That´s the truth.   If 1080p is "so sharp" then developers wouldn´t need to use AA.   I have a 50 inches TV, and there some games like mass effect 2 that have a lot jaggies.  MGS4 is a 1080p game and yet I can still see some jaggies.  MGS4 ROCKS!!! BEST GAME EVER!! lol XD

Also, the porn industry will have to support beyond 1080P or it won't be seeing rapid adoption.

IIRC, they didn't complain about how 1080P was too clear making their girls flaws showing and they didn't like that. We'll start seeing the girl's pores if we go any higher in resolution, no?

I.E. When you take a pic of yourself with anything higher than 4MP and then you transfer to load on the computer screen viewing at 100% zoom. You suddenly see all these holes on your face, LOL.

(MGS4 renders at 1024x768 and gets upscaled to 1080p)

Jaggies will still be visible at super high res monitors, the human eye is very good at edge detection at high contrast, but far less able to distinguish fine detail (or slight color differences)

http://www.cityastronomy.com/rez-mag-contrast.htm

Instead of using brute force and quadruple the resolution you get far better results using proper anti aliasing techniques or proper downsampling techniques from a 4K source video to 1080p.

PC rendering has a much bigger challenge then video since the lens on the video camera does the smoothing/blending for you. Rendering a moving scene is far harder. Edges need to be properly anti aliased and fine detail must effectively be rendered at a higher resolution and be downsampled to get the correct effect, otherwise things like power lines will flicker or pop in/out of existence. The human eye will still be sensitve to high contrast lines suddenly appearing or disappearing on 8k monitors.

A pc scene rendered at 8k displayed on a 75 inch 8k screen will look exactly the same when properly downsampled onto an 75 inch 2k screen viewed from 10 ft away.

Btw 4000p is way beyond cinema, currently 2K is standard, with some theatres (digital IMAX) using 4K projectors. That is 2048x1080 and 4096x2160. You do get 36 bit color and about 5 times the bandwidth of blu-ray in the cinema. Before we increase the resolution I would first like to see an end to color banding and compression artifacts for home cinema.

Everything that has pc port released for it ?

You can't see the pixels. NO WAY. 

There's a difference between being able to see lines or pixels and to be able to make out detail. You can spot a pixel from further away then that you can resolve detail, and a 1 pixel line from much further again.

Consider this test (if your browser doesn't zoom it at least)

At what distance can you still see the line jumping around. At what distance can you still see the pixel in the lower right. Now at what distance can you tell whether the lines in the top are horizontal or vertical, and when can you see them clear enough to count them.

There's no point to go higher res then beyond the point where you can see the horizontal or vertical lines in the top left at maximum contrast. With some measuring I got to a distance of about 22 inches for my eyes where I can almost make out the lines on my monitor with 113 pixels/inch.

That translates to a 105 inch diagonal 1080p tv at 10ft viewing distance to be able to tell if the lines are horizontal or vertical.

If you really want resolution beyond what the human eye can pick up, you need to go so far away that you can't tell where the line is in the lower left. At night you are most sensitive to the lower light intensity of a monitor, I can still spot the dark line at 24 feet away. So if I sit just 1.5 ft away from the monitor it would have to be at least 16000p or 32K....

But really even at 1.5ft away you have no need for anything beyond 140 pixels/inch. Sure if you sit that close to a 25inch 16:9 monitor, you can go upto 3000x1680 resolution and just barely be able to make out the highest contrasting alternating lines. You'll still need better anti aliasing to get rid of jaggies or higher bitrate video to get rid of compression artifacts.

Great post but still a bit hard to draw real life conclusions. Unless that's the conclusion you drew for us, that 3000x1680 is enuff if the monitor is no bigger than 25 inches?

My conclusion is that for home entertainment in the form of couch tv there is no point in going beyond 1080p. That only makes sense for screen sizes well over 100 inches diagonal. Any pixelation you see is due to bad compression or upscaling.

For PC well depends where you sit.

If I take my measurement that I can see about 200 pixels/inch at 1ft distance.

For a state of the art 27 inch 2560x1440 109 pixels per inch monitor, I won't be able to see the line pattern from more then 22 inches away. (200 / 109 * 12) To be able to read small font you need to sit a bit closer though.

Or if I want to game from 2ft away and not be able to distinguish any pixels I need a monitor with about 100 pixels/inch, sit back and relax while playing, say 3ft, only need 67 pixels/inch.

iphone 4 and psp2 will have oled, the next step 

:D

Ummm, your point!? 

Oh, Iphone 4 is out already, and we're talking about resolution here.