| shikamaru317 said: I just put the information he gave into a PPD (pixels per degree) calculator. At a 10 foot viewing distance, a 50 inch tv playing 720p content has 61 PPD, that's over the 53 PPD threshold where someone with 20/20 vision can no longer distuingish between individual pixels. My own screen at my typical viewing distance has 54 PPD at 720p, just over the 53 PPD threshold (I tested the PPD threshold theory to see if it's true, Youtube videos running at 720p and 1080p look identical on my screen at my typical viewing distance). Resolution doesn't matter unless you have a very large screen or unless you sit very close to a smaller screen. Now in several years once 60+ inch 4K tv's become affordable, then native 1080p will become more important, but by that time we could see new consoles, it's been predicted that mobile graphics will catch up to the Xbox One and PS4 by 2018, and I doubt that Sony and Microsoft are going to let smartphones/tablets have games with better looking graphics than their consoles. |
53 ppd threshold might be the point where you can't count the individual pixels anymore but that's far from the point where you no longer benefit from a higher resolution. Especially in games, rendering in higher resolution yields a much more stable picture when it comes to small detail. A downscaled you tube comparison is terrible for comparision. 1080p downscaled to 720p looks much better then native 720p.
I watch 1080p content at about 58 ppd on a projector, and the same content at 104 ppd on the living room tv. At 104 ppd the image looks pristine, at 58 ppd it holds up nicely, but far less sharp. Plus I can see the pixels on the projector and lots of sub pixel AA problems. At least 1080p looks a lot better then 720p.
Anyway my point is 53 ppd might be the point beyond which you can't read the tiniest possible font anymore but it is way low when it comes to rendered graphics. Btw where did you get 53 from? 20/20 vision corresponds to 30 cycles per degree, equals 60 pixels per degree, not 53?
Plus research and double blind tests have shown that people can still tell a difference up to 200 ppd, with a theoretical maximum of 300 ppd.
Sinusoidal gratings were used by Campbell and Green (1965) to determine the maximum resolution of the eye. They used interference patterns generated by a laser to bypass the optics of the eye to create a sinusoidal grating at the back of the eye. They found that the maximum resolution was about 60 cycles per degree, whereas a free viewing screen resulted in reduced resolution capabilities. More recent work on photoreceptor density and spatial resolution has shown that the receptor array in the human visual system can resolve in the order of 6/1 (20/3) or ~150 cycles/degree (Curcio et al, 1990; Miller et al., 1996; Roorda and Williams, 1999). Cone spacing at the fovea is approximately 2.5 um (Curcio et al, 1990) or approximately 28 seconds of arc. Based on cone spacing, a maximum of about 60 cycles per degree is possible, which is well above conventional clinical measures as this does not compensate for the optics of the eye and post-receptoral neural processing.
It's not a one on one process between screen and eyes, plus remember you have 2 eyes which both have a slightly different view and both contribute to the detail you see in the end. Resolution makes a difference.
