Originally Posted by Blacklac
So your saying a 50" at it's optimal distance will look the same as an 120" at optimal distance?
I don't think the data for the chart directly addresses any issues of decreasing dpi (as you zoom the picture larger and larger). What the chart does address is that the natural acuity loss for human eyes at increasing distances will make the image look "softer", anyway, whether it is an image projected to a 100", at 40 dpi or 400 dpi (numbers just pulled out of the air to illustrate the concept).
It won't look "the same" over 2 distance scenarios, per se, but it won't necessarily look any better at the longer distance, either, even if you had unlimited image resolution at your disposal.
The eyes just won't pick it up at such long distances.
Now there could be the possibility of finagling these limitations a bit, if one could arbitrarily boost high-frequency components of the image as you project to larger screen sizes. Then the dpi condition might
make an appreciable difference (gives more data for the HF boost to work on, at the least). It won't look "right" or natural at closer distances. However, the natural eyesight losses at greater distances will filter down what is being projected (in a complementary manner), such that the end result could be greater in performance than could be achieved using just the classic distance/screen size alignments. I don't know what that would look like, but maybe it could be described as "greater than human vision" detail experience?
Maybe that in of itself could be deemed "unnatural", or it could be amazing. I dunno!