
- Posts: 3362
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
- Location: Earth
Howard Roll wrote:Map the 12K image 1:1 on a 100" diagonal monitor and it becomes a retina screen at 25" or greater.
If your eye was a s35mm sensor you'd need a <6mm lens to have a wide enough FOV to resolve the full image.
The reality is that our eye can only resolve about 3 or 4K and that's probably being generous.
To see the threshhold of diffraction limiting on the 12K you need 2-4X zoom, that factor will change the perceptual threshhold. Meaning if you can only see 3K the effects of diffraction won't become perceptually noticeable until ~F8.
Fun Fact: The UM12k has more color receptors than the human eye.
Fun Fact #2: Every 2/3" 4K Broadcast camera has the ~same pixel pitch as the 12k and has since the dawn of 4K.
Good Luck
Depends on FOV, you need something you can't resolve, to not see pixels, like I do on my 4k TV. I didn't think it would be that bad in any situation, but there are some times where I do, when well enough. 24k for the full field of view, but above 70 degree just gets more and more useless in standard study telling.
I advocate 4k for standard delivery, 8k for special projects, maybe even 16k fur a wedding, as obsessed people are going to walk up to a video wall to check things out one day (they can pay extra extra for that). Few older people can see as well as me on mega nutrients and a $1000 glasses I get really well scripted. And maybe not even half can see 4k. Lots more younger people though. Anyway, for those who can't see 8k or 4k, 2k is probably ok.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them