| Theo said: You do see in pixels, each rod and cone pick up individual dots of colour and light intensity which you can argue as representing pixels. So the question is how many rods and cones are there in a single human eyeball? 1080p on a 50 inch screen sitting three times the tv's width away from the tv looks 100% detailed to me though. I don't think they need to up resolution anymore cause that'll be an un-neccesary amount of wasted effort that'll hardly get noticed. |
It is up for debate what actually "seeing" something means. Is it the physical reaction in your retina when the photons get absorbed? If so, then yes, there is a pixellated nature to it. And no, it's not quite as simple as counting the number of cones and rods in the retina since the distribution is very uneven and the cells are used for different things.
If you're not meaning the physical reaction, if you think that "seeing" is a phenomenon that happens in the brain when the raw information coming from the eyes is filtered, interpreted and processed, then the question of resolution of human vision becomes totally irrelevant. We do not "see" the world as a continuous stream of light hitting the cones and rods. Our eyes are constantly zig-zagging, even when we're focusing on a single point. These movements are called saccades and microsaccades. During the movement, we don't see anything, so our perception is constructed from a series of images from when the eye is stationary. To make things more interesting, fovea, the area of sharp sight, is only a few degrees wide. So, in essence we only see clearly a tiny bit at the center of each of the images. Our brain uses the information it gets to build a coherent model of the world, filling in the blanks. As our knowledge of the human sensory system has increased, we have learned that Kant was indeed right: we construct our world based on what information we get from our senses and what has been our previous experience and what is our bias. So, considering "seeing" from this angle, where does resolution fit? Is it the resolution at fovea? Is it the total number of rods and cones? Or is it something else, maybe something that really can't be defined?
