Hacker News Reader

Comment by orbital-decay | Hacker News Reader

It also heavily depends on the content being displayed. You might not be able to tell any difference in a typical game frame or a movie, but a 1px black on white line still activates your cones while being way below the minimum angular resolution you can see. You can see stars for the same reason.

View on HN

I see easily a difference on text rendering on a mac os retina display (3k on 14") vs. 4k 27" oled. 1080p is horrible obvious on basically every display size i own.

And my smartphone or my DSLR take pictures with more than 4k, you can see the image sharpness difference also immediately.

What content is left? Games, but they also have text. Higher resolution, less antialising needed.

The most frustrating thing about this type of discussion is: Its 2025! 4k displays exist for how much in consumer space? 10 years by now?

8k is also nice. Might actually be something i don't pay extra for, but supporting 8k opens up so many possibilities. Like controling 4 4k displays without issues (demo walls, event setups etc.) or just 2 or 3 24/27" displays on your desk.

27" is huge.

I remember comparing 4k macbook with my 1440p samsung, both 14" and it was impossible to say at that screen size.

It isn't huge. On a large desk, my 32" 4K display is great, and easily substitutes two smaller monitors for productivity tasks. It's also very immersive for gaming, even more so now that you have OLED options.

People forget this. Our eye resolution is infinity. Our focal length is different.

I don't think it's actually infinit, but it's probably very high! We do have little receptors (cones) in our eyes (retina) that react chemically to light. So the density is the resolution (and different cone types react to different wavelengths, which is why some people are coloured blind, for example)!

Well, technically speaking:

- we are all colorblind, as we only see a very small part of the light spectrum

- there are no two individuals that perceive colors in the same way in the world as the receptor distribution changes by person to person (actually, even day by day on a single-individual basis)

> we are all colorblind, as we only see a very small part of the light spectrum

That's not what "colorblind" means. Are we also all deaf, because we can't hear sounds outside a certain frequency range?

You seem to not understand those terms at all.

Our resolution varies across our FOV, but is best measured in the center of vision. (Ironically, we can potentially see smaller objects away from the center, but... biology is analog, not digital, and weird.)

Focal length is merely the conversion factor from physical resolution at the receiver side to angular resolution in the real world. It varies, but not by much, eye to eye, with vision aids (glasses, etc.), and (very trivially) with distance to the object. So, it's basically a constant.

I’m pretty sure you just confirmed that focal length varies. So I stand by my statement. Our rods and cones enable us to see great detail and yes, it’s more concentrated in the center of field of view, but if we’re talking pixels… 567MP is what people claim. I know it’s a lot higher. Pilots are able to spot specks at 4nm. Astronauts can see objects that are just a speck at 50nm. Our actual eye resolution is insane when paired with the right focal length.

I wrote a longer post, but I'll keep it short: you can't compare 100 small res cameras + an inference engine that combines the samples together (our brain with low res foveal samples) on the same metrics you'd judge a single camera with 100x more res. They simply see, resolve and process things differently.

To stick with your example: the pilots that "see" aircraft at 4 nautical miles don't "see" them because their foveas have super human pixel density. But because high-contrast very low res foveal samples + contextual inference + motion + time, give more time to the brain to infer the presence of the aircraft. But if you had the ability to stop the motion and image the very same aircraft would "disappear".

I confirmed it varies trivially. That means it effectively doesn't vary.

Your statement about resolution being infinite is laughably wrong. I assume you don't even understand what "infinite" means.

You wrote two sentences that are both wrong.

Also, your understanding of resolution is lacking. Our eyes aren't uniformly covered at all. The MP amount you claim is "virtual", for want of a better word. It's like taking an SD (480p) video for one second, combining it with AI, and extrapolating a 500MP single photo. It's very like that, in practice.

Resolution allows you to pick up different image features, it's not infinite. A zebra pattern will eventually merge into a solid gray color upon shrinking, that's your actual resolution limit. But a single dot or a line surrounded by enough background will still be visible way below this limit because it has enough energy difference to activate a photoreceptor, even though you won't be able to tell its true size or thickness.

There is also overlap between these ranges. At some distance you can choose whether you want to perceive a zebra pattern as gray or as pattern.

And if you look away to something else in your FOV, your brain redecides for you!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com