| People always want to do a calculation based on pixel width without taking frequency based artifacts like moire into account, let alone information density and our retinal equipment for edge detection. I can find you slashdot posts from 2005 saying the same darn thing about 720p. Nothing denser will make a difference in a living room TV, they said. And then you see the next-gen screen in a store showing nature footage with waving grass (natural moire, high-frequency content) and you're shocked how much better it is because frequency artifacts still matter. It keeps happening two decades later. The difference between a tiny bird flying above the african veldt that has wings and one that is just a moving black dot is clearly perceptible to the eye. Birds smaller than a pixel flick in and out of existence on a screen in a way they don't when watching a flock in real life. 8k is where the frequency artifacts may finally trail off and it's probably as far as video file standards will ever go, but... A standard construction blueprint is often 48x36 to be able to see the entire building at reasonable detail. 48x36 at 300 ppi is 14,400 x 10,800 pixels which is in the range of 16k. To be able to see an entire building and move over it with your eyes instead of by scrolling and zooming requires that level of resolution. That's the level at which we've run out of reasons for denser screens. You wouldn't put a 16k screen in your living room but many people will want them in their desks. There are reasons to sit very close to a large dense screen/print. |