I mean, it could… but if you run the math on a 4k vs an 8k monitor, you’ll find that for most common monitor and tv sizes, and the distance you’re sitting from them…
It basically doesn’t actually make any literally perceptible difference.
Human eyes have … the equivalent of a maximum resolution, a maximum angular resolution.
You’d have to have literally superhuman vision to be able to notice a difference in almost all space scenarios that don’t involve you owning a penthouse or mansion, it really only makes sense if you literally have a TV the size of an entire wall of a studio apartment, or use it for like a Tokyo / Times Square style giant building wall advertisement, or completely replace projection theatres with gigantic active screens.
This doesn’t have 8k on it, but basically, buying an 8k monitor that you use at a desk is literally completely pointless unless your face is less than a foot away from it, and it only makes sense for like a TV in a living room if said TV is … like … 15+ feet wide, 7+ feet tall.
Commercial digital cinema projectors aren’t even 8K. And movies look sharper then ever. Only 70mm IMAX looks better and that’s equivalent of 8K to 12K but IMAX screens (the real ones not digital LieMAX) are gigantic.
Also screen technology has advanced faster than the rest of the pipeline. Making a movie in a full 8K pipeline would be way too expensive. It’s only since recent years that studios upgraded to a complete 4K pipeline from camera to final rendered out image including every step in between. And that’s mostly because Netflix forced studios to do so.
True native non upscaled 8K content won’t be here for a long while.
This is the most “um acktually” of um actualities but…
For the Apollo 11 documentary that uses only 1969 audio/video they built a custom scanner to digitally scan the 70mm film with the intention that the originals will never need to be touched again at least in their lifetime and its ~16k resolution.
Granted I don’t think you can get that version anywhere? But it exists.
Super cool doc by the way. Really surreal seeing footage that old at modern film quality. The documentary about the documentary is also really interesting.
While it is pretty subtle, and colour depth and frame rate are easily way more important, I can easily tell the difference between an 8k and a 4k computer monitor from usual seating position. I mean it’s definitely not enough of a difference for me to bother upgrading my 2k monitor 😂, but it’s there. Maybe I have above average vision though, dunno though: I’ve never done an eye test.
Well, i have +1.2 with glasses (which is a lot) and i do not see a difference between FHD (1980) and 4k on a 15" laptop. What i did notice though, background was a space image, the stars got flatter while switching to FHD. My guess is, the Windows driver of Nvidia tweaks Gamma & light, to encourage buying 4k devices, because they needed external GPU back then. The colleague later reported that he switched to FHD, because the laptop got too hot 😅. Well, that was 5 years ago.
Interesting: in that sense 4k would have slightly better brightness gradiation: if you average the brightness of 4 pixels there’s a lot more different levels of brightness that can be represented by 4 pixels vs 1, which might explain the difference perceived even when you can’t see the individual pixels.
The maximum and minimum brightness would still be the same though, so wouldn’t really help with the contrast ratio, or black levels, which are the most important metrics in terms of image quality imo.
The graph suggests that you should be looking at a 65-inch screen from a distance of 120 cm for resolutions above 4k to be worth it. I interpret that as the distance at which the screen-door effect becomes visible, so this seems awfully close actually.
A 65-inch screen has a width of 144 cm, which gives you a 100 degree angle of vision from the left edge to the right edge of the screen. Divide the approximate horizontal resolution of 4000 pixels by 100 and you get an angular pixel density of 40 PPD (Pixels Per Degree).
However for the pixel gaps to become too small to be seen or in other words for the screen-door effect to disappear, you need an angular pixel density of 60 PPD. That means you can sit at a more reasonable distance of 220 cm in front of a 65-inch screen for resolutions above 4k to be worth it.
This is still too close for comfort though, given that the resulting horizontal angle of vision is 66 degrees. The THX cinema standard recommends a horizontal viewing angle of 40 degrees.
So multiply 40 degrees by 60 pixels per degree to get a horizontal resolution of 2400 pixels. That means the perfect resolution for TVs is actually QHD.
That means the perfect resolution for TVs is actually QHD.
And yet QHD would be comparatively awful for modern content. 720p scales nicely to QHD, but 1080p does not. I suspect that’s why 4K has been the winner on the TV front, it scales beautifully with both 1080p (4:1) and 720p (9:1) content.
I mean, it could… but if you run the math on a 4k vs an 8k monitor, you’ll find that for most common monitor and tv sizes, and the distance you’re sitting from them…
It basically doesn’t actually make any literally perceptible difference.
Human eyes have … the equivalent of a maximum resolution, a maximum angular resolution.
You’d have to have literally superhuman vision to be able to notice a difference in almost all space scenarios that don’t involve you owning a penthouse or mansion, it really only makes sense if you literally have a TV the size of an entire wall of a studio apartment, or use it for like a Tokyo / Times Square style giant building wall advertisement, or completely replace projection theatres with gigantic active screens.
This doesn’t have 8k on it, but basically, buying an 8k monitor that you use at a desk is literally completely pointless unless your face is less than a foot away from it, and it only makes sense for like a TV in a living room if said TV is … like … 15+ feet wide, 7+ feet tall.
Yes. This. Resolution is already high enough for everything, expect maybe wearables (i.e. VR goggles).
HDMI 2.1 can already handle 8k 10-bit color at 60Hz and 2.2 can do 240Hz.
Commercial digital cinema projectors aren’t even 8K. And movies look sharper then ever. Only 70mm IMAX looks better and that’s equivalent of 8K to 12K but IMAX screens (the real ones not digital LieMAX) are gigantic.
Also screen technology has advanced faster than the rest of the pipeline. Making a movie in a full 8K pipeline would be way too expensive. It’s only since recent years that studios upgraded to a complete 4K pipeline from camera to final rendered out image including every step in between. And that’s mostly because Netflix forced studios to do so.
True native non upscaled 8K content won’t be here for a long while.
This is the most “um acktually” of um actualities but…
For the Apollo 11 documentary that uses only 1969 audio/video they built a custom scanner to digitally scan the 70mm film with the intention that the originals will never need to be touched again at least in their lifetime and its ~16k resolution.
Granted I don’t think you can get that version anywhere? But it exists.
Super cool doc by the way. Really surreal seeing footage that old at modern film quality. The documentary about the documentary is also really interesting.
Yo dawg, I heard you like documentaries.
👈😎👈
The one about Peter Jackson making They Shall Not Grow Old is also neat.
Apparently he collects WWI artillery and they used his private collection for the sound recording.
While it is pretty subtle, and colour depth and frame rate are easily way more important, I can easily tell the difference between an 8k and a 4k computer monitor from usual seating position. I mean it’s definitely not enough of a difference for me to bother upgrading my 2k monitor 😂, but it’s there. Maybe I have above average vision though, dunno though: I’ve never done an eye test.
Well, i have +1.2 with glasses (which is a lot) and i do not see a difference between FHD (1980) and 4k on a 15" laptop. What i did notice though, background was a space image, the stars got flatter while switching to FHD. My guess is, the Windows driver of Nvidia tweaks Gamma & light, to encourage buying 4k devices, because they needed external GPU back then. The colleague later reported that he switched to FHD, because the laptop got too hot 😅. Well, that was 5 years ago.
30 inch laptop? Is that a typo or does somebody actually make one that big?
We’re bringing back briefcase computers!
Right, brainfart. I didn’t measure it but it was largeish but not giant. Let’s say 15".
Interesting: in that sense 4k would have slightly better brightness gradiation: if you average the brightness of 4 pixels there’s a lot more different levels of brightness that can be represented by 4 pixels vs 1, which might explain the difference perceived even when you can’t see the individual pixels.
The maximum and minimum brightness would still be the same though, so wouldn’t really help with the contrast ratio, or black levels, which are the most important metrics in terms of image quality imo.
That graph is fascinating, thank you!
I don’t think it’s correct though.
The graph suggests that you should be looking at a 65-inch screen from a distance of 120 cm for resolutions above 4k to be worth it. I interpret that as the distance at which the screen-door effect becomes visible, so this seems awfully close actually.
A 65-inch screen has a width of 144 cm, which gives you a 100 degree angle of vision from the left edge to the right edge of the screen. Divide the approximate horizontal resolution of 4000 pixels by 100 and you get an angular pixel density of 40 PPD (Pixels Per Degree).
However for the pixel gaps to become too small to be seen or in other words for the screen-door effect to disappear, you need an angular pixel density of 60 PPD. That means you can sit at a more reasonable distance of 220 cm in front of a 65-inch screen for resolutions above 4k to be worth it.
This is still too close for comfort though, given that the resulting horizontal angle of vision is 66 degrees. The THX cinema standard recommends a horizontal viewing angle of 40 degrees.
So multiply 40 degrees by 60 pixels per degree to get a horizontal resolution of 2400 pixels. That means the perfect resolution for TVs is actually QHD.
There’s obviously truth to there being diminishing returns, but this chart is garbage.
And yet QHD would be comparatively awful for modern content. 720p scales nicely to QHD, but 1080p does not. I suspect that’s why 4K has been the winner on the TV front, it scales beautifully with both 1080p (4:1) and 720p (9:1) content.
Btw, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution
And already 4k tv would have to be, what, 2m diagonale, in usual viewing distance of 3m+.
doesn’t this suggest that my 27" monitor I sit a foot away from should just be 480p? that seems a little noticable to me
I think you got this wrong. If you sit 0.3 m away, more than 4k is worth it.
you’re right lol. at first glance I thought the y axis was in inches not feet. make sense now lol
I think you’re misreading ’ as "
If it’s 27" and 1’ away that puts it into the highest resolution category
indeed! im a computer science student who can’t read a graph, that’s tough haha