Looking here: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html and considering a standard distance of around 10 feet from the TV, you would need something like a 200 inch screen to be able to see 4K resolution, why would you ever need somethig like this? I guess if maybe that resolution was plastered over a 360 degree experience?
Just think about what people were saying about High Def back in the day DVDs came out... I know most people I talked to thought DVD was the greatest picture they would ever need and didn't see any reason to have anything better.
In fact, many people out there still don't see a need for it.
I will most likely have a 200 inch projection screen soon in my new house, since I dedicating a big rec room to my projector to make a nice home theater. So for me, this would be great. I'm sure you can tell the difference between Super Hi-Vision and HD even on a 30 inch screen, although it may be only a slight difference, and the bigger the screen gets, but bigger the difference. I can't wait for this technology, although I highly doubt it will be anywhere near mainstream in the next 10 years.
That site makes assumptions that I don't think are true.
With correction, I have 20/20 vision, and on a 150" 1080p projected image, sitting 10ft away, I can see the narrow gaps between the pixel rows. I think 4k at 100" is still a visible improvement, and UHDTV at 200" is probably still a visible improvement. I've seen the NHK UHDTV demo on a 300" screen. The funny thing is that it had a single stuck pixel.
I think this assumption "Based on the resolving ability of the human eye (with 20/20 vision it is possible to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc)"
Is based on the ability to see that two different shapes that size are indeed different (a square from a circle), which means that 20/20 human vision can probably resolve about 1/120th of a degree.
“It's rare if a month flies by without some random university or DIYer proclaiming that the next major jump in battery technology is just over the horizon.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Looking here: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html and considering a standard distance of around 10 feet from the TV, you would need something like a 200 inch screen to be able to see 4K resolution, why would you ever need somethig like this? I guess if maybe that resolution was plastered over a 360 degree experience?
Just think about what people were saying about High Def back in the day DVDs came out... I know most people I talked to thought DVD was the greatest picture they would ever need and didn't see any reason to have anything better.
In fact, many people out there still don't see a need for it.
I will most likely have a 200 inch projection screen soon in my new house, since I dedicating a big rec room to my projector to make a nice home theater. So for me, this would be great. I'm sure you can tell the difference between Super Hi-Vision and HD even on a 30 inch screen, although it may be only a slight difference, and the bigger the screen gets, but bigger the difference. I can't wait for this technology, although I highly doubt it will be anywhere near mainstream in the next 10 years.
That site makes assumptions that I don't think are true.
With correction, I have 20/20 vision, and on a 150" 1080p projected image, sitting 10ft away, I can see the narrow gaps between the pixel rows. I think 4k at 100" is still a visible improvement, and UHDTV at 200" is probably still a visible improvement. I've seen the NHK UHDTV demo on a 300" screen. The funny thing is that it had a single stuck pixel.
I think this assumption
"Based on the resolving ability of the human eye (with 20/20 vision it is possible to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc)"
Is based on the ability to see that two different shapes that size are indeed different (a square from a circle), which means that 20/20 human vision can probably resolve about 1/120th of a degree.