No, the reason IS to sit closer with a wider horizontal field of view. 1080p is "retina" with 30 degrees horizontal FOV to replicate the movie theater experience in the VERY last row. Sitting further away from the same size TV negates the resolution advantage AND minimizes any attempt to improve immersion via the "induction effect".
What you wrote is stupid. By definition the further away you are, even with 1080p sets, the more "retina effect" you have since the pixel sizes are even smaller and less resolvable even with better than 20/20 vision. Sitting further than 7 ft away from a 55" 4K set is asinine. You want to sit CLOSER than 7 ft from a 55" set but currently you cannot.
A 55" 1080p set at 7 feet is like the very last row in a movie theater. You can sit no closer than 7.15 ft and have the "retina effect".
A 55" 1080p set at 4.82 feet is like the optimum row in a movie theater (as defined by 20th Century Fox with 45 degrees Horizontal Viewing Angle for 2.39 letterbox) but far too close and you see lots of pixel structure.
A 55" 4K set at 4.82 feet is is like the optimum row in a movie theater AND better than "retina" (which is anything farther away than 3.58 feet).
A 85" 4K set at 7.45 feet is like the optimum row in a movie theater.
You're repeating what I wrote except for some nonsense that 1080p replicates sitting in the back row of a theater. First of all, theater screens nor their seating capacity, rows and row widths are standardized so you can't possibly say that as fact. Secondly, 1080p TVs are not all the same size thus making a larger TV have larger pixels and therefore affect the minimum viewing distance for the Retina effect.
As I very clearly stated, as TVs grow larger the average sitting distance will make the Retina effect vanish thus the need for a higher resolution display and content to increase the viewing experience. This is math and you can not argue with it.
Fact: I often trade resolution for screen size by sitting within 5 feet of my 55" HDTV because I'm too lazy to fire up my 100" projector screen.
A 4K 100" screen would be killer since I could sit at 8.5 feet, have better than retina resolution and be around where I usually like to sit in the theater in terms of screen size (how much the screen covers my field of view). Currently for a 100" screen to have retina resolution I need to sit no closer than 13 feet.
The sheer size and resolution would make sports look even more awesome although 1080p is already pretty good.
Fact: I often trade resolution for screen size by sitting within 5 feet of my 55" HDTV because I'm too lazy to fire up my 100" projector screen.
A 4K 100" screen would be killer since I could sit at 8.5 feet, have better than retina resolution and be around where I usually like to sit in the theater in terms of screen size (how much the screen covers my field of view). Currently for a 100" screen to have retina resolution I need to sit no closer than 13 feet.
The sheer size and resolution would make sports look even more awesome although 1080p is already pretty good.
You're arguing my points. 5' is pretty damn close to sit. My living isn't exceptional and my eyes to the TV on the wall are right around 7' 9". That makes 1080p perfectly acceptable but it's not a large display thus it has the Retina effect. When the prices come down for a 60" plus K display I will buy one. I will not buy a 60" plus 1080p display. They are here, they will get cheaper, adoption will happen, and I predict it will be better than the fiasco we experienced with HD and FullHD.
You're repeating what I wrote except for some nonsense that 1080p replicates sitting in the back row of a theater. First of all, theater screens nor their seating capacity, rows and row widths are standardized so you can't possibly say that as fact. Secondly, 1080p TVs are not all the same size thus making a larger TV have larger pixels and therefore affect the minimum viewing distance for the Retina effect.
As I very clearly stated, as TVs grow larger the average sitting distance will make the Retina effect vanish thus the need for a higher resolution display and content to increase the viewing experience. This is math and you can not argue with it.
No, what you wrote is backwards. "Retina effect" is when you have greater than 60 pixels per degree of viewing angle. It means that the pixels are more or less too small to resolve (there are caveats, but we'll skip them). This is dependent on both resolution and distance. Yes a larger TV means you have to sit further from the TV to have "retina" resolution so the OBJECTIVE is to be able to sit closer without seeing pixel structure. NOT to be able to sit further away as you stated.
In case you forgot this is what you wrote:
Quote:
A higher PPI doesn't force you to sit closer, it allows you to sit farther away and still get the Retina effect.
The correct statement is a higher PPI ALLOWS you to sit closer and still get the Retina effect.
Induction effect is when you have greater than 30 degrees horizontal viewing angle (HVA) and you get a big increase in immersion into the scene because it covers so much of your field of view. This is the second part of the HDTV spec and just as important as the 60 PPD number and how the 1080 resolution was selected. This defines the DISTANCE part of the equation given a 16:9 aspect ratio screen.
Yes, theater sizes are standardized as a function of screen height. SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) has a minimum viewing distance (2 x picture height), a reference distance (3 x picture height) and a maximum (4 x picture height).
THX also certifies theaters and their requirements are slightly different from the SMPTE ones and are based on HVA. Maximum recommended distance (aka furthest row) of 36 degrees HVA (i.e. something that 1080P cannot meet) with a maximum acceptable being 26 degrees HVA (back of the theater).
"The recommended audience viewing angle for the Cinemascope image (2.39:1) from the farthest seat in the auditorium is 36 degrees. The minimum acceptable angle is 26 degrees."
See that 4x screen height SMPTE line? The 1080 HDTV spec puts you behind that SMPTE farthest line and behind the farthest recommended rear seat for THX certified theaters in that gray region. They'll certify a theater out to 26 degrees but unless you like sitting in those last few rows of theaters barely in spec that's the best that reasonably priced home theater equipment can currently generate until 4K sources and 4K displays become common.
You don't know what you are talking about and yet you seem so confident to tell other folks they don't know what they are talking about. This is both amusing and annoying.
If you have a 30 PPI display the minimum distance to still get the Retina effect is just over 9.5 feet.
If you have a 60 PPI display minimum distance to still get the Retina effect is just over 4.7 feet.
Yes, and unless you have a requirement for 30 degrees HVA then a 30 PPI display meets retina requirements and you can stop there.
The reason that 4K is desired by many isn't because of the "retina effect" which we already have but because of the desire for a greater than 30 degrees HVA and a more immersive experience closer to what we get in the theater.
How you can say that after clipping the quote where you say the exact opposite is beyond me.
You misspoke, I corrected you and you doubled down by asserting that theaters don't have standards which is clearly wrong.
So you do think that a higher PPI forces you to sit closer. You do think that a higher PPI means you can't sit farther away and still get the Retina effect for the same size display. You seriously don't see what is wrong with your logic? :rolleyes:
Higher PPI means you can sit a bit closer and still enjoy the same visual clarity (whether Retina or not). How much closer depends on how much higher the PPI is obv. You can sit further away too, but you'll be missing out on image fidelity, so doing so would be pretty pointless.
So you do think that a higher PPI forces you to sit closer. You do think that a higher PPI means you can't sit farther away and still get the Retina effect for the same size display. You seriously don't see what is wrong with your logic?
I already wrote what I think. A higher PPI allows you to sit closer. A desire for a higher HVA forces you to sit closer. A higher PPI doesn't matter if you want to sit further away so that last sentence is stupid. Your statement regarding theaters was incorrect.
Marvin's opinion was valid:
Quote:
I don't think 4K is beneficial at those sizes. You'd have to be less than 6ft away - who sits less than 6ft away from a 60" TV? With an 85" display, I could see some people sitting closer than 10ft away. Between 60"-85", any pixels/blurriness would be more noticeable the higher up it went.
Despite all your accusations that Marvin is wrong it turns out he's right. The reason he's right is because most folks don't want to sit close enough to the TV for 4K to matter. It's more fatiguing based on a subjective assessment of fatigue in a study using a 42" plasma at varying distance. Most folks preferred to be 3-4 screen heights from the TV.
At 3-4 times screen heights from the TV 4K screens make little difference. We're back in 1080 territory.
So you actually do need to sit closer (forced if you like) for the PPI difference to matter. If you sit further away it makes no difference and you just paid a lot of money and bandwidth for no perceivable gain.
That said, in actuality the preferred viewing distance appears to be a function of screen size. The absolute distance doesn't vary as radically as much as a function of screen height.
This iTU paper has data describing the relationship between Preferred Viewing Distance (PVD) and Designed Viewing Distance (DVD)
Recommendation ITU-R BT.2022 - General viewing conditions for subjective assessment of quality of SDTV and HDTV television pictures on flat panel displays
You'll have to google it. Safari wont give me a usable link but here's the relevant data.
PVD vs screen size:
See that slope on the left? That's Marvin being right. Most people prefer to sit far away (as a function of screen height) for screen sizes under 55" to the point where 1080p HDTV is good enough. 2160p UHD matters a lot more for the larger screen sizes because people sit closer as a function of screen height and therefore pixel size even though the absolute distance may not be all that different.
DVD On Table 1:
For 1920x1080 HDTV the optimal horizontal viewing angle is 31 degrees at 3.2 screen height distance.
For 3840x2160 UHD the optimal horizontal viewing angle is 58 degrees at 1.6 screen height distance.
The DESIGN distance for 2160p 4K UHD is a mere 1.6 screen height distance. Where does that correlate with the distances found in previous studies regarding preferred viewing distance? In that 85"+ range.
Even for 65" TVs it appears most folks prefer to sit in that 3x screen height range anyway. The improvements will be incremental until you hit that 80"+ range and folks prefer to be at the 2x screen height range. 1.6x screen height is pretty damn close even for me.
The reason he's right is because most folks don't want to sit close enough to the TV for 4K to matter.
Again you assume that the size will somehow stay at some diminutive level. You can buy 60" plus HDTVs for under $1000. You really think the future of the HEC display will be for them to shrink in size so that 1080p will always look Retina or that living room couches will be pushed farther back so that 1080p is the only choice for the future with ever increasing display sizes? Seriously? Bottom line: 4K will replace 1080p!
4K matters to AV geeks who have screens bigger than 70". Everyone else probably wont care that much until it drops into that $2-3K range for a 70"+ UHD TV which won't be 2014. Even $5K is pricey for a TV.
There are journaled papers that nobody but AV geeks and TV/Movie engineers will read that show this is to be likely the outcome based on where people like to sit to watch TV.
4K matters to AV geeks who have screens bigger than 70". Everyone else probably wont care that much until it drops into that $2-3K range for a 70"+ UHD TV which won't be 2014. Even $5K is pricey for a TV.
There are journaled papers that nobody but AV geeks and TV/Movie engineers will read that show this is to be likely the outcome based on where people like to sit to watch TV.
1) 6 sentences is too long when you keep posting pages of irrelevant data? :facepalm:
2) $5K in less than 2 weeks. No one has stated that 4K will be popular right now. If you can't understand the meaning of the word future than there is more wrong with your statements that 1080p is all we'll ever need.
Again you assume that the size will somehow stay at some diminutive level. You can buy 60" plus HDTVs for under $1000. You really think the future of the HEC display will be for them to shrink in size so that 1080p will always look Retina or that living room couches will be pushed farther back so that 1080p is the only choice for the future with ever increasing display sizes? Seriously? Bottom line: 4K will replace 1080p!
No, I assume that the price won't drop as rapidly as you seem to think and market penetration will not be high until you can get a 70" UHD screen for around $2-$3K.
Even then 70"+ of glass is huge to move around and finding a wall for it can be moderately challenging in many homes. Even though the Chinese are showing their ability to make 84" and 110" glass cuts getting that into your house and on the wall is rough even if it's "only" $6K. The LG Hecto laser projector looks promising. The advantage for projectors is that you can easily make the screen disappear but they have many other downsides to be viable for the masses.
Bottom line: 4K will replace 1080 but not for years.
Been there. Done that. It takes a while.
And this sidesteps the fact that many of your earlier statements were incorrect.
1) 6 sentences is too long when you keep posting pages of irrelevant data? :facepalm:
2) $5K in less than 2 weeks. No one has stated that 4K will be popular right now. If you can't understand the meaning of the word future than there is more wrong with your statements that 1080p is all we'll ever need.
It was in reference to my long post. The data is not irrelevant, you simply choose to remain ignorant. The fact is that most folks don't get all the benefits of even 1080p today because of their preferred seating distance. The data is there. So is the data regarding theater standards.
There are largish $5K UHD expected to appear from some chinese manufacturers. I did not say that 1080p is all we'll ever need. Nice strawman.
Your inability to simply admit you wrote something incorrect is highly amusing.
No, I assume that the price won't drop as rapidly as you seem to think and market penetration will not be high until you can get a 70" UHD screen for around $2-$3K.
Even then 70"+ of glass is huge to move around and finding a wall for it can be moderately challenging in many homes. Even though the Chinese are showing their ability to make 84" and 110" glass cuts getting that into your house and on the wall is rough even if it's "only" $6K. The LG Hecto laser projector looks promising. The advantage for projectors is that you can easily make the screen disappear but they have many other downsides to be viable for the masses.
Bottom line: 4K will replace 1080 but not for years.
Been there. Done that. It takes a while.
And this sidesteps the fact that many of your earlier statements were incorrect.
1) So now you're again saying what I've been saying all along: 4K will replace 1080p.
2) Of course it takes awhile. Why would you expect people to throw out their current TVs for more expensive TVs that are limited in content?
3) Replace is exact but when it comes to technology we have to use certain metrics. There is rarely any shift in technology that has zero overlap so you need to compare milestones. Duration between first 1080p TV going on sale to first 55" 1080p selling for under $5K. Then compare the firs 4K TV going on sale to the first 55" 4K selling for under $5K. You think that it's taken much longer for that size 4K TV to drop to that price; I don't. If you want research it go ahead, but I have no desire to because I know they will become more common and cheaper in the years to come.
4) Have fun watching 1080p on your 100" projector 5 years from now. That'll be a treat¡
Really? Where? And where did you acknowledge you were wrong about theaters and the other things you claim were wrong but are in fact correct?
1) The previous post (obviously) and in a another post in this thread. It happens. The logic is still sound, but one sentence read incorrectly. However, the context was still the same and my message that HEC displays will continue to grow and as they grow they will push the viewer closer to not having the Retina effect if they maintain the same seating distance and resolution.
2) Show me proof that the last row in every movie theater has to have the the equivalency of 1080p. No less. No more.
Comments
You're repeating what I wrote except for some nonsense that 1080p replicates sitting in the back row of a theater. First of all, theater screens nor their seating capacity, rows and row widths are standardized so you can't possibly say that as fact. Secondly, 1080p TVs are not all the same size thus making a larger TV have larger pixels and therefore affect the minimum viewing distance for the Retina effect.
As I very clearly stated, as TVs grow larger the average sitting distance will make the Retina effect vanish thus the need for a higher resolution display and content to increase the viewing experience. This is math and you can not argue with it.
Fact: I often trade resolution for screen size by sitting within 5 feet of my 55" HDTV because I'm too lazy to fire up my 100" projector screen.
A 4K 100" screen would be killer since I could sit at 8.5 feet, have better than retina resolution and be around where I usually like to sit in the theater in terms of screen size (how much the screen covers my field of view). Currently for a 100" screen to have retina resolution I need to sit no closer than 13 feet.
The sheer size and resolution would make sports look even more awesome although 1080p is already pretty good.
You're arguing my points. 5' is pretty damn close to sit. My living isn't exceptional and my eyes to the TV on the wall are right around 7' 9". That makes 1080p perfectly acceptable but it's not a large display thus it has the Retina effect. When the prices come down for a 60" plus K display I will buy one. I will not buy a 60" plus 1080p display. They are here, they will get cheaper, adoption will happen, and I predict it will be better than the fiasco we experienced with HD and FullHD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You're repeating what I wrote except for some nonsense that 1080p replicates sitting in the back row of a theater. First of all, theater screens nor their seating capacity, rows and row widths are standardized so you can't possibly say that as fact. Secondly, 1080p TVs are not all the same size thus making a larger TV have larger pixels and therefore affect the minimum viewing distance for the Retina effect.
As I very clearly stated, as TVs grow larger the average sitting distance will make the Retina effect vanish thus the need for a higher resolution display and content to increase the viewing experience. This is math and you can not argue with it.
No, what you wrote is backwards. "Retina effect" is when you have greater than 60 pixels per degree of viewing angle. It means that the pixels are more or less too small to resolve (there are caveats, but we'll skip them). This is dependent on both resolution and distance. Yes a larger TV means you have to sit further from the TV to have "retina" resolution so the OBJECTIVE is to be able to sit closer without seeing pixel structure. NOT to be able to sit further away as you stated.
In case you forgot this is what you wrote:
Quote:
A higher PPI doesn't force you to sit closer, it allows you to sit farther away and still get the Retina effect.
The correct statement is a higher PPI ALLOWS you to sit closer and still get the Retina effect.
Induction effect is when you have greater than 30 degrees horizontal viewing angle (HVA) and you get a big increase in immersion into the scene because it covers so much of your field of view. This is the second part of the HDTV spec and just as important as the 60 PPD number and how the 1080 resolution was selected. This defines the DISTANCE part of the equation given a 16:9 aspect ratio screen.
Yes, theater sizes are standardized as a function of screen height. SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) has a minimum viewing distance (2 x picture height), a reference distance (3 x picture height) and a maximum (4 x picture height).
THX also certifies theaters and their requirements are slightly different from the SMPTE ones and are based on HVA. Maximum recommended distance (aka furthest row) of 36 degrees HVA (i.e. something that 1080P cannot meet) with a maximum acceptable being 26 degrees HVA (back of the theater).
"The recommended audience viewing angle for the Cinemascope image (2.39:1) from the farthest seat in the auditorium is 36 degrees. The minimum acceptable angle is 26 degrees."
See that 4x screen height SMPTE line? The 1080 HDTV spec puts you behind that SMPTE farthest line and behind the farthest recommended rear seat for THX certified theaters in that gray region. They'll certify a theater out to 26 degrees but unless you like sitting in those last few rows of theaters barely in spec that's the best that reasonably priced home theater equipment can currently generate until 4K sources and 4K displays become common.
You don't know what you are talking about and yet you seem so confident to tell other folks they don't know what they are talking about. This is both amusing and annoying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
What you said is what is what I stated and what I stated is correct.
How you can say that after clipping the quote where you say the exact opposite is beyond me.
You misspoke, I corrected you and you doubled down by asserting that theaters don't have standards which is clearly wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If you have a 30 PPI display the minimum distance to still get the Retina effect is just over 9.5 feet.
If you have a 60 PPI display minimum distance to still get the Retina effect is just over 4.7 feet.
Yes, and unless you have a requirement for 30 degrees HVA then a 30 PPI display meets retina requirements and you can stop there.
The reason that 4K is desired by many isn't because of the "retina effect" which we already have but because of the desire for a greater than 30 degrees HVA and a more immersive experience closer to what we get in the theater.
So you do think that a higher PPI forces you to sit closer. You do think that a higher PPI means you can't sit farther away and still get the Retina effect for the same size display. You seriously don't see what is wrong with your logic? :rolleyes:
Higher PPI means you can sit a bit closer and still enjoy the same visual clarity (whether Retina or not). How much closer depends on how much higher the PPI is obv. You can sit further away too, but you'll be missing out on image fidelity, so doing so would be pretty pointless.
Don't see what's so difficult about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So you do think that a higher PPI forces you to sit closer. You do think that a higher PPI means you can't sit farther away and still get the Retina effect for the same size display. You seriously don't see what is wrong with your logic?
I already wrote what I think. A higher PPI allows you to sit closer. A desire for a higher HVA forces you to sit closer. A higher PPI doesn't matter if you want to sit further away so that last sentence is stupid. Your statement regarding theaters was incorrect.
Marvin's opinion was valid:
Quote:
I don't think 4K is beneficial at those sizes. You'd have to be less than 6ft away - who sits less than 6ft away from a 60" TV? With an 85" display, I could see some people sitting closer than 10ft away. Between 60"-85", any pixels/blurriness would be more noticeable the higher up it went.
Despite all your accusations that Marvin is wrong it turns out he's right. The reason he's right is because most folks don't want to sit close enough to the TV for 4K to matter. It's more fatiguing based on a subjective assessment of fatigue in a study using a 42" plasma at varying distance. Most folks preferred to be 3-4 screen heights from the TV.
At 3-4 times screen heights from the TV 4K screens make little difference. We're back in 1080 territory.
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70585-7_26#page-1
So you actually do need to sit closer (forced if you like) for the PPI difference to matter. If you sit further away it makes no difference and you just paid a lot of money and bandwidth for no perceivable gain.
That said, in actuality the preferred viewing distance appears to be a function of screen size. The absolute distance doesn't vary as radically as much as a function of screen height.
This iTU paper has data describing the relationship between Preferred Viewing Distance (PVD) and Designed Viewing Distance (DVD)
Recommendation ITU-R BT.2022 - General viewing conditions for subjective assessment of quality of SDTV and HDTV television pictures on flat panel displays
You'll have to google it. Safari wont give me a usable link but here's the relevant data.
PVD vs screen size:
See that slope on the left? That's Marvin being right. Most people prefer to sit far away (as a function of screen height) for screen sizes under 55" to the point where 1080p HDTV is good enough. 2160p UHD matters a lot more for the larger screen sizes because people sit closer as a function of screen height and therefore pixel size even though the absolute distance may not be all that different.
DVD On Table 1:
For 1920x1080 HDTV the optimal horizontal viewing angle is 31 degrees at 3.2 screen height distance.
For 3840x2160 UHD the optimal horizontal viewing angle is 58 degrees at 1.6 screen height distance.
The DESIGN distance for 2160p 4K UHD is a mere 1.6 screen height distance. Where does that correlate with the distances found in previous studies regarding preferred viewing distance? In that 85"+ range.
Even for 65" TVs it appears most folks prefer to sit in that 3x screen height range anyway. The improvements will be incremental until you hit that 80"+ range and folks prefer to be at the 2x screen height range. 1.6x screen height is pretty damn close even for me.
Again you assume that the size will somehow stay at some diminutive level. You can buy 60" plus HDTVs for under $1000. You really think the future of the HEC display will be for them to shrink in size so that 1080p will always look Retina or that living room couches will be pushed farther back so that 1080p is the only choice for the future with ever increasing display sizes? Seriously? Bottom line: 4K will replace 1080p!
tl;dr
4K matters to AV geeks who have screens bigger than 70". Everyone else probably wont care that much until it drops into that $2-3K range for a 70"+ UHD TV which won't be 2014. Even $5K is pricey for a TV.
There are journaled papers that nobody but AV geeks and TV/Movie engineers will read that show this is to be likely the outcome based on where people like to sit to watch TV.
1) 6 sentences is too long when you keep posting pages of irrelevant data? :facepalm:
2) $5K in less than 2 weeks. No one has stated that 4K will be popular right now. If you can't understand the meaning of the word future than there is more wrong with your statements that 1080p is all we'll ever need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Again you assume that the size will somehow stay at some diminutive level. You can buy 60" plus HDTVs for under $1000. You really think the future of the HEC display will be for them to shrink in size so that 1080p will always look Retina or that living room couches will be pushed farther back so that 1080p is the only choice for the future with ever increasing display sizes? Seriously? Bottom line: 4K will replace 1080p!
No, I assume that the price won't drop as rapidly as you seem to think and market penetration will not be high until you can get a 70" UHD screen for around $2-$3K.
Even then 70"+ of glass is huge to move around and finding a wall for it can be moderately challenging in many homes. Even though the Chinese are showing their ability to make 84" and 110" glass cuts getting that into your house and on the wall is rough even if it's "only" $6K. The LG Hecto laser projector looks promising. The advantage for projectors is that you can easily make the screen disappear but they have many other downsides to be viable for the masses.
Bottom line: 4K will replace 1080 but not for years.
Been there. Done that. It takes a while.
And this sidesteps the fact that many of your earlier statements were incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) 6 sentences is too long when you keep posting pages of irrelevant data? :facepalm:
2) $5K in less than 2 weeks. No one has stated that 4K will be popular right now. If you can't understand the meaning of the word future than there is more wrong with your statements that 1080p is all we'll ever need.
It was in reference to my long post. The data is not irrelevant, you simply choose to remain ignorant. The fact is that most folks don't get all the benefits of even 1080p today because of their preferred seating distance. The data is there. So is the data regarding theater standards.
There are largish $5K UHD expected to appear from some chinese manufacturers. I did not say that 1080p is all we'll ever need. Nice strawman.
Your inability to simply admit you wrote something incorrect is highly amusing.
1) So now you're again saying what I've been saying all along: 4K will replace 1080p.
2) Of course it takes awhile. Why would you expect people to throw out their current TVs for more expensive TVs that are limited in content?
3) Replace is exact but when it comes to technology we have to use certain metrics. There is rarely any shift in technology that has zero overlap so you need to compare milestones. Duration between first 1080p TV going on sale to first 55" 1080p selling for under $5K. Then compare the firs 4K TV going on sale to the first 55" 4K selling for under $5K. You think that it's taken much longer for that size 4K TV to drop to that price; I don't. If you want research it go ahead, but I have no desire to because I know they will become more common and cheaper in the years to come.
4) Have fun watching 1080p on your 100" projector 5 years from now. That'll be a treat¡
Accept where I acknowledged I flipped the terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Accept where I acknowledged I flipped the terms.
Really? Where? And where did you acknowledge you were wrong about theaters and the other things you claim were wrong but are in fact correct?
1) The previous post (obviously) and in a another post in this thread. It happens. The logic is still sound, but one sentence read incorrectly. However, the context was still the same and my message that HEC displays will continue to grow and as they grow they will push the viewer closer to not having the Retina effect if they maintain the same seating distance and resolution.
2) Show me proof that the last row in every movie theater has to have the the equivalency of 1080p. No less. No more.