Resolution just a number?

[Enderman]

I have a theory:

 

The human eye has ~125 million rod cells and ~7 million cone cells.

So the maximum resolution that a person can actually see with their entire field of view would be approximately 132 megapixels.

 

Yes some of the pixels would not register colour because there are far less cone cells than rod cells, but the image would still appear sharper because of the way your brain interprets the light signals.

For example, you can look at a 4k screen (8 million pixels) and still see colour in all of them (despite there being less than 7 million cone cells) BUT you can easily see the square pixels on the screen when the tv fills your field of vision.

 

So 132 megapixels would be a bit more than 16k x 8k pixels. Thats an 16k resolution screen.

(note this is not completely accurate because on the distribution of cells on your retina, the center field of vision has a higher resolution than the edges of your vision)

 

Interesting to think about, no? It seems like past a certain point not far after 8k there would be no advantage in increasing resolution since you cant increase the size of human field of vision.

[XTankSlayerX]

O_O

 

U so smrt, I leik.

 

No, really that's cool.

[TheKDub]

Take that console peasants!

[Tagiau]

I still think rainbows are ugly. 

[79wjd]

@Enderman But, are you looking at the entire screen at any given time anyway? When I'm looking at my monitor playing a game/watching tv/using the internet, I'm usually focused in one area (i.e. not 100% of the screen). So, realistically the max resolution that would be "beneficial" would be when there is 132 million pixels in my field of vision that I'm actually look at (so, significantly higher than 8k).

[LemonSpice]

well actually the focusing area and blind sots make it higher and lower in areas and vsauce did the video

[Katsu-K1L]

Didn't Vsauce do something like this?

but nice theory though

[-TesseracT-]

wait wouldn't 16x x 8k be called 16k?

[Enderman]

@Enderman But, are you looking at the entire screen at any given time anyway? When I'm looking at my monitor playing a game/watching tv/using the internet, I'm usually focused in one area (i.e. not 100% of the screen). So, realistically the max resolution that would be "beneficial" would be when there is 132 million pixels in my field of vision that I'm actually look at (so, significantly higher than 8k).

well actually the focusing area and blind sots make it higher and lower in areas and vsauce did the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I5Q3UXkGd0

 

True, so maybe it would be beneficial to have variable resolution screens! Where they are big screens, using up your entire field of vision (for immersion purposes, like surround gaming) BUT have the center of the screen a higher resolution than the edges, so when you are looking straight on you can see most of the megapixels, but there would still be screen in your peripheral vision for seeing movement.

 

The human peripheral vision is not very high resolution, but it can be very useful for detecting movement (for example in driving) and this would be a nice realistic gaming experience with no bezels and full surround!

[Enderman]

wait wouldn't 16x x 8k be called 16k?

Youre right lol

my bad

[LemonSpice]

True, so maybe it would be beneficial to have variable resolution screens! Where they are big screens, using up your entire field of vision (for immersion purposes, like surround gaming) BUT have the center of the screen a higher resolution than the edges, so when you are looking straight on you can see most of the megapixels, but there would still be screen in your peripheral vision for seeing movement.

 

The human peripheral vision is not very high resolution, but it can be very useful for detecting movement (for example in driving) and this would be a nice realistic gaming experience with no bezels and full surround!

spherical room covered in ips lcd panels

[79wjd]

True, so maybe it would be beneficial to have variable resolution screens! Where they are big screens, using up your entire field of vision (for immersion purposes, like surround gaming) BUT have the center of the screen a higher resolution than the edges, so when you are looking straight on you can see most of the megapixels, but there would still be screen in your peripheral vision for seeing movement.

 

The human peripheral vision is not very high resolution, but it can be very useful for detecting movement (for example in driving) and this would be a nice realistic gaming experience with no bezels and full surround!

That would be very interesting....although, I feel like it would only work on larger monitors close up -- anything too small, or too far away and it'll be bad....Also, an issue with that, is I'll often look at the corner of the screen when in a game, without moving that corner to the center of my monitor...so...In practice, a constant resolution would be much better. 

[Briggsy]

interesting thought, although with something like an oculus rift, where each pixel is stretched through a lens so that the display is warped into a parabolic shape, to trick us into thinking we are looking at something through our own eyes, I wonder how this affects the max pixel density we could theoretically see.

[Enderman]

That would be very interesting....although, I feel like it would only work on larger monitors close up -- anything too small, or too far away and it'll be bad....Also, an issue with that, is I'll often look at the corner of the screen when in a game, without moving that corner to the center of my monitor...so...In practice, a constant resolution would be much better. 

k then maybe make it 32k res just to be sure

[79wjd]

k then maybe make it 32k res just to be sure

I'll take 12. 

[Syntaxvgm]

Resolution is just a number, and we don't see in pixels, but we can see much higher than games run at without even focusing. 

FPS is just a number, but we don't see in frames, and fighter pilots could identify aircraft shown to them for 1 frame at 240fps, so we are nowhere near replicating true fluid motion either. 

 

 

Edit -

I made this for a mousepad I'm ordering as soon as  a logo for a few others I'm ordering is done

[Art Vandelay]

penis size is just number too

[SuperfastJellyfish]

I have a theory:

 

The human eye has ~125 million rod cells and ~7 million cone cells.

So the maximum resolution that a person can actually see with their entire field of view would be approximately 132 megapixels.

How the hell did you make the jump that this is even remotely relevant or true?

[Enderman]

How the hell did you make the jump that this is even remotely relevant or true?

Maybe the fact that one cell can only detect one colour?

So if you put 4 pixels in front of one cell you only get one output signal to the bran, not four.

 

Maybe you dont know what photons are...?

 

I suggest you dont be a dick, because its against the CoC.

Thanks for your comment, great addition to the mature discussion we were having, 10/10.

[QueenDemetria]

My vision isn't the best, so resolution is just a number for me. Screen and element size on the other hand...

[Pickle]

The human eye is magnificent. Too bad that mine are screwed, so all my 132 megapixels are terribly out of focus.