Help me understand this graph

[IAmAndre]

Hi,

 

I came across this article from LifeHacker last week. It's about the difference between the resolutions from 480p to 4K, and there is the following graph at the beginning :

 

 

I have a 23 inch monitor and I usually play at 1080p, but I have no problem with lowering the resolution to 900p when my GTX 750 can't deliver a solid framerate. Actually the only difference I see is the text being bigger sometimes. If I understood well, what this graph says is there is only a negligible difference between 1080p and 4K when I sit right in front of my monitor for gaming (and the difference is even smaller between 900p and 1080p)? Does it mean that I should only worry about resolutions on my 40 inch TV?

I personally didn't notice a huge difference but I thought it was just me. Is it pointless to buy a 4K monitor unless it's at least over 30 inches to notice a real difference?

 

Thanks

[thekeemo]

You are correct. But for 1080p if your sitting right in front of it the limit is really 24" anything up to 30" 1440p beyond that 4k

[AresKrieger]

Yeah the only things that matter for visual resolution are pixel density and viewing distance, not the picture resolution, and larger displays have a lower pixel density

[IAmAndre]

You are correct. But for 1080p if your sitting right in front of it the limit is really 24" anything up to 30" 1440p beyond that 4k

 

 

Yeah the only things that matter for visual resolution are pixel density and viewing distance, not the picture resolution, and larger displays have a lower pixel density

 

Thanks. That's good to know. I wanted to get a 27 inch 21/9 monitor at some point. The height would be the same, so it pointless to get a 1440p one?

[AresKrieger]

Thanks. That's good to know. I wanted to get a 27 inch 21/9 monitor at some point. The height would be the same, so it pointless to get a 1440p one?

Depends on viewing distance but if say 2.5 ft away then you wouldn't notice any difference

[Sauron]

Bare in mind that graph is partly subjective, as people with better vision will notice the difference at higher distances than others. Even according to that graph, if you sit 2ft away from a 23" monitor the full benefit of 4k is visible, and you're probably closer than that. Personally I find the higher resolution to be 100% noticeable on my 28" panel and I would much rather lower other settings than my resolution in order to obtain 60fps. You should try that too, if you are not satisfied with your performance start lowering anti-aliasing and ambient occlusion first, then depth of field and the rest leaving texture resolution last (you should be abkle to stop much sooner). You'll notice that some of the heavier filters have a huge impact on performance but only really make the image a little different as opposed to much better as the performance inpact would seem to indicate.

[Fate]

 

Is it pointless to buy a 4K monitor unless it's at least over 30 inches to notice a real difference?

 

I feel like these charts are pretty misleading, unless I'm reading them completely wrong. I have a 28" 4k monitor, and the difference between 4k and 1080p is very significant at normal viewing distances (2 feet) in games and every day use. Even when I'm across my room, 10 feet or so, I can tell a difference in games, though it's not nearly as significant. For video it's probably different.

[IAmAndre]

Bare in mind that graph is partly subjective, as people with better vision will notice the difference at higher distances than others. Even according to that graph, if you sit 2ft away from a 23" monitor the full benefit of 4k is visible, and you're probably closer than that. Personally I find the higher resolution to be 100% noticeable on my 28" panel and I would much rather lower other settings than my resolution in order to obtain 60fps. You should try that too, if you are not satisfied with your performance start lowering anti-aliasing and ambient occlusion first, then depth of field and the rest leaving texture resolution last (you should be abkle to stop much sooner). You'll notice that some of the heavier filters have a huge impact on performance but only really make the image a little different as opposed to much better as the performance inpact would seem to indicate.

Well I don't notice a big difference between 720p and 1080p in movies neither, and the author of the article feels the same. And I have a 8/10 vision with my glasses on as my doctor said. Maybe that's why :-) 

[thekeemo]

Thanks. That's good to know. I wanted to get a 27 inch 21/9 monitor at some point. The height would be the same, so it pointless to get a 1440p one?

I must have not been clear

For monitors <24" 1080

For monitors 24"-30" 1440p

For monitors >30" 4k

[IAmAndre]

I must have not been clear

For monitors <24" 1080

For monitors 24"-30" 1440p

For monitors >30" 4k

OK but with a 27 inch 21/9 monitor, the height is the same even thought the display is bigger.

[Sauron]

And I have a 8/10 vision with my glasses on as my doctor said. Maybe that's why :-) 

 

Yeah, that would be your problem 11/10 here

[BrightCandle]

20/20 and 1440p was very noticeably sharper compared to 1080p at desktop distance (3 feet). I went looking a few years ago for studies into the point where we wont see a difference from reality and my research suggested that the current estimate is somewhere around 20000x10000 with a 24" display at 3 feet. The eyes can be fooled at significanty lower resolutions as we all know but they also know this isn't reality. The chart above is probably based on the angular resolution of the eyes which is the most often used piece of research about this area. One of the problems is that its static, it doesn't account for the fact our eyes are constantly moving side to side which vastly increases in practice our vision.

 

4k isn't the end, with indistinguishable from reality as the goal a lot of advances in pixel density, colour and refresh rate are necessary. Something like 64 bit colour with 7 colour channels at 10000p running at 1000hz is by most research about the limit at which we get zero benefits beyond.

[IAmAndre]

Yeah, that would be your problem 11/10 here

One last thing, even thought it's off-topic : do you think having such a screen (27 inch 21/9) would be okay in such a setup?

 

And do you think my back wouldn't hurt if I stay in this position all day long? (Yeah I'm planning to move to my own apartment :-) )

[IAmAndre]

20/20 and 1440p was very noticeably sharper compared to 1080p at desktop distance (3 feet). I went looking a few years ago for studies into the point where we wont see a difference from reality and my research suggested that the current estimate is somewhere around 20000x10000 with a 24" display at 3 feet. The eyes can be fooled at significanty lower resolutions as we all know but they also know this isn't reality. The chart above is probably based on the angular resolution of the eyes which is the most often used piece of research about this area. One of the problems is that its static, it doesn't account for the fact our eyes are constantly moving side to side which vastly increases in practice our vision.

 

4k isn't the end, with indistinguishable from reality as the goal a lot of advances in pixel density, colour and refresh rate are necessary. Something like 64 bit colour with 7 colour channels at 10000p running at 1000hz is by most research about the limit at which we get zero benefits beyond.

Alright then I guess as pretty much anything, you'd better have more pixels than less. But in terms of price/performance ratio and every day use, do you think that 4K/1440p is worth the investment (in my case, for someone who can't afford anything better than a GTX 750)?

[Sauron]

One last thing, even thought it's off-topic : do you think having such a screen (27 inch 21/9) would be okay in such a setup?

 

And do you think my back wouldn't hurt if I stay in this position all day long? (Yeah I'm planning to move to my own apartment :-) )

 

I'm not a big fan of 21:9 monitors, they are way overpriced for what they offer (say what you will, but I don't think a 3440x1440 monitor is worth 3 times the price of a similar quality 3840x2160 one...). That said I don't see why it shouldn't work. As for your back, yeah, after a day it's going to hurt. You may want to get a chair.

[thekeemo]

OK but with a 27 inch 21/9 monitor, the height is the same even thought the display is bigger.

if you mean display resolution yes.

[BrightCandle]

Alright then I guess as pretty much anything, you'd better have more pixels than less. But in terms of price/performance ratio and every day use, do you think that 4K/1440p is worth the investment (in my case, for someone who can't afford anything better than a GTX 750)?

 

For me the argument between them boils down to this currently. 1080p is cheap and everywhere and its up to 144hz. 1440p is expensive but also 144hz and gsync able. 4k is limited to 60hz. As the resolution goes up so those the power needed from the GPU, 4k is 4x the pixels of 1080p so a lot more GPU performance is needed to drive it.

 

You have a 750 so stick with 1080p, because the number of games you will actually run at above that resolution is basically zero. You would get some benefit in Windows with the sharpness of text and images on the web but games wise you just don't have enough GPU performance for anything even remotely modern to play higher. It isn't really going to help much with your 720p resolution gaming, I mean it will a little but not enough to really make the substantial increase in cost worth it.

[IAmAndre]

For me the argument between them boils down to this currently. 1080p is cheap and everywhere and its up to 144hz. 1440p is expensive but also 144hz and gsync able. 4k is limited to 60hz. As the resolution goes up so those the power needed from the GPU, 4k is 4x the pixels of 1080p so a lot more GPU performance is needed to drive it.

 

You have a 750 so stick with 1080p, because the number of games you will actually run at above that resolution is basically zero. You would get some benefit in Windows with the sharpness of text and images on the web but games wise you just don't have enough GPU performance for anything even remotely modern to play higher. It isn't really going to help much with your 720p resolution gaming, I mean it will a little but not enough to really make the substantial increase in cost worth it.

 

Actually I have a quite homogeneous setup. The 750 delivers a very decent performance actually, since I can play pretty much any game at 1080p, and I usually play the most demanding ones in 900p at max settings.

I was a bit puzzled when I saw that the difference in the perception was that little. I'm also using a 10 inch Asus Transformer tablet with an 800p resolution, and even though the result isn't amazing, it's way more than decent. I can see the pixels in texts but I can definitely live with that.

As you said, I think I'll stick with 1080p for my monitors as it's the best price/performance ratio, or somthing like maybe 1200p.

[VZX]

One of my concern with 4k options atm is there is no screen big enough to make the text comfortable enough to read from normal sitting position, which is around 100~120 ppi.

Most of what I see is 27 or 28" 4k screen; which gives you around 160 ppi.

If there's 40~44" monitor, then it'd be a good buy.

[BrightCandle]

One of my concern with 4k options atm is there is no screen big enough to make the text comfortable enough to read from normal sitting position, which is around 100~120 ppi.

Most of what I see is 27 or 28" 4k screen; which gives you around 160 ppi.

If there's 40~44" monitor, then it'd be a good buy.

This isnt really the point of 4k. It is more about image quality than getting more screenspace. Think of it as a 1080p screen but where everything gets 4 pixels to the 1080s one pixel in order to improve the quality of text and images.

[VZX]

This isnt really the point of 4k. It is more about image quality than getting more screenspace. Think of it as a 1080p screen but where everything gets 4 pixels to the 1080s one pixel in order to improve the quality of text and images.

That depends on what people going to do with their 4k.

If 90%+ of the time they only game in native resolution or watch films on their 4k monitor, sure. Sharper image is good.

But for people who mostly see text when they sit in front of their monitor, reading them at ~160PPI can cause eye strain at longer period of use.

[IAmAndre]

That depends on what people going to do with their 4k.

If 90%+ of the time they only game in native resolution or watch films on their 4k monitor, sure. Sharper image is good.

But for people who mostly see text when they sit in front of their monitor, reading them at ~160PPI can cause eye strain at longer period of use.

I'm curious to know if 4K movies are already available.