^ look out, don't you know that's the meritless Carlton Bale graph that "relies" on 20/20 vision?
You need the NHK (you know, a company with a VESTED interest in the propagation of 4k media and equipment) graph to tell you- amongst other things- that 1080 is NOT WORTHWHILE AT 10, 20, 30 or even FORTY FEET on a 50" screen. LMAO It's 4k or nuttin (or really, AT LEAST according to them), don't you know?
NHK is not propagandising 4K, everybody knows they are working on 8K, 4K dropped on them by surprise.
When your goal is a perfect image the resolution requirements are very high. 400 pixels per degree is almost there.
I think the Carlton Bale chart is based on 60 pixels per degree, which gets you about 40% of the way there if you look at the NHK research.
Once you get to 100 pixels per degree, you're around 85% of the way there, and increased resolution starts to bring very little benefit. So while it may not be a perfect image, an ideal image would have about 70% more resolution than the Carlton Bale chart indicates.
I've been saying for a long time now that as a rough guide you want to double the numbers on that chart, which is pretty close to that. (120 PPD, or about 85-90% of a "perfect image")
NHK uses totally different measures of PQ like "realness". Before bothering with such measures and extreme pixel density I would like to see content which is transparent i.e. low compression, bigger color space and higher frame rate.