reportedly high dpi, so higher marketing numbers can actually represent a better screen, but of course then they aren't actual dpi numbers). The distance you'd have to hold from your eyes to benefit would course considerable strain on their focussing.

 

[UniversalTruth]

I don't understand why you are trying to convince me anything- you should speak with those guys in the companies responsible for this progress Perhaps they have something big in mind different from marketing...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't understand why you are trying to convince me anything-

As a member of the general public who seems swept up with the numbers madness, if we can convince you of their folly, perhaps there's hope for humanity after all!

Perhaps they have something big in mind different from marketing...

Biology says otherwise. Maybe it's something akin to the Nokia 42 MP sensor allowing for noisier displays to still appear smooth due to natural oversampling by the eyes? Maybe it's no harder to produce smaller pixels, and manufacturing these displays costs less expensive raw materials? We could also increase the colour gamut by using more than 3 colours. A 600 dpi RGB display could perhaps be pushed to a 300 dpi RGBCyanOrange display or something? But even then, the value would not be in the DPI which is pointless to go beyond 300 for anything not being scrutinised at the limit of a user's near-field focus range.

 

[silent_guy]

Completely pointless, which you seem to have trouble understanding.

There is no reason to be rude about this. Because...

Your eyes will not be able to resolve the difference between 300 dpi and 538 dpi unless you hold the screen a few inches from your face (assuming of course those are real dpi.

... as I'm typing this message, my screen is ~5 inches from my eyes. Looking around me, that seems like a pretty common use case.

Which is relevant because ...

... If my middle aged eyes can see ever so slight stair casing on a 330ppi iPhone 5 screen, then there must be plenty other who see it as well.

Now, that doesn't mean that the screen doesn't look nice, it does, but there is no reason to stop innovating until you are truly at the point where you've reached the human limit.

I hope you have no trouble understanding that.