Max res your eyes can see, in one display?

[Chronified]

Alright. You got past the title. 

GG to you. 

Give me a chance here, don't run away just yet. 

 

 

This forum is referring to 4 videos.

One pretty old, one fairly new, and 2 possibly to come

(if you people around here take good ideas and put them to good use instead of being mad and not doing it because you didn't think of it).

 

Remember that old "What's the Resolution and Refresh Rate of Your Eyes?" video on Tech Quickie?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e_CbbAbf7gE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(That was my first embed in a forum ever. I guess that was pretty easy.)

 

Anyways.. at 1:57 they mention how you would need a 32000x18000 monitor, or 275 1080p monitors to achieve this. 

 

Well, as of recent LinusTech has released an 8k desk setup, followed by a 16k setup....

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nthOpo5tQDk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(2 now, on a roll!)
 

.........I'm suggesting it be a work-up to something BIG.

If the mentioned 275 monitors from the Tech Quickie video were 4k instead, you would only need 69 monitors

(haha, only if you do the math a certain way .275 1k monitors (1080p) divided by 4 for 4k monitors = 68.75, close enough right?)

 

32000 vertical 'pixels' of the eye divided by the standard 3840 vertical pixels of a 4k monitor would only require 8.3 (round off to 9 for overkill factor) to be equal and;

18000 pixels of the eye divided by the standard 2160 pixels would also only require 8.3 monitors (round off again to 9 for overkill)

 

9x9 monitors, 81 in a total.

 

It is going to require a LOT of work; Contractors, a warehouse, support structures, a LOT of lended Intel NUC clients, 4 host PCs running one of the many "monitor extending" programs coming out (no not Synergy)...

...the list goes on.

 

BUT... AND ONLY BUT. HERE'S HERE THIS GETS GOOD.

The cherry on the cake would be doing a series on the hellish task of de-bezzeling ALL of the monitors to make a near-seamless picture.

 

No, the setup would not be able to run crysis.... Don't even ask........wait? Could it?

No, they wouldn't be able to be "loaner" monitors.

No, it's not going to be easy AT ALL.

Hell, there probably isn't any content even made at that resolution for video playback.

The editors at LTT CAN AND WILL need to be creative to render something for us (and them) to enjoy on that monstrosity

then split up the rendering into separate 4-8k chunks to play back on the NUCs (depending on how many monitors they can use on 4k,

USB-HDMI adapters supported by USB 3.1 hubs will come in handy I'm sure.

 

But, what we can and should do to help LTT, since Ad Revenue from YouTube and the sponsors don't actually pay that much......

Support a raffle draw to buy off some, if not most of the monitors used in the video, original boxes and bubble wrap included! Just pay additional S&H

 

(I'll take 8!)

The raffle could be done on Youtube Live which could greatly increase viewer counts on LTT channels, and be REALLY fun!

 

 

It's a terrible great idea.

 

 

[Chronified]

GG to the youtube embedding not working. What did I do wrong?

[Neftex]

what is this pseudoscience...

 

max res where you can recognize pixels? depends on distance, size and probably million other things...

 

i really dont understand the point of this

[Guest]

I've got a milkyway picture of over 1 gb in size. Me thinks this setup is way to small. But not sure...

[Chronified]

4 minutes ago, Neftex said:

what is this pseudoscience...

 

max res where you can recognize pixels? depends on distance, size and probably million other things...

 

i really dont understand the point of this

The point is because.... well.... because they can.

 

3 minutes ago, Dutch-stoner said:

I've got a milkyway picture of over 1 gb in size. Me thinks this setup is way to small. But not sure...

I think we've all got that picture, but what we're looking for is a very well synced gif between clients or doing some video playback of prerendered footage as an ideal situation haha.

We also want exact resolutions for 1:1 scaling!

[SirFido]

26 minutes ago, Chronified said:

Alright. You got past the title. 

GG to you. 

Give me a chance here, don't run away just yet. 

 

 

This forum is referring to 4 videos.

One pretty old, one fairly new, and 2 possibly to come

(if you people around here take good ideas and put them to good use instead of being mad and not doing it because you didn't think of it).

 

Remember that old "What's the Resolution and Refresh Rate of Your Eyes?" video on Tech Quickie?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e_CbbAbf7gE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(That was my first embed in a forum ever. I guess that was pretty easy.)

 

Anyways.. at 1:57 they mention how you would need a 32000x18000 monitor, or 275 1080p monitors to achieve this. 

 

Well, as of recent LinusTech has released an 8k desk setup, followed by a 16k setup....

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nthOpo5tQDk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(2 now, on a roll!)
 

.........I'm suggesting it be a work-up to something BIG.

If the mentioned 275 monitors from the Tech Quickie video were 4k instead, you would only need 69 monitors

(haha, only if you do the math a certain way .275 1k monitors (1080p) divided by 4 for 4k monitors = 68.75, close enough right?)

 

32000 vertical 'pixels' of the eye divided by the standard 3840 vertical pixels of a 4k monitor would only require 8.3 (round off to 9 for overkill factor) to be equal and;

18000 pixels of the eye divided by the standard 2160 pixels would also only require 8.3 monitors (round off again to 9 for overkill)

 

9x9 monitors, 81 in a total.

 

It is going to require a LOT of work; Contractors, a warehouse, support structures, a LOT of lended Intel NUC clients, 4 host PCs running one of the many "monitor extending" programs coming out (no not Synergy)...

...the list goes on.

 

BUT... AND ONLY BUT. HERE'S HERE THIS GETS GOOD.

The cherry on the cake would be doing a series on the hellish task of de-bezzeling ALL of the monitors to make a near-seamless picture.

 

No, the setup would not be able to run crysis.... Don't even ask........wait? Could it?

No, they wouldn't be able to be "loaner" monitors.

No, it's not going to be easy AT ALL.

Hell, there probably isn't any content even made at that resolution for video playback.

The editors at LTT CAN AND WILL need to be creative to render something for us (and them) to enjoy on that monstrosity

then split up the rendering into separate 4-8k chunks to play back on the NUCs (depending on how many monitors they can use on 4k,

USB-HDMI adapters supported by USB 3.1 hubs will come in handy I'm sure.

 

But, what we can and should do to help LTT, since Ad Revenue from YouTube and the sponsors don't actually pay that much......

Support a raffle draw to buy off some, if not most of the monitors used in the video, original boxes and bubble wrap included! Just pay additional S&H

 

(I'll take 8!)

The raffle could be done on Youtube Live which could greatly increase viewer counts on LTT channels, and be REALLY fun!

 

 

It's a terrible great idea.

 

 

You can't have it that big, because its still just 8k monitors,  the reselution per inch has not changed and you eye can still see more then that

[Chronified]

Just now, SirFido said:

You can't have it that big, because its still just 8k monitors,  the reselution per inch has not changed and you eye can still see more then that

"monitors as far as the eye could see" could be a good catchphrase.

[Arika]

It is generally agreed that 300-350 PPI (pixels per inch) is the highest density the human eye can see. maybe in a very very extreme cases a normal person could not discern the difference between anything above this

[Neftex]

5 minutes ago, Chronified said:

The point is because.... well.... because they can.

making video of stacked monitors for no reason

not to mention as a viewer youre gonna watch it in 4k on youtube on your 27" monitor? yea, brilliant...

[Wolther]

 

 

Btw your title is about a single monitor and then you just went off with having many many monitors, not really sure what's up haha. 

But yeah.. currently you have more surface area than your eyes can see if you used these monitors up close, but you do make a point if you were to stand far away. How far away? I'm not really sure, but being far enough away and having these monitors fill your field of view it may or may not work 

[SirFido]

26 minutes ago, Chronified said:

"monitors as far as the eye could see" could be a good catchphrase.

Now we're talking(:

[Atmos]

18 minutes ago, SirFido said:

You can't have it that big, because its still just 8k monitors,  the reselution per inch has not changed and you eye can still see more then that

 

17 minutes ago, Chronified said:

"monitors as far as the eye could see" could be a good catchphrase.

He hit the nail on the head mate.

When linus is referencing how many monitors you would need to absolutely be unable to determine individual pixels, he's talking about at a normal viewing distance.

 

Just gluing together 81 4k monitors wouldn't increase their pixel density, which is what matters, it would just increase the gross dimensions of the display. Now, if you sat say, 10-15ft back from the array of monitors, then maybe you could say you've made some progress, but that progress literally isn't anything that we can't just do at home by moving our chairs just a little bit back.

 

All in all, the end-goal of such a video is already obvious to anyone who has any grasp of tech, the video would likely also receive wide spread negative feedback at such a disappointingly flop of an end result. I mean could you image? "Yea, we spent hundreds of hours negotiating sponsorships, debezzling monitors (we broke a LOT of them) made it into a 3 video series, ended it on a 'well, you can get the same results moving back a few feet from your monitor and you won't have to deal with the massive difference in latencies between the displays making it impossible to display a realtime coherent scene across all at the same time' message, and everything we've done is useless and was a complete waste of time that turned a decent chunk of our viewerbase against us." You know, that does actually sound like a video they would make :L

[TheRandomness]

-Thread moved to Displays.