# Have we reached the Pinnacle?



## Instal (Apr 8, 2007)

What with 1080p and HDMI have we reached resolution nirvanah? Is 2160p around the corner? If there is more to come will we be able to tell the difference or have we given the human eye all it can handle?


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

Outside of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray we haven't even reached 1080p yet! 

mech


----------



## bob1029 (Feb 26, 2007)

The next format is probably going to be a variant of 4K, which is the next generation digital film format being used for many current productions. I believe even JVC annouced a projector at CES that would be capable of reproducing the 4K format.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

In terms of resolution, I think we're pretty good for some time, but other aspects of video quality still have plenty of room for improvement. Additionally, if the sources don't improve, none of it really matters. I still haven't seen anything touch the Mayweather Delahoya fight on HBO HD in term of picture quality, and that's sarting to get depressing. I doubt any source is close to utilizing HD to its fullest right now - even that fight was probably only 80% of what it could have been.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Not to mention, what would the average home user do with 4k? They either build a theater 25 feet deep, or get motions sickness and neck strain from having a screen far too big for their field of vision.

1080p is not the pinnacle, but it's all ready overkill for most home theaters/livingrooms/bedrooms.


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

I've heard lots of buzz about 1440p HDTV sets.


----------



## joetama (May 31, 2007)

I would have to say that 1440p is still going to be a long way off. A lot of people haven't even accepted or have any desire to get 1080p...


----------



## Instal (Apr 8, 2007)

So does that mean that you guys think that our eyes can process higher resolutions? I wonder what the limit is? Surely sooner or later any increase in resolution would not be able tp be detected by the limits of our biology.:yikes:


----------



## bob1029 (Feb 26, 2007)

Well... the typical visual acuity of a person with healthy eyes (20/20) is about 1 arc minute to discriminate 2 different points. You can do some simple trig to figure out just how far away you could be from a screen with a predefined resolution to make 2 adjacent pixels indistinguishable.

lets see... take number of horizontal pixels and divide by screen width. This will give you dpi (linear only, but we can assume square pixels and go with in^2).

Now for simplicity's sake, we can assume that the pixels are of infinitesimal size, but still visually percievable, and are evenly distributed through the measured region. We can take the dpi value and take the inverse to find the distance between each pixel. 

now its a simple matter to find the number of arcminutes from a certain position...

(90-Tan^-1 (Distance from screen in Inches/(Distance between Pixels in Inches*.5)))*120

if the above equation is less than or equal to 1, then it is fair to say that the pixelation of the display/projection will be unnoticable by the viewer.

To make a simple example:

Lets assume a 1080p projection of 1.77 AR material with a 120" horizontal screen viewed @ 96"

1920/120=16 dpi=.0125 inches between dots

(90-(Tan^-1(96/.0625))*120 = 4.488 arcminutes

So it would be fair to say that the human eye could (under perfect test circumstances) resolve the difference between the dots with minimal difficulty. Now with normal source material this usually goes unnoticed due to the psychovisual characteristics of the human brain, but it should definately be noted that one could tell the difference between 1920 pixels and 4000 pixels at 96" on a 120" screen. In this case, quadrupling the resolution with same viewing characteristics would result in a "perfect" image for all intents and purposes.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

So the answer is yes, if you sit close enough and your screen is big enough.


----------



## Instal (Apr 8, 2007)

eugovector said:


> So the answer is yes, if you sit close enough and your screen is big enough.


Wow, thanks for the clarification Eugo I wa sbeginning to get a headache.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Well, not to diminish the work that Bob did. There are plenty of people who'd rather not just take my word for it.


----------



## bob1029 (Feb 26, 2007)

I was trying to make a point that even under fairly distant viewing conditions (8 foot), we are still very far away from achieving a "perfect" image.


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

How about this?

JCD


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Hah, with Sony's track record of crippling technology, implementing rootkits that devastate computer hardware, and propagating a pay to play standard that most of us thought went out in the 70s, it will be a cold day before I let Sony anywhere near my brain.


----------

