1080p worth it?

[Seft]

the human eye even with perfect vision can only resolve so much detail and the size of the pixels as you look at the governs this. of course i can see the difference between 1366x768 and 1920x1200 on my 24" montior - i only sit 32 inchs away from it. I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my 50" tv but it isnt anywhere near as obvious as it is on my monitor because i sit 8ft away from the tv - the pixels actually appear smaller as i look at them.

and remember as well that its far harder to do this with film than it is with a static desktop image.

There isn't really such a thing as perfect vision. 20/20 is healthy, but a lot of people can do better (With contact lenses, I can do the bottom line on those charts at the optometrist, which I think is 20/12 or thereabouts). If my understanding is correct (and please let me know if I'm wrong), this means that within the range of 'healthy/perfect' vision, some people can reliably resolve objects almost half the size of people who are 20/20. Surely this as good as 'golden' eyes?

I completely agree that what your eyes can resolve in a static black and white image is completely different to a moving image (especially when you factor in things like concentration and other mental 'processing'), but it would seem that there is at least some reasonable basis for believing that some people have markedly better eyesight than others.

(FWIW, I'm not a 1080p nutjob - my TVs are 720p )

 

[james.miller]

There isn't really such a thing as perfect vision. 20/20 is healthy, but a lot of people can do better (With contact lenses, I can do the bottom line on those charts at the optometrist, which I think is 20/12 or thereabouts). If my understanding is correct (and please let me know if I'm wrong), this means that within the range of 'healthy/perfect' vision, some people can reliably resolve objects almost half the size of people who are 20/20. Surely this as good as 'golden' eyes?

there is a finite limit to how small something can appear for you to see it, which is down to the lense of the eye and the arrangement of the rods and cones on the back of the retina which pick up the image. There's some fairly heavy maths behind it which can give you an absolute best case scenario but if you were to believe certainly people you'd think they are capable of far in excess of these limits. It can be pretty obsurd what people claim to be able to see!

The standard definition of normal visual acuity (20/20 vision) is the ability to resolve a spatial pattern separated by a visual angle of one minute of arc. Since one degree contains sixty minutes, a visual angle of one minute of arc is 1/60 of a degree. The spatial resolution limit is derived from the fact that one degree of a scene is projected across 288µm of the retina by the eye's lens.

In this 288µm, there are 120 color sensing cone cells packed. Thus, if more than 120 alternating white and black lines are crowded side-by-side in a single degree of viewing space, they will appear as a single gray mass to the human eye. With a little trigonometry, it is possible to calculate the resolution of the eye at a specific distance away from the lens of the eye.

For the case of normal visual acuity the angle Theta is 1/60 of a degree. By bisecting this angle we have a right triangle with angle Theta/2 that is 1/120 of a degree. Using this right triangle it is easy to calculate the distance X/2 for a given distance d.

X/2 = d (tan Theta/2)

When visually inspecting an object for a defect such as a crack, the distance (d) might be around 12 inches. This would be a comfortable viewing distance. At 12 inches, the normal visual acuity of the human eye is 0.00349 inch. What this means is that if you had alternating black and white lines that were all 0.00349 inch wide, it would appear to most people as a mass of solid gray

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationReso...e/PenetrantTest/Introduction/visualacuity.htm

There are visual acuity charts floating around that are based on 20/20 vision and yes, some peopel can comfortable exceed the figures, but they wont be doubling them. according to the math, for 100% reliable resolving for a person with 20/20 vision, they should be sitting 6.5ft away form a 50" screen running at 1080p. That's nothing really is it, and how people do you know who have claimed to be able to do it on a smaller screen at near double that distance? not possible, I have better than 20/20 vision with my specs on and i couldnt sit further than 8ft away from my 50" and honestly say i could properly see a difference from 720p

 

[Hairy]

I'm not one to get in an arguement and I certantly haven't looked into the science behind it, but that dosen't change the fact that when playing side by side 1080p and 720p on my 24's, I can see a difference

 

[james.miller]

I'm not one to get in an arguement and I certantly haven't looked into the science behind it, but that dosen't change the fact that when playing side by side 1080p and 720p on my 24's, I can see a difference

you've not been reading the posts - how far away do you sit from that monitor? 30cm?

 

[Hairy]

you've not been reading the posts - how far away do you sit from that monitor? 30cm?

Ah That'll teach me.

about a meter.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[-Ad-]

I just went from a 32" 720p screen to a 42" 1080p. I can tell the difference sitting the same distance away, around 8-10feet but I'm 50/50 on the fact that its a much better panel rather than being 1080p over 720p.

It's these sort of replies that don't help.

It's like comparing an apple to a rock. Totally different sets, technology (more than likely), size, brand, yet the way it is written suggests that the differences are all down to the resolution.

 

[c@tbyte]

Have a look at some.
Chose the one YOU like.
Job done.

You are the one that has to live with it.

 

[tsinc80697]

It's these sort of replies that don't help.

It's like comparing an apple to a rock. Totally different sets, technology (more than likely), size, brand, yet the way it is written suggests that the differences are all down to the resolution.

er no, the way it is written suggests that "I'm 50/50 on the fact that its a much better panel rather than being 1080p over 720p."

So where does it say the differences are ALL down to resolution? I said 50/50 implying that it could be either and I don't know.


Take your facepalms elsewhere

 

[probedb]

There is no such thing as 'golden eyes' in the same way that 'golden ears' do not exist. People convince themselves that they see differences where they actually cannot.

Everyone is different why can't you accept that? That's what glasses and hearing aids are for. That's why for one person, something 3m away is blurry and for someone else it's as clear as crystal.

I can see the lines between the pixels on my laptops screen yet I'm on the verge of needing glasses for driving.

My mum can't read a book without glasses but can read writing on signs further away than me.

...and you try and claim that people are making up differences?

 

[fini]

Please read what I and others have already posted above. Highlights include:

Of course some people are objectively blind, but some people seem to claim to have super human eyesight. Those that claim to be able to see the difference between 1080p and 720p on a 32" from 6 foot away on a reasonably active image are fundamentally claiming to have super human eye site.

part of the problem is - even a lot of HD content on blu-ray, etc. thats "1080p" is often only say 1920x800 and sometimes looks like its been upscaled from 1280x600, lots of bad transfers, etc. a lot of people probably wouldn't be able to tell teh difference with these movies between 1080p, 720p and even DVD res 576/480 on an otherwise identical screen and viewing distance.

according to the math, for 100% reliable resolving for a person with 20/20 vision, they should be sitting 6.5ft away form a 50" screen running at 1080p. That's nothing really is it, and how people do you know who have claimed to be able to do it on a smaller screen at near double that distance? not possible, I have better than 20/20 vision with my specs on and i couldnt sit further than 8ft away from my 50" and honestly say i could properly see a difference from 720p

 

[-Ad-]

er no, the way it is written suggests that "I'm 50/50 on the fact that its a much better panel rather than being 1080p over 720p."

So where does it say the differences are ALL down to resolution? I said 50/50 implying that it could be either and I don't know.


Take your facepalms elsewhere

Meh I didn't fully read your post

But my main point still stands that the technology, panel, processing, size, brand all effect the picture quality, and there are plenty of people who do compare totally different sets, tech and size then equate the differences as being down to the extra pixels. Now that is facepalm worthy