This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The human eye is incapable of reliably distinguishing any detail finer than 720p

#11temgunPosted 3/19/2014 5:34:24 AM
SinisterSlay posted...
He's right, he can't see higher than 720, other people can though.


Yes he can. Everyone can. I can be ignorant too. I can say that there is no difference between 1080p and 1440p because I haven't seen 1440p, or I could say there is no difference between 32 kbps and 320 kbps just because I haven't heard 320 kbps. Or maybe I have, but I have heard a different song on 320 kbps than 32 kbps. This is how this works and it's painful to read those ignorant posts.
#12phy2jshPosted 3/19/2014 5:44:57 AM
temgun posted...
SinisterSlay posted...
He's right, he can't see higher than 720, other people can though.


Yes he can. Everyone can. I can be ignorant too. I can say that there is no difference between 1080p and 1440p because I haven't seen 1440p, or I could say there is no difference between 32 kbps and 320 kbps just because I haven't heard 320 kbps. Or maybe I have, but I have heard a different song on 320 kbps than 32 kbps. This is how this works and it's painful to read those ignorant posts.


I just read your post about 5 times, and I still can't understand what you're talking about.
#13protools1983(Topic Creator)Posted 3/19/2014 5:57:02 AM
TimePharaoh posted...
If you want to slum, cool, but don't come track mud into our house.


Bro, I've seen your work, nothing to write home about.
---
Xbox One - The console that made me the PC gamer I am today.
Yah like dahgs?
#14DragnfyrPosted 3/19/2014 6:02:50 AM(edited)
Depending on the size of the screen and the distance he's sitting away from it, it's true. Human eyes (and any other optical system) work based on angular resolution instead of absolute resolution.
---
15.4" Retina MacBook Pro (Mid 2012) | Node 304 mITX | Gigabyte Z87N-WIFI | Intel Core i5-4670K | Asus GTX 760 | Corsair 1x8GB | EVGA 600W | 120+64GB SSDs
#15JockoPosted 3/19/2014 6:04:57 AM
That person is actually correct if you factor in screen size and viewing distance. For example if you have a 32 inch screen and you're sitting 20 feet away from it then yeah any higher resolution will be imperceptible.
---
The oxygen's leaving my brain!!! --Clucky the Chicken
()===={SWORDSWORDSWORDSWORD> It's my SWORD sword.
#16Cade6669Posted 3/19/2014 6:47:45 AM(edited)
The article (from some group I never hear of and don't know how reliable they are) didn't take a very scientific approach. The scientific approach has measurable variables and their experiment was still very opinionated. Are there situations and people that can't tell the difference? Yes. Myself and my situation, 1080p isn't good enough for me.
---
Origin - SuperKing61 Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/SuperKing61
I love you.
#17VolebamusPosted 3/19/2014 7:00:23 AM
I think the article just wanted to say that 1080p isn't strictly better than 720p after accounting for 3 factors:
- how your vision compares to the typical 20/20
- screen size
- view distance

So it's more of a warning to suggest why 1080p isn't a big deal for TVs unless you know all the conditions mentioned, and that they meet the threshold where 1080p starts to become noticeable.

Honestly though, it was more relevant when the article was published in 2007 than right now. At this point, unless you want to get a 32" TV or lower, it's actually easier to find 1080p in most other screens sold in stores.
---
(( It is of my own Volition to act as I have. ))
#18DragnfyrPosted 3/19/2014 7:02:56 AM
Cade6669 posted...
The article (from some group I never hear of and don't know how reliable they are) didn't take a very scientific approach. The scientific approach has measurable variables and their experiment was still very opinionated. Are there situations and people that can't tell the difference? Yes. Myself and my situation, 1080p isn't good enough for me.


That article was pretty scientific. It was all based on calculations which are very objective. I didn't double check if the numbers they used were right but their method was correct. There is a physical limit which no optical system can surpass due to the diffraction of light. This limit can be quantified by this formula http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/raylei.html
For a given wavelength of light and for a given aperture diameter (eg. pupil width) there is a specific angular resolution limit beyond which any two points will blur together.
Objectively speaking 720p can be enough depending on the distance and size of the screen you're viewing. If you're sitting at your desk on a 24" monitor then you're right that 1080p isn't enough. At the typical desk viewing distance and on a typically sized monitor (20-27") 4K resolution is pretty close to the limits of human vision IIRC.
---
15.4" Retina MacBook Pro (Mid 2012) | Node 304 mITX | Gigabyte Z87N-WIFI | Intel Core i5-4670K | Asus GTX 760 | Corsair 1x8GB | EVGA 600W | 120+64GB SSDs
#19Cade6669Posted 3/19/2014 7:26:15 AM
You're right. I stand corrected. I was merely trying to say that different situations yield different results but I missed that part in the article that states that.
---
Origin - SuperKing61 Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/SuperKing61
I love you.
#20wh0_kn0wsPosted 3/19/2014 8:43:13 AM
wow, don't people get tired of posting this s###
---
it's simple. just be nice.