Originally Posted by jeahrens
Sorry I'll try to read through the thread as time permits, but if I am interpreting your findings correctly on a 140" image the pixels on a 4K image start to be visible between 3-4'. Correct?
Correct in terms of pixel size.
The chart that’s widely used is the Carlton Bale chart that I never truly understood. It is based loosely around the Snellen eye chart that says the smallest E you can see what direction the E is pointing determines your visual acuity and 20/20 was thought of as ideal vision. The chart was to be placed 20’ from the viewer and the line width of the E was to take up 1/60 of one degree of our vision and the height and width of the E is 5/60 of one degree. It is fine for testing eyes as a standard (black on white, brightly lit etc.) but kind of a leap relating that to any kind of a pixel size. The Carlton Bale chart wasn’t then to “address” pixel size but rather “Viewing distance where resolution becomes noticeable”.
I asked the questions in that thread and some of the members here answered my questions based on their understandings and testing done by others.
Come to find out when a resolution becomes noticeable compared to a viewing reality is quite a bit more distance than based on the Snellen measurements. In fact, about 5 times greater distance. The distances actually become great enough that it doesn’t matter at all up to and including 4k all better resolutions will look closer to reality in any room / seating distance. I kind of confirmed this for myself although not real scientific comparing 1080 and 4k flat panels from across the store at great distances. It was hard to factor out the different content they play and also the greater range of brightness etc. but it’s kind of clear there is improvement way past the distance I can see any pixels in any of the displays. So with that chart somewhat meaningless to me as it is the threshold of improvements more or less and I’m sure more is always going to be better for some folks I still pondered then how come I can derive so much pleasure out of a WXGA image still when the world is telling me how awful it has to be. I might add I have 20/20 vision without correction.
I started looking at what would condemn a resolution for me or a better point being the first beginnings of condemning a resolution and that would be based around pixel size and the ability of our vision with blended color pixels we might find in a real movie not a test chart. That is the chart I then came up with, again based around information other members offered and I tried to best judge the validity by my own eyes. That chart came out to be roughly 10X closer than when resolution becomes noticeable distance.
I am also convinced different people watch in different modes of vision and most of us that think about this stuff start using a more critical type of vision where we don’t become all immersed in the content instead we tend to study the PQ. On my WXGA setup at home if I put up a test image like a ANSI checkerboard I can see pixels or just begin to see pixels at my seating distance. They are not disturbing to me because I know in the content of a movie I never see them nor do my guests. We are seeing past pixels and viewing the combined image as a whole.
That’s a brief explanation of the two charts I made and made for my reference only. If someone else wants to use them as a point of reference to decide what resolution will best suit their screen size, seating distance and budget that’s fine with me.