Researchers test how much detail eyes can see - or why Ultra HD might be overkill

[Liranan]

As someone who has a 21" 1680x1050, 24" 1080p, 15" 1080p and a 34" 3440x1440 I can say that the 1050p is the worst, with blurry text. Obviously the 1440 is the best but I wonder whether that's related to technology and not PPI because I know people who have 27" 4K and the text so small that they have to use 200% upscaling to read it (I use 125 on the 1440).

But the difference between the 24" 1080 and 34" aren't as clear as the 21" and that's related to PPI and the age of the screen, as there are very, very few new 1050p screens made, if any. I also have a 4K TV and I'm not impressed at all. It could be related to the quality of the LCD (cheap TV) as colours and text look far better on my 34".

 

[bviktor]

That's not news. We've known for a decade that the human eye's resolution is somewhere between 1440p and 2160p, for sane distances / sizes.

So obviously, you gotta aim for 2160p for maximum fidelity.

And obviously, anything beyond 2160p is utterly pointless.

In other words, there's no point in using anything other than 2160p.

 

[VitalyT]

For TV-s, the best we need is 4K @ 120Hz, with HDR1600. I found it from personal experience that increasing refresh rate to 120Hz improves quality perception a lot. And that going beyond HDR1600 is not needed because very bright scenes start blinding you, and then you start missing what happens next.

 

[Badvok]

Yet another study that fails to accommodate the fact that our retinas are not organised in a fixed grid like the displays; the test patterns were all vertical lines with no curves or diagonals.

 

[seeprime]

Context matters, and in this context his statement is his argument.

It's fine not to care, but to imply that the difference is small is just wrong, and I would argue that 720p on a 4K TV isn't "pretty good" for anything where clarity matters, but that has nothing to do with my point.


Also, going above 4K may not be a huge deal for general TVs, but the larger the TV the more it would matter. If for example someone wanted to have a 120 inch TV and sit relatively close to it, it would definitely make a difference. For VR, resolution makes a huge difference and even 4K is a long way away from being to the point where anything looks sharp.

Again, it's fine if you just "don't care" about the difference between 720p video and 4K video, but that is not the point of this article.

I didn't say anything about video in my first comment so you'll have to forgive me for replying in context. My point was simply that for 3D, rendering in a higher res even above 4K reduces aliasing noticeable. A counter point would be DLSS, but that doesn't mean rendering in a higher res doesn't reduce aliasing; it just means DLSS is a reasonably good mitigating technique.

I never said the difference is small. I watch for content, not image alone.

 

[Kirby1]

I never said the difference is small. I watch for content, not image alone.

Not directly, but it was implied given the context.

 

[Puiu]

My eyes can see beyond 1000k

 

[Squid Surprise]

Not directly, but it was implied given the context.

Perhaps someone was looking for a fight where none was offered?

 

[Eldrach]

Problem we're facing with TV's today - is that even with a 4k subscription to streaming services - they limit the bandwidth to a compressed 25mbit picture - while a true 4k picture would be around 50-55mbit. So the "race" for the perfect picture quality is more along the lines of "upscaling quality" at the moment. Which is actually also a part of why oled tv's just look better - as the "softer" pixels actually helps hide pixeleration issues with low quality streams.
So it's not just about "do you need a 4k tv" - it's just as much a "what type of TV and how good is the upscaling for you to actually benefit from a 4k TV
The human eye might not be able to see all pixels on a 4k tv of say 65 inches while sitting 2,5 meters away..but it's super good at noticing inconsistencies in picture quality.
For PC monitors, sitting just 1 meter away - a true 4k picture will really make a difference as you do see the pixels on a 1440p monitor, especially if you're at 32" or above.

There are more factors to consider than just the PPD

 

[Squid Surprise]

Problem we're facing with TV's today - is that even with a 4k subscription to streaming services - they limit the bandwidth to a compressed 25mbit picture - while a true 4k picture would be around 50-55mbit. So the "race" for the perfect picture quality is more along the lines of "upscaling quality" at the moment. Which is actually also a part of why oled tv's just look better - as the "softer" pixels actually helps hide pixeleration issues with low quality streams.
So it's not just about "do you need a 4k tv" - it's just as much a "what type of TV and how good is the upscaling for you to actually benefit from a 4k TV
The human eye might not be able to see all pixels on a 4k tv of say 65 inches while sitting 2,5 meters away..but it's super good at noticing inconsistencies in picture quality.
For PC monitors, sitting just 1 meter away - a true 4k picture will really make a difference as you do see the pixels on a 1440p monitor, especially if you're at 32" or above.

There are more factors to consider than just the PPD

Exactly! Not to mention that any new tech like Dolby Vision, HDR, etc will always be paired with 4K (or higher) so even if you don’t care about 4K (I don’t), you still need one for the rest…

 

[bclaymiles]

All this talk of what you "need", oh boy a 44" at 8 feet is all you "need", but if you're interested in reproducing the feel of a theater screen at home, that's a postage stamp. And the larger the TV, the greater the value of higher pixel density (obviously within limits). I was lucky enough to stumble on a 4K 98" samsung a few years ago for a ridiculously low price, and it is an absolutely fabulous experience. Sure, if all you've got is SD content, well, welcome to headache-land. If you have access to 4K (and a good sound system), it's immersive and overwhelming - in a good way. 1080P actually isn't too bad either, for the less epic, but still visually engaging, content.

 

[subnex]

One issue is observed a lot the last time I went tv shopping is how bad some TVs are in upscaling low res content, literally making even high quality 1080 p content looking blocky, unsharp and with gosting. Luckily other TVs were excellent at this.
I had content like 4k 1080p 720p and even some old low res xvid content on a usb. Some tvs made the low res content looking pretty reasonable while other made it look like absolute trash

 

[joe2025]

I shoot 8K 2.35 aspect ratio videos to view on my 40" widescreen 5K 120 Dell Thunderbolt hub monitor and I could see a difference from 1080p to 4K but not much from 4K to 8K content. My 55" 4K 120 Samsung TV looks best with 4K content.