Actually it is exactly the opposite.
The projectors owners get the hard one, while those with tablets and laptops do enjoy higher resolutions, thus quality.
Actually it is exactly the opposite.
The projectors owners get the hard one, while those with tablets and laptops do enjoy higher resolutions, thus quality.
This classic chart :
http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/12/when-does-1080p-make-difference.html
4k would, I estimate, place its ideal viewing distance on a 40" TV at 2.5 feet away. A US sized TV of 60" would need you to sit about 4 feet away. Normal sized TVs are not going to give a better viewing experience at hgher resolutions above 1080p for normal viewing. This makes it a useless feature to chase, at considerable cost. Ergo it's not going to happen. HD managed to start selling to the masses because HD offered some observable upgrade, although lots still can't tell the difference. Trying to sell someone a new 4k TV which doesn't look any better is going to be a hard sell. Only when you are supplying massive screens/projections, will 4k be important, and that'll be a tiny niche. LG's 4k set shown at CES this year was 84". That wants a viewing distance of something like 5 or 6 feet to make the most of 4k. Viewed from 10 feet away, 84" is amply served by a 1080p display. It'll be great for public viewing, like in a shop window where people can get close and check out the detail, but it's a useless consumer specification that won't result in significant numbers of displays, won't find support in consumer goods (have you tried filming and editing home movies at 1080p? Do you really want to blow that many more resources on filming and editing 4k movies??), and so doesn't need to be targeted in consoles. For the tiny niche that will have massive display resolution, they'll be served by high-end PCs.
Well it's not irrelevant to anyone with a scientific interest in creating displays and content that is good quality.I really don't care about distance, it's irrelvant to me, like the above chart too.
That's just being stupid. The chart is based on the eye's resolving power in terms of degrees of vision, rather than a pixel count. And this is an actually meaningful number - resolving power to 1/60 th of a degree. That's how posters with big blobs of colour work at a distance. That's how tiny little ink drops on a 300 dpi photo work. So yes, your 12" BW set from yesteryear would have given the same resolution in terms of resolvable detail if viewed from far enough away, but it'd also have only occupied a tiny space in your FOV and been hard to see what was on the screen. That's why we like bigger screens, so we can see more at comfortable distance. And on larger screens we need more pixels for them to not be discretely discernable. But above the viewer's optical limits is a complete waste of time and resources. There is zero logic behind wanting more pixels in a screen that is going to be viewed from a distance where those more pixels won't make any difference to the image quality. 4k screens with more pixels will be useful for 3D, but there are far more important and worthwhile issues that need to be addressed to get better image quality, such as pixel transtition time to elliminate ghosting, or colour representation to overcome RGB's limits.
Shifty said:
Put your money where your mouth is and invest in Ses-Astra then. I'll predict a default in less than two years.
Basically what you are saying is- go as further as possible from the screen, you won't see how bad its quality is. Which is ridiculous.
Actually it is exactly the opposite.
The projectors owners get the hard one, while those with tablets and laptops do enjoy higher resolutions, thus quality.
