My theory on ultra high resolution related to the NHK article

[VERTIGGO]

Inspired by this article we saw on DailyTech.com:
http://www.dailytech.com/NHK+D...n+HDTV/article7466.htm

I am theorizing that there will be (or can be) an HD resolution standard of the future that renders further advances superfluous. Eh?

Human photoreceptors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rods_and_cones

"The human retina contains about 125 million rod cells and 6 million cone cells"

Math:
x * y = 131,000,000 total rod cells and cone cells
(assuming they have equal importance even though some are only "gray-scale" in a sense. Also, both eyes receive comparative overlapping pictures, since we focus on the same point with both, so we only need the number of an individual eye's receptors)

16y = 10x
(I know vision isn't 16:10, but just for reference)

x = 1.6y
1.6 * y2 = 131000000
y = (131000000 / 1.6)-1/2

x = 14474.57 y = 9048.48

If you round out for comfortable display size, I would make it a 15120 x 9450 panel. That's 81 1680 x 1050 panels. A little outrageous by contemporary standards, but mathematically feasible in a decade or so.

Does anyone know more about optical receptors? Is my logic too much of a generalization? I'm fascinated with the concept of a display panel that could theoretically display images or real-time animation with the same level of detail of the human eye; essentially a window into another world!

 

[BFG10K]

Pixel count is only one part of it. The other is pixel density.

 

[VERTIGGO]

Of course. I mean, take the 1680 x 1050 panel for example. For us to realistically enjoy this resolution, it would have to be about 9 times denser than the average 21" screen, if it were to be employed in a desktop setting as an upgrade to what a 21" panel user is used to now.

 

[VERTIGGO]

I just found something on audioholics.com:

http://www.audioholics.com/edu...cuity-of-human-vision/
"Staring straight ahead the average person has a stereoscopic field of view (not including peripheral vision which allows nearly a 180 degree field of view) of about 100 degrees...

...For angles smaller than 1 degree we use arcminutes and arcseconds as a measurement. An arcminute is equal to one sixtieth (1/60) of one degree...
...In other words, the average person cannot see more than two spots (pixels if you will) separated by less than 2 arcminutes of angle."

 

[VERTIGGO]

Doing the math, I come up with 100 degrees > 2 arcminutes > 100 degrees / (1/30 degrees) > 3000 = 3000 x 1875 resolution. According to that statement, if Digital Cinema is 4096 x 2160, then DLP theaters already have enough pixels, but you must sit close enough to have a 100 degree view of the screen (pretty damn close).

So unless you're pressing your nose onto this thing, the Ultra HD spec they were talking about on DailyTech is plenty!

 

[RussianSensation]

I think when you talk about resolution you have to consider it in relative terms. If one were to fit 1680x1050 on a 1 inch screen, a human will probably not be able tell the difference between that and say 1920x1200 on same 1 inch screen. That's where BFG's comment about pixel density/dot pitch comes into play.

Think of it that a 30 inch LCD at Dell has 2560 x 1600. But what if you have a 60 inch LCD at home, you'd need double the pixels to have same "effective" image quality because you have double the space to fill. But down the line consumers will buy 100 inch LCDs which means that the digital camera standard you described above could start to be a limitation.

And I am not even mentioning movie theatres with 100 feet of screen space or more.

 

[zephyrprime]

I think you would only have to consider the cones. I seem to recall the rods don't act as individual pixels. They operate in little groups so that false signals are surpressed by group consensus. So yeah, 6MP is about all you need. Maybe 2x-4x that to reduce aliasing artifacts and satisfy Hooke's law. Of course, you could also just use antialiasing.

 

[VERTIGGO]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I think when you talk about resolution you have to consider it in relative terms. If one were to fit 1680x1050 on a 1 inch screen, a human will probably not be able tell the difference between that and say 1920x1200 on same 1 inch screen. That's where BFG's comment about pixel density/dot pitch comes into play.

Think of it that a 30 inch LCD at Dell has 2560 x 1600. But what if you have a 60 inch LCD at home, you'd need double the pixels to have same "effective" image quality because you have double the space to fill. But down the line consumers will buy 100 inch LCDs which means that the digital camera standard you described above could start to be a limitation.

And I am not even mentioning movie theatres with 100 feet of screen space or more.

I know what you're saying, but I am talking about relative terms. That is, the variable is view distance. My point is that if our vision is about 100 degrees, and our eyes can't pick out anything less than 1/30th of a degree of difference, then say the movie screen is 40 feet wide, then we sit about 18' from the screen, and anything above 3000 horizontal pixels (Digital Cinema is 4k x 2k) is more than enough.

We have both bases covered: 100 degrees of viewing (so our near peripheral is used as well), and enough pixel density to satisfy our perception of detail.

Therefore, unless you want to sit closer than 18', our current DLP Theaters have high enough resolution as they are now. The resolution can be the same on a tiny screen or a large screen because you sit closer to small screens and farther away from large screens. The level of detail scales with your viewing distance.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I think when you talk about resolution you have to consider it in relative terms. If one were to fit 1680x1050 on a 1 inch screen, a human will probably not be able tell the difference between that and say 1920x1200 on same 1 inch screen. That's where BFG's comment about pixel density/dot pitch comes into play.

Think of it that a 30 inch LCD at Dell has 2560 x 1600. But what if you have a 60 inch LCD at home, you'd need quadruple the pixels to have same "effective" image quality because you have quadruple the space to fill. But down the line consumers will buy 100 inch LCDs which means that the digital camera standard you described above could start to be a limitation.

And I am not even mentioning movie theatres with 100 feet of screen space or more.

fixed

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

fixed

haha it's funny that I earlier today pointed out the same thing and now I made the same mistake myself when stating that 2x30 inches = 60 inch monitor Thread

I need to to get more sleep.

 

[xtknight]

I'm not an optometrist, but I doubt there's a hard limit. It probably just gets blurrier and blurrier but may still help fill in the holes. AFAIK this is how motion is: the eye can see over 60 FPS, but beyond that it's just blending them (still, this results in smoother motion).

 

[ArchAngel777]

I think I may dissagree with you that in ten years the resolution will be feasable,atainable. Maybe for displaying a Jpeg, but not for any type of rendering. I would say 20 years, at least, IMHO.

 

[VERTIGGO]

For GPUs maybe, but I was simply referring to the LCD panel production (for movies first), but I think the graphics industry is also accellerating faster than it seems.