I wasn't being sarcastic, it was a legitimately good and informative post.

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.

 I know but I was still embarressed by the typos LOL

It all depends on how far you are standing from the tv, the pixels per inch of the screen, and the resolution combined. If you had a 480 pixels per inch 480p screen and a 48 pixels per inch 1080p screen, the 480p would look much sharper. So you never really can say that there is a resolution perceptibility limit

I think I get what the OP meant.

You have two windows, of equal size, side by side, and you can see the trees swaying in the wind outside. You are stood 5 feet from the windows.

Except one window is a TV showing a camera display of outside, the other is an actual window. You can't tell the difference without moving closer. What resolution would the TV need to be?

I have native 2160p, but I can upscale lol

Does the RAM from human to human vary???? I think I'm just shy of 3GB DDR2..... :(

Wow interesting topic i have no idea but i bet it is pretty high

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?

_ take a screen where you see the difference between 2 pixels (say a diagonal line without AA)
_ note down the resolution say 800x600 (SDTV)
_ then step back until you can no longer differenciate the pixels and see only a diagonal line (no more step effect)... there you go you have your limit of sight for 2 pixels
_ Now just take the size of the screen from where you are and plug it into your range of sight (how many times could ou see similar TVs next to each other).
_ For example you could see 5 TVs in width and 4 in height. Then at this distance your resolution of sight for which you can no longer distinguish 2 pixels will be
5x800 _ 4x600 or 4000x2400

This is an example and will change for everyone... and it's not accurate at all, but will give you a rough idea.