Maximum resolution? Ever?

[opendriver]

Well, I was a little curious to what the maximum resolution the human eye could see at, so a quick wiki pulled this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Equivalent_resolution

A maximum resolution of the human eye in good light of 1.6 minute of arc per line pair will correspond to 1.25 lines per minute of arc. Assuming two pixels per line pair (one pixel per line) and a square field of 120 degrees, this would be equivalent to approximately 120×60×1.25 = 9000 pixels in each of the X and Y dimensions, or about 81 megapixels.

One of my co-workers was having a random thought on what TV resolution might be down the line in the future. 1080p is the highest right now, and 1440 might be the next, not 100% sure. So the question arose; at what point are TV resolution not going to matter? 9000 X 9000? Are we really going to notice a big difference in a 22 inch monitor? Are we going to need some sort of Uber HDMI cable to see it?

 

[GrumpEone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Equivalent_resolution

One of my co-workers was having a random thought on what TV resolution might be down the line in the future. 1080p is the highest right now, and 1440 might be the next, not 100% sure. So the question arose; at what point are TV resolution not going to matter? 9000 X 9000?

When it expands into 3 dimensions, as in Holographics.

Are we really going to notice a big difference in a 22 inch monitor?
Are we going to need some sort of Uber HDMI cable to see it?

You would need some optical upgrades, an implant replacing that archaic eyeball....Not included...lol

 

[Zrow]

I imagine that TV will become 3D, in a sense that if you move to a different angle, you will see a different angle of what's on the television. I've read that they're making progress with this, though I have nothing to substantiate any of this right now.

 

[Omnis]

I doubt it, Zrow. Cinematography, Cinematography.

 

[Alfaholic]

The resolution of the human eyeball as posted is measured in degrees and minutes. If you convert this into a flat viewable area, the size of this area will depend on its distance from the viewer. This means that the size of the pixels is more important than the number of pixels. Even though the absolute limit would be 81 megapixels at any distance, this limit will only be viewable when the pixels are equivalent in size to 1.25 minutes of the viewer's field of vision. If the pixels are smaller, you have more resolution than you can perceive. If the pixels are larger, then you could actually handle a higher resolution, but can't see the entire picture at once.

If I read the original correctly, anyway.

This is also based on a viewing area occupying 120 degrees of the viewer's field of vision, which is a sizeable chunk, probably roughly equivalent to sitting in the front row at a cinema.

Anyway, all this would mean that the theoretical limit may be 81 megapixels, but the practical limit would be much lower.

 

[opendriver]

I never really thought of 3D images, I mean, their already in use, but not in big TV's. Movie screens yes. But home theater might be a little pricey, considering how much the imax stuff is.

I think I have a little better idea on how far we have to go get perfection, in terms of Maximum quality

 

[Danoff]

Anyway, all this would mean that the theoretical limit may be 81 megapixels, but the practical limit would be much lower.

Agreed. I don't think 120 degrees is necessary, desirable, or practical.

Plus, having a detectable difference is not the same as having a real advantage in clarity. I doubt that the television standard will change again any time soon. HD has been difficult enough as it is. Any later increase in resolution will have even less of a payoff and probably a higher cost.