What errors? I keep asking what errors I missed and all you keep saying is all the errors but you never say what since I started asking what I missed. Also what lies? You never once said what my lies are. So you are failing to provide evidence.“i dont know perhaps all teh errors point out in this thread that you havent done anything about.”
The chart says at 65" 4k there is no difference out past 8.6 feet away but your average healthy under 50 can see a difference out past 8.6 feet. The chart is wrong as it doesn’t represent your typical healthy 20 to 50 year old. The chart is based on the average eye sight of 20/20 which most healthy people after correction don't degrade to that bad until age 75. If you take out all the age 75 to age 90+ data average eye sight after correction is better than 20/20.“well done i even said it was a minimum, but guess what it tallys up with the chart but you say the chart is wrong. you can do the calculation for the other end if you wish. “
To put it another way the chart is based around people who cannot read past the 4th from bottom line in the Snellen test and after eye correction most healthy under 50’s can read beyond the 4th line.
I have and it doesn’t agree with what you are saying. In healthy people average visual acuity is 20/12.5 for 20 to 40 year olds, Eye don’t degrade to 20/16 until 50’s and degage to 20/20 at around age 75 in healthy people. Even the older 1962 data says the average under 50 has better then 20/20 version.“there is plenty of information out there for acurity, field of view etc, go read it. no one else is agreeing with you, I wonder why. “
Lots of different source material under lots of different situations including winter and summer sun light. A good test is http://carltonbale.com/pixel_by_pixel_checkerboard/ stand back until it goes grey.“How did you mitigate against the source material biassing the results ? –“.
The main reason behind my testing was to setup camera rooms so I only got data points at selected ranges. I didn’t test outside the range of the rooms as the only thing that mattered to me is what difference it made within seating ranges available. I did notice resolution impacts 3d rendered graphics are a lot more then films. There were people who couldn’t spot the different in resolution with films but could with 3d rendered graphics. Yes projector material matters some are pretty terrible with a low viewing angle. Just the act of standing up and sitting down blurred the top of the screen with some of them. I found a lot of the gray and black material will make the blacks deeper but the trade-off is poor viewing angle and some of them have sparkles.“Did you establish at what distance/screen size you did not see a benefit from 4K, so how should the chart be adjusted ?”
Unless the projector is out of focus the projector screens have strong pixilation if you get to close. Modern projectors are sharp enough that pixilation can be a problem. 1024x768 or 720p at 100” creates really bad pixilation within an average sized house room. At 90” to 100” I would say 1080p at a minimum, 4k if you can afford it.“(I had read previously, with respect to cinema screens, you do not see strong pixellation close up like an emissive)”
Last edited: