SpokenTruth said:
Still wrong. That's not completely how your eyes, or physics, work. For one, the figure you are referencing is only about a 90 degree view. For another, it's a locked frame of reference. The frame of reference can always be further away requiring more pixels to maintain the pixel density required for indistinguishable pixels. Now if you were to map an image directly onto your retinas, then you would be somewhere around 800-900 megapixels to fill you entire field of vision. But that doesn't work the same when you are talking about a display because then distance becomes a factor. |
I think wegot some wires crossed here, I specifically said the human eye (singular) and resolves, regardless of if something is in focus or not the same amount of data is being processed and thus resolved, if something is 1 meter away or 1 inch away, the same amount of information is being processed, just in the case of 1 inch away the thing being held 1 inch away is taking up more of your field of vision, and thus the detail of that thing is higher, if it's 1 meter away your eyes resolve less of the information from it, thats a granted, but you're still resolving the rest of the scene in that field of view.
And retinal decal is a real thing that effects virtually everyone over time, that decay leads to fluctuations in the amount of light information processed, the figure of 12960p is taken from the average information the retina is processing at any given time looking directly ahead.
Obviously there is no set rule for approximate amounts because genetics play a huge part in your field of view, such as how much of your vision is taken up by your eye socket, nasal bridge, cheek, eye size, depth, spread, etc.
Regardless, if you think it's 130mpx or 800-900 for full field, we can agree to disagree, but point is, either one of those figures is a hell of a lot higher than 360p.
