Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just seen an article on the BBC News website that says camera manufacturer Red is bringing out a 8k camera. Anybody have any idea as to what point this type hi res becomes pointless to the human eye?

I think that generally speaking we've already reached that stage.... The only thing adding more pixels and 4k or 8k or IMAX or UHHD, IMDB, etc. stuff to the picture is that it opens up more color range.

Yes, there are definitely diminishing returns with a higher resolution and I think for the vast majority of consumer we're already there. If you sit 10 feet away from your 44 inch TV I think you're probably wasting money on any resolution greater than 1080p.

On the other hand, if you're rocking a digital projector at home into a 120 inch wide screen... 4k is probably perceptibly better.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Anybody have any idea as to what point this type hi res becomes pointless to the human eye?

No such thing, because resolution is only half of image quality. What matters is pixels per square inch, and that depends on the physical size of the image. Higher resolution allows you to increase the size of the screen/printed photo/etc while keeping the same image quality. So as long as we can make bigger screens there will be a need for increased resolution to match them.

Also, note that this camera is aimed at professionals, not random people taking videos of their vacation. So now you're talking about what looks good on a theater screen, large poster, etc, not just your average TV.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Anybody have any idea as to what point this type hi res becomes pointless to the human eye?

No such thing, because resolution is only half of image quality. What matters is pixels per square inch, and that depends on the physical size of the image. Higher resolution allows you to increase the size of the screen/printed photo/etc while keeping the same image quality. So as long as we can make bigger screens there will be a need for increased resolution to match them.

Also, note that this camera is aimed at professionals, not random people taking videos of their vacation. So now you're talking about what looks good on a theater screen, large poster, etc, not just your average TV.

This is right in every way I understand.

Thanks for the info, but does then open a couple of other questions concerning 4k or even 8k. So the high spec screens allow for bigger screens and for people to sit closer to the screen... but you will still have a point where it is wasted? what would be the largest practical size to have at home? 80in? 90in? 100in? then combine that with 'closeness', being the point that standing that close means the whole screen is outside your field of vision, so you have to always be moving your head. I remember standing to close to my 52in when playing COD and it was off putting not being able to take everything in.

In the same article it refers to Sharp bringing out a higher spec 4k screen for mobiles. If the point of high spec screens is that they can get bigger without loss of quality, then what to you gain on a mobile with a super high spec screen?