Originally Posted by DigitalGriffin
If you are at recommended THX viewing angle (Viewing Fulstrum), then it is impossible to benefit from anything over 1920x1080. Our eye resolution simple does not support it.
Sorry Alan. I respect you. But 4K is just a way to pump new equipment we don't need. It will die a slow painful death like SACD and DVD-A
The ONLY place 4K could be useful would be passive 3D
I've gone through the math, and with "normal" seating distances for FP, 4k could definitely be a benefit.
Why not, let's do it again. Let's start with some metrics from an expert:http://www.pcworld.com/article/19840...y_updated.html
According to that, we can resolve down to 0.6 arc minutes (0.01 degrees) per pixel. If you sit in the middle of the THX/SMPTE/Fox recommended viewing distance of 3 picture heights, that comes out to be about 19 degrees of vertical viewing angle.
So if we divide 19 degrees by 0.01 degrees/pixel, you get 1900 pixels, well above the 1080 pixels we have with Blu-ray. If we follow Dr Soniera's logic from that article, 1080p is less than 1/3 of what's necessary for a "retina display" at a SMPTE/THX/Fox recommended 3 picture height seating distance.
Now if we consider that a good number here find 3 picture heights too far and like to sit closer to two picture heights it's even worse, for that you need 2650 pixels, which is beyond even what 4k can provide.
To look at it a different way, how far away do you have to sit for anything over 1080p to be "impossible to benefit from"?
Well we have 1080 pixels * 0.01 degrees/pixel = 10.8 degrees. That comes out to be 5.26 picture heights which is outside THX's farthest acceptable distance of 5.18, not to mention anybody's farthest recommended distance of around 4 picture heights.
As an anecdote, I can easily see artifacts on my 1080p display from the "limited" resolutions. The biggest things are hard lines "jumping" as they move rather than just moving, and to a degree some jaggies on certain content.
Just to illustrate something more, the author (I assume this is referencing a cnet article, Alan's link is dead) does have a point. If you figure an average person having a 50" TV, and sitting 10' away, that works out to be about a 5x picture height seating distance, which as noted above is right on the cusp of where more resolution can't be resolved.
You may note that Dr. Soniera and the author of the cnet article use different number for visual acuity, some tests have shown
that people can resolve much, much more than one arc minute:
"The one arcminute criterion can be described as 30 cycles per degree (cpd). In a paper published in the April issue of the Society of Motion-Picture and Television Engineers Motion Imaging Journal, NHK scientists reported that viewers could readily distinguish between pictures with 78 cpd and 156 cpd, the latter being more than five times greater than the 20/20 criterion."
For reference 156cpd (cycles per degree) is 312 pixels per degree, even if we go with just 78 (156 pixels/degree, or 0.0064 degrees/pixel), that would come out to be 2964p, or nearly 8k.
So I say "Bring on the 4K!"