I find myself sitting too close to the pc monitor at less then 2 feet at 34 ppd.
Living room at 104, 52" at little under 12 feet.
Projector at 58pp, 92" at little over 11 feet.
If I want the same sharpness on my pc monitor as on my tv I would need a horizontal resolution of 4009 pixels.
Too bad 4K monitors are not for sale yet
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/viewsonic-vp3280-led-4k-monitor-hands-on/
Price estimated at: $30k - $40k
This will be the cheaper option for a while
Resolution is only part of the battle to reality displays.
The bigger the screen the more desirable higher frame rates get.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/2/23/NHK-120fps-8k4k-sensor
Even beyond 120 fps will be useful, and not in the way that 240hz displays add intermediate frames. The problem is with motion blur. When you capture the image at 1/60th of a sec moving objects will be blurred. This is good to make the motion look more fluid, however the camera movement (or lack of) dictates what is blurred. Your eyes normally track objects that you're focussing on, keeping them without any motion blur.
A higher framerate will make the movement more fluid, moving objects will make smaller jumps. But it will only really help by also capturing the image at a faster shutter time. Otherwise you're just spreading the blur around.
Ironically games are best suited to the sort of interpolation that 240hz fluid motion displays do since you can disable all motion blur in games. However playing with a 3 frame delay (for the display to properly calculate the intermediate frames) isn't desirable. And any sort of frame rate dips or screen tearing will be greatly amplified.
