 |
English - Espaņol |
recommendations |
Picture Styles |
Sharpness - Bokeh |
An empirical approach |
|
HOME
Foto tutorial (English) Foto tutorial (Espaņol) Equipment recommendations US-ES Flaat Picture Styles Old Picture Style Tests LENS TESTS For stills For video For video (lineskip) Conclusions ND filters Other filters BOKEH TESTS Summary Alternative scenarios Badly assembled lenses and image quality Lens mount compatibility chart ISO on different cameras DIY: DR test chart RGBWK Bayer sensors DoF/FoV CALCULATOR Notes on DoF-FoV Notes on crop-DoF-FoV Custom Cropmarks for Magic Lantern on the Canon 550D How many megapixels do I want? How many megapixels can I see? Quick Monitor Calibration Chart MY VIDEOS Random rants Search engine |
There's always a debate on whether we prefer more resolution or just a nicer picture (more latitude, more color information, etc) at a decent resolution, say 1080p (2 megapixels). So, let's see: what's the point beyond which more resolution doesn't matter because my eyes just can't see it? I created this 1920x1080 video with a 50% grey background and a single different pixel (first 60% grey, then 40% grey) that moves around the screen, and this 960x540 video of the same thing. I checked on my 2 TVs (Samsung 32" and Sony 52", both with PVA panels) to see how far I had to be from the screen in order to be completely unable to follow any of the two pixels (dark, or light): 1080p - 32" --> 85cm 540p - 32" --> 170cm 1080p - 52" --> 190cm 540p - 52" --> 340cm And my conclusions from these measurements are: * Not all screens are the same: the Sony 52" shows more detail (not surprising, I already knew it had much better color). * In my living room (350cm from eyes to screen) I'd need a screen larger than 96" to start seeing any benefits from resolution beyond 1080p (52*350/190=96); if it's not a really sharp screen, it needs to be 132" or larger for me to get any benefits from resolution beyond 1080p (32*350/85=132). So, I don't think my eyes can benefit from video resolution beyond 1080p, given that in my living room 96" is already huge: ratio of distance-to-eyes over diagonal-distance equal to 1.44, kind of last-row at the cinema but huge by living room standards. Yes, I'm quickly getting used to bigger and bigger screens, and once they add a button for me to watch the news in just the central part of the screen, surrounded by black, I may get more forgiving towards really huge screens, but really: 96" at 350cm? well, let me get back to you in 5 years... |
|
Similaar is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, two affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com and amazon.es.