Monday afternoon in post #1326
, in his response to a previous post of mine, Mrorange303 wrote "You also keep thinking the argument was about pixels. It was could the 4k screen be identified compared to a 1080p screen from 9'.
Never once did i say the tests was about pixels from 9'."
And Mrorange303, never did I indicate that you, or anyone else, had said that the UK 55" display comparison involved people trying to see pixels. I was the one that came up with the 1080p pixel visibility idea as a device to help
demonstrate how fantastic it is that about 98% of the crowd of people in the UK demonstration, would all have the extraordinary vision to detect a difference in resolution, at that distance, with those size screens.
My argument was quite logical if the only characteristic that differed between the two displays was their resolutions.
My logic was simply this: If people can detect a difference in resolution between a 55" UHD 4k TV and a 55" 1080p HDTV at 9 feet, then those same people must have the ability to see the pixels of the 55" 1080p TV at 9'.
This is because the details that give the UHD 4k TV its greater sharpness, are smaller than the pixels of the 1080p TV. So if you can't see those pixels, then you can't possibly see the even smaller details that make a UHD TV superior. In another post I went further and said that the majority of AVS members surely can't see the pixels of a 55" 1080p TV at 9 feet. Monday evening I became more sure of that than ever. Using a static frame on my friend's
calibrated 55" Panasonic 1080p plasma, for the 3rd time yesterday we carefully measured the distance at which my 20/20 eyes could still see pixels. I lost sight of pixels right at about 7 feet one inch. I would love to know what
percentage (it must be small) of my fellow AVS members can actually see the pixels of a 55" 1080p TV at 9 feet.
BTW, our fellow AVS member, imagic, has said that even with his above average 20/15 vision, while using a still picture, he can "barely" see a difference between 1080p and 4k, with a 65" screen size, at a 10 foot distance.
First, let's understand that imagic's 20/15 vision means he can see details at 20 feet that average people only see if they move to a closer 15 foot distance.
Now, imagic used a 10 foot distance which is 11% further than the 9 feet of the UK demo.
BUT, the 65" screen size imagic used for his test, is 18% larger than the 55" screens of the UK demo.
Therefore, because his screen was so much larger, imagic's result was not as difficult to achieve as the result that 98% of the crowd in the UK demo supposedly came up with. And remember, imagic possesses excellent 20/15 vision. Must be a special breed of people in the UK, for better than 20/15 vision to be so common. This is why I'm absolutely amazed that any of our AVS members attach even the slightest value to that UK demo. The results of that demo are what scientists would call an outlier, meaning they literally lie outside of the bounds of any other tests of viewers ability to perceive resolution, that I've ever heard of, or read about.
The UK demo is as far from other tests of visual acuity, as the analysts on Fox News were, when before the 2012
election, they were the only commentators on TV predicting that Romney would win the election by a large margin.
One last thing, since it's now after 4 in the morning.
Did want to ask Mrorange303 a question. You made a comment, Sir, that you are able to see the pixels of your 1080p TV from 9 feet away. I just wondered what size that TV is, since you didn't mention it. Also I'd very much
appreciate you commenting on the comparison I made between the test that fellow AVS member imagic conducted, and the results that have been claimed for the UK demo.
Anyway, I'm sure that, unlike me, you're sane enough to be sleeping now, so just have yourself a good Tuesday, as it unfolds.