Originally Posted by Aliens
Enough pixels already! TVs, tablets, phones surpass limits of human vision, experts say
In real-world practical terms, I spent some time with one of the new iPad minis recently. It's the first display I have seen where the pixels are not immediately obvious to me.
They were on my iPad 3 with Retina display, and are on the iPhone 4-5s.
The mini seems to just fall into the right point where the resolution is high enough, and the distance I use the device at is far enough (further than an iPhone) where I don't immediately see the pixel-based nature of the display.
however see the limitations of its resolution on small text if I look for it though, so I would not say no to even more resolution.
Ever since Apple went "Retina" with the iPad 3, I've been saying that they really needed to triple the resolution of the screen rather than only doubling it. (3072x2304 rather than 2048x1536)
264 PPI is not enough on a display that size, at the distance an iPad is used.
Part of the reason cell phone displays need such a high resolution is because they are viewed at closer distances, and many of them are using pentile or equivalent pixel structures which only gives them two subpixels per pixel rather than three.
We really need to be counting the number of subpixels rather than the number of pixels a display has.
With 48 out of 49 participants being able to correctly identify which display was the 4K one, it seems that either the these "experts" are looking at the wrong data when reaching their conclusion about whether or not 4K is worth it, or the test was somehow flawed.
When I am clearly seeing the limits of 1080p resolution on my current display, and we have data from the NHK which shows that there should be a clear benefit to 4K, I'm leaning towards the former.
That's not to say we shouldn't also
be looking for brightness, contrast, color, and motion improvements from new displays.