Joined
·
207 Posts
As many of you know, if you keep increasing display pixel density, at some point there will be no real point to it because eyes won't be able to perceive those extra detail that resolution brings.
For many years, viewing distance has been recommended based on idea that apparent size of a pixel should be 1 arcminute. That translates to angular resolution of 60 pixels per degree.
But, if we want not be able to perceive higher quality, apparent size of a pixel has to be 0.3 arcminutes or less. That translates to angular resolution of 200 pixels per degree.
Full resolution here .
Of course, we can't just start recommending viewing distance based on angular resolution of 200 pixels per degree. Why? Because technology isn't there yet. We'd have to recommend either huge distances or small TVs.
Full resolution here .
So, my question is, now, at 2012, 4K is almost here, what angular resolution is good enough (not perfect) for recommendations of viewing distance? 100 plus?
For many years, viewing distance has been recommended based on idea that apparent size of a pixel should be 1 arcminute. That translates to angular resolution of 60 pixels per degree.
But, if we want not be able to perceive higher quality, apparent size of a pixel has to be 0.3 arcminutes or less. That translates to angular resolution of 200 pixels per degree.
Full resolution here .
Of course, we can't just start recommending viewing distance based on angular resolution of 200 pixels per degree. Why? Because technology isn't there yet. We'd have to recommend either huge distances or small TVs.
Full resolution here .
So, my question is, now, at 2012, 4K is almost here, what angular resolution is good enough (not perfect) for recommendations of viewing distance? 100 plus?