4K, 8K and now 16K

[Hans Tucker]

Is there a point where you can't discern the resolution difference between a 4K TV and a 16K? 8K has hardly kicked off and I noted the Samsung version I saw in JB HiFi was rather power hungry and rated 1 Star Energy Efficient. So how Energy Efficient will an introduction 16K TV be.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/shopping/16k-tvs-explained-what-comes-after-4k-and-8k-resolution/ar-AARIqIX?ocid=msedgntp

[FlashDrive]

I've read somewhere not too long ago that Japan's ' studio production ' movie cameras are now at 24K .............:eyepop:

[JA]

Yes there is Hans, but it depends on an individual's visual acuity, light levels, contrast, screen size and of course viewing distance. You can do a little experiment if you have a tape measure and a thin object, say a human hair. A human hair is around 100 µm in diameter, but possibly anywhere from 50 to 150ish µm in diameter .

I have found that under indoor artificial lighting conditions that I can just see a 50µm in diameter brownish human hair on a white background at around 3 meters away. Maybe if the hair was black or on an illuminated background like a computer screen, I could do a little better, but that gives you an idea to start to answer your question. That result pleasantly surprises me because that represents an angle of about 3 arcseconds and I'm aware that average limits for the resolution of the eye are cited as anywhere around 0.5 to 0.7 arcminutes (30-42 arc seconds).

Anyway ....
For a person able to discern say 3 arcseconds, there isn't much point in having a pixel that subtends an angle of much less than 3 arcseconds at the eye. If we take say 4m as a typical TV viewing distance (possibly it's 3m) then we can arrive at some further conclusions...

At a 4m viewing distance with 3 arcsecond visual resolution.....
there isn't much point in having a pixel much smaller than ~ 0.058mm as it can't be discerned from its neighboring pixel.

At a 4m viewing distance with the more typical 30 arcsecond visual resolution.....
there isn't much point in having a pixel much smaller than ~ 0.58mm as it can't be discerned from its neighboring pixel.

The same sort of thinking and differences in human acuity/resolution could be considered in further answering your question of 4k vs 8k if the screen size is known and viewing distance is known.

The complicating factor in the above is that TV screens aren't black and white and hence my reference to the black and white (human hair on white background) might not be perfectly applicable, given that the eye's response changes with wavelength, given the RGB pixel TV source distributed over a Bayer type matrix , coupled with the fact that my resolution test is a line not a square-dot like a pixel......, but I would say it's enough to put you in the ballpark.:D

Best
JA

[multiweb]

I can see the benefit for projecting in a movie theatre on a big surface but I doubt the average flat screen TV at 2 or 3m would make any difference. :question:

[JA]

I suppose it depends on what's considered average, but on a not huge 65 inch format TV it should be possible to tell the small difference between 4k and 8k resolution when viewing in the 2 to 3m range. It only gets easier to discern this albeit small difference, in the increasingly popular 75 to 85 inch TVs.... and above.

For my own part, yes there is a difference, but I would not consider upgrading from 4K to 8K, even on a relatively large screen size around 85. Where there would be a benefit, at the bleeding edge $$$ would be in a very dark room, perhaps with a large O-LED v LCD, Q-LED &c, but even then there are some incredible 4k LCD/Q-LEDs with very high contrast.

Best
JA

[AdamJL]

Yes you will see a difference if the screen is big enough

That said, I’m more interested in other aspects of high res displays like life sized video calls on a wall in your house