Theoretical question about resolutions.

[aarona493]

So I was watching the 5k monitor ces video and wondered if there exists a point at which we no longer need anti aliasing tech. That would alleviate considerable chunks of the gpu to do other things like drive massive displays. I figure anything that meets "retina" standards might do it but "how retina" would it need to be. I get closer to the screen to view small objects so those would still need AA. How small does that pixel need to be so that my eye wouldn't be able to see the pixels regardless of how close I got. And does that really get rid of the need for AA?

[ZetZet]

4K at 28 inches pretty much needs no AA afaik. Like the lowest AA possible already looks fine.

[Fate]

28" 8k and you will probably not be able to notice aliasing at all.

People say you cannot notice it at 28" 4k, but you still can, it's just not nearly as bad as 1080p. 

[APrettyCoolWalrus]

4k at 24-28 inches seems to be a good point based on what reviews say

[aarona493]

Can't wait to mod skyrim at 8k 

[EdZ]

There's an interesting paper on the human visual system from the AFRL. Their conclusion is that to fool the human eye, a 17" 4:3 monitor, at 20" from the eye, sould need to be on the order of 15 GIGApixels in order to truly fool the human eye. the big kicker is Vernier Acuity: the human eye is REALLY good at telling if two things are not aligned, and that is exactly what alisaing exhibits as.

If we assume really good AA (something like 4x or 8x SSAA), then minimum seperable acuity for the same monitor would be 16.3 megapixels, or around 4,600,000 x 3,500,000.

8k isn't even close to the limits of human vision.

[Guest Strangerbob]

around 300 ppi is considered the limit for mobiles and monitors, stuff that you use up close more or less...

 

any higher pixel density becomes meaningless, AA is 100% obsolete then

 

i would say AA is already obsolete with a 27" 4k with a 160ppi

 

http://isthisretina.com/

[EdZ]

A 'retina display' is purely a marketing term, with effectively no scientific backing. PPI is measingless without knowing the distance from the eye to the display.

There are multiple measures of human visual acuity, due to the multiple ways in which the brain processes signals from the eye, and all of these are based around the angle an object subtinds with respec to the eye (generally in the range of arc-minutes to arc-seconds).

[Guest Strangerbob]

A 'retina display' is purely a marketing term, with effectively no scientific backing. PPI is measingless without knowing the distance from the eye to the display.

There are multiple measures of human visual acuity, due to the multiple ways in which the brain processes signals from the eye, and all of these are based around the angle an object subtinds with respec to the eye (generally in the range of arc-minutes to arc-seconds).

 

Please open this link and read.

http://isthisretina.com/

 

im convinced i understand what they mean by retina

[EdZ]

Please open this link and read.

http://isthisretina.com/

 

im convinced i understand what they mean by retina

From the site:

"As Steve Jobs said: "It turns out there’s a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch, that when you hold something around to 10 to 12 inches away from your eyes, is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels.""

This is false. 300ppi at 12" has each pixel subtend an angle of 2.9 arc-minutes. Even regular 'Minimum Seperable' acuity is 1 arc-minute, and Vernier acuity/Hyperacuity can resolve down to around 1 arcsecond.

That website is sinple incorrect. Steve Job's definition of a 'retina display' is 100% marketing, with no basis in reality.

[Guest Strangerbob]

From the site:

"As Steve Jobs said: "It turns out there’s a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch, that when you hold something around to 10 to 12 inches away from your eyes, is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels.""

This is false. 300ppi at 12" has each pixel subtend an angle of 2.9 arc-minutes. Even regular 'Minimum Seperable' acuity is 1 arc-minute, and Vernier acuity/Hyperacuity can resolve down to around 1 arcsecond.

That website is sinple incorrect. Steve Job's definition of a 'retina display' is 100% marketing, with no basis in reality.

 

Ok, guess i didnt understand.

[HubiDubi]

From the site:

"As Steve Jobs said: "It turns out there’s a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch, that when you hold something around to 10 to 12 inches away from your eyes, is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels.""

This is false. 300ppi at 12" has each pixel subtend an angle of 2.9 arc-minutes. Even regular 'Minimum Seperable' acuity is 1 arc-minute, and Vernier acuity/Hyperacuity can resolve down to around 1 arcsecond.

That website is sinple incorrect. Steve Job's definition of a 'retina display' is 100% marketing, with no basis in reality.

 

How did you get 2.9 arc-minutes? Are you sure you didn't forget to divide by 300?

[EdZ]

How did you get 2.9 arc-minutes? Are you sure you didn't forget to divide by 300?

No, but I WAS using milliradians by mistake. The subtended angle as actually 8.6 arc-minutes, so even worse.

[HubiDubi]

No, but I WAS using milliradians by mistake. The subtended angle as actually 8.6 arc-minutes, so even worse.

No way. 8.6 arc-minutes is about 52° or .9 rad. And the angle of a one inch plate to a point 12 inches away is about 4.8°. So divided by 300 gives .06° or .16 arch-second.