Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › Do you think 4K will be the end of pixel density?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you think 4K will be the end of pixel density?

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
Do you guys think that 4K will be the last time we hear about pixel density? I honestly can't see 16K being necessary since the eye can only see so much.

Michael from Vsauce did a nice presentation about how sharp we can see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I5Q3UXkGd0

It seems that it would be pointless to upgrade from 4K to 16K in the same way we went from 1080p to 4K. There is a limit to how sharp we can see, or how detailed the edges of an image in our brain can be. If you watch the video, you hear him talk about pixel density being only 1 part of resolution. Lighting and color depth are other parts of resolution. It seems that 4K didn't make as much of an upgrade to their lighting as they did to their pixel density which means that 4K truly isn't 4 times the resolution of 1080p, it is only 4 times the pixel density. 4K is only as good as the lighting behind it. If you have substandard lighting, then who cares about pixel density? For lighting, we have OLED which is starting to make an appearance in the consumer grade display. While still expensive, just be patient, it will come down... or it better come down!!!

But what about color depth? This is another video from Vsauce about how displays represent color.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3unPcJDbCc

The second part of the video goes way out into left field though.

So basically, our brains are "tricked" into thinking that we see yellow. Now, since the 3 primary colors of light are red, blue, and green, then there is no way for us to actually have yellow sub pixels... or is there? I don't know, but it seems that it would be futile because then you will have to make larger pixels and that goes against the trend.

I am not saying this because 4K looks so great and I can't imagine anything better because I have no imagination. But we all know that display resolution (pixel density, lighting, and color) are giving us diminishing returns every upgrade. The switch from CRT displays to LCD displays were such a big step compared to the switch from 1080p to 4K. And whatever comes after 4K will not be as big of a step as 1080p to 4K. Even if they get the color and lighting perfect, the eye and brain cannot upgrade, so there is going to be a limit eventually. They will have to start coming out with holograms and TV sets that you can walk around and view that pop up off the table. That would push the limit further, but even then there will be a limit to that as well.

So with all of this being said, I think it might be safe to say that pixel density might plateau at 4K or at least partially plateau. I think that video from Vsauce said that we have the equivalent of 9K resolution capacity for the eye. Using that, you can see how 16K would not be worth a tech company investing in. And I am talking about home displays. A movie theater would probably use 16K though.

EDIT: I know I said 16K but I meant 8K. I had the math right, I had the naming wrong. 4 times the density of 4K would be 8K, not 16K, obviously. But for some reason I said 16K forgetting that you are only measuring vertical lines. My bad... But I think my overall point is still valid.
Edited by Thready - 4/3/14 at 11:17am
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2 of 48
Unfortunately... no. There will always be people who will want higher density, even if they can't see it. What will be important is higher densities with larger panels. 4k on a mobile phone will be nearly perfect, no additional advancements on the resolution side will be needed. But 4k on a 40-60" could definitely gain more pixels.

My 2c at least.
Little Black Box
(18 items)
 
Vostro
(7 items)
 
Galaxy S4
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 6600k AsRock Fatal1ty Z170 ITX EVGA GTX 980 SC G. Skill Trident Z 16GB(2x8GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 64GB Samsung 840 Evo 120GB Seagate ST 2TB Seagate ST 500GB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Corsair H60 Win 10 Pro Planar PX2710MW AOC U2868PQU 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Rosewill RGB80 Corsair HX850 Corsair Obsidian 250D Logitech M705 
Mouse Pad
XTrac Ripper XL 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core 2 Duo T5670 Dell OEM Intel GMA 950 3Gb DDR2-667 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
WD Scorpio Blue 250Gb Linux Ubuntu 12.10 x64 15.4" Tru-Bright 1280x800 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Snapdragon 600 MSM8960 Adreno 320 2GB LPDDR 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
16GB+16GB Jelly Bean 4.2.2 JDQ 1080p 
  hide details  
Reply
Little Black Box
(18 items)
 
Vostro
(7 items)
 
Galaxy S4
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 6600k AsRock Fatal1ty Z170 ITX EVGA GTX 980 SC G. Skill Trident Z 16GB(2x8GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 64GB Samsung 840 Evo 120GB Seagate ST 2TB Seagate ST 500GB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Corsair H60 Win 10 Pro Planar PX2710MW AOC U2868PQU 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Rosewill RGB80 Corsair HX850 Corsair Obsidian 250D Logitech M705 
Mouse Pad
XTrac Ripper XL 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core 2 Duo T5670 Dell OEM Intel GMA 950 3Gb DDR2-667 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
WD Scorpio Blue 250Gb Linux Ubuntu 12.10 x64 15.4" Tru-Bright 1280x800 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Snapdragon 600 MSM8960 Adreno 320 2GB LPDDR 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
16GB+16GB Jelly Bean 4.2.2 JDQ 1080p 
  hide details  
Reply
post #3 of 48
I could imagine a work set up with a very large (at least in width) monitor replacing two or three normal ones. Something like that would need a higher resolution. If you can't really see pixels anymore at 4K on something like 24 inch, I guess that's it for normal monitors.
post #4 of 48
I actually think that increased pixel density would be a good thing because then a pixel could actually have a color wheel on that pixel. There was a real yellow having LCD TV that was/is on the market a while ago. And I'm not too sure how but the smaller the pixel the bigger the gap you can have between them: I'd love to have a full face HUD.
post #5 of 48
No. Personally, I think even 4K is a fad. Gamers are going to have to wait a long time to get the hardware to push 4K resolutions without their games being a slideshow, 4K is hard to look at for the general consumer because it's RIDICULOUSLY sharp and tiny, and the panels themselves are ludicrously expensive.

It's hard enough convincing people to ditch TN for IPS. It's even harder convincing people to ditch 1920x1080 for 1200, or 1440...I doubt they're really going to be able to convince the general population, or even the niche population like us that 4K is worth it. There is literally no upside unless you work for an air-traffic control tower, or digital design/animation.
post #6 of 48
Note: Don't watch V-Sauce for vision related stuffs. He is not reliable at all on that subject.

There are many more pressing matters than pixel density to address in display technologies.
But it sure is an area that still needs improvement.

It is interesting to note that there are still benefits to increased pixel density even beyond the human eye capacity to discern individual pixels.

For example:

"Computer graphics (lots of sharp lines) is far clearer than video, pushing the limits of human vision acuity, including via indirect effects such as shimmering caused by aliasing, even when individual pixels are too small to be resolved individually by the human eye."

Animation of the effect: http://www.testufo.com/#test=aliasing-visibility
post #7 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EchoTwoZero View Post

I actually think that increased pixel density would be a good thing because then a pixel could actually have a color wheel on that pixel. There was a real yellow having LCD TV that was/is on the market a while ago. And I'm not too sure how but the smaller the pixel the bigger the gap you can have between them: I'd love to have a full face HUD.

interesting.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattron


From that page:

"Color researchers at Queen Mary University of London investigated the Quattron technology and found that although Quattron does have 4 physical color sub-pixels it does not have a fourth primary in the backlight to drive it (yellow is approximately 575 nm). Quattron has a yellow sub-pixel but the manufacturer has not made any provision to produce the yellow light needed to pass through it. On that basis they conclude that it serves no useful function."

It seems like it would be a good idea, but it didn't turn out to be that good.

As for a color wheel, I could see if pixels got small enough then you could add like a 3x3 grid of subpixels. However, that would mean that 16K would need to be at least the standard and in that scenario then 16K could actually be beneficial. However, for the RGB pixel, 16K would cost way too much and give too little benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepor View Post

I could imagine a work set up with a very large (at least in width) monitor replacing two or three normal ones. Something like that would need a higher resolution. If you can't really see pixels anymore at 4K on something like 24 inch, I guess that's it for normal monitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jellis142 View Post

Unfortunately... no. There will always be people who will want higher density, even if they can't see it. What will be important is higher densities with larger panels. 4k on a mobile phone will be nearly perfect, no additional advancements on the resolution side will be needed. But 4k on a 40-60" could definitely gain more pixels.

My 2c at least.

I see what you guys mean. The LCD displays at Charlotte Motor Speedway and Texas Motor Speedway are the 2 largest in the world. The one in Charlotte has 9 million LEDs. For a display of that size, you would probably need 16K pixel density. I do not know the pixel densities of those specific displays so that might be something that someone else can find out and reply with. When it comes to any display less than 100 inches that sits in your living room, then I think anything more than 4K will not even be worth the upgrade. It is probably different for monitors for programmers or for people who sit very close. As it stands right now, 4K isn't even worth the upgrade for our family's 47 inch TV in the living room. 4K looks great, but not $3,500 great. So will someone really want to invest $3,500 for 16K when 4K eventually goes down to 1080p prices?
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
post #8 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasty View Post

Note: Don't watch V-Sauce for vision related stuffs. He is not reliable at all on that subject.

There are many more pressing matters than pixel density to address in display technologies.
But it sure is an area that still needs improvement.

It is interesting to note that there are still benefits to increased pixel density even beyond the human eye capacity to discern individual pixels.

For example:

"Computer graphics (lots of sharp lines) is far clearer than video, pushing the limits of human vision acuity, including via indirect effects such as shimmering caused by aliasing, even when individual pixels are too small to be resolved individually by the human eye."

Animation of the effect: http://www.testufo.com/#test=aliasing-visibility

Hmm... You may be right because some of the stuff I learned in college dealt with psychology and vision and he has said things in the the past that were not totally wrong, but it was not totally right either.

I have seen the UFO test before but not with anti aliasing. What I find interesting is that if you turn AA off and put a pure white line on a pure white background, the aliasing is obvious. But games don't have pure white lines on pure black backgrounds. They have all sorts of light and dark colors. If you turn on cyan or magenta to 50%, you can still see the aliasing if you look directly at it, but if you look a few inches up or down, the aliasing is not as pronounced. You can still see it if you concentrate. I don't know if this adds or takes away from your point but I thought it was cool to bring up anyways.
Edited by Thready - 4/2/14 at 5:01pm
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Reply
post #9 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post

I have seen the UFO test before but not with anti aliasing. What I find interesting is that if you turn AA off and put a pure white line on a pure white background, the aliasing is obvious. But games don't have pure white lines on pure black backgrounds. They have all sorts of light and dark colors. If you turn on cyan or magenta to 50%, you can still see the aliasing if you look directly at it, but if you look a few inches up or down, the aliasing is not as pronounced. You can still see it if you concentrate. I don't know if this adds or takes away from your point but I thought it was cool to bring up anyways.
Yes, the lower the contrast, the less it shimmers.

To go back to your initial question. The answer is not IF but WHEN.

Personally I have no interest in acquiring a 4k computer monitor at this time. What discourages me is the low refresh rate of 60Hz and the nonexistence of computer hardware capable of running that resolution at decent frame rates.
post #10 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by GridIroN View Post

No. Personally, I think even 4K is a fad. Gamers are going to have to wait a long time to get the hardware to push 4K resolutions without their games being a slideshow, 4K is hard to look at for the general consumer because it's RIDICULOUSLY sharp and tiny, and the panels themselves are ludicrously expensive.

It's hard enough convincing people to ditch TN for IPS. It's even harder convincing people to ditch 1920x1080 for 1200, or 1440...I doubt they're really going to be able to convince the general population, or even the niche population like us that 4K is worth it. There is literally no upside unless you work for an air-traffic control tower, or digital design/animation.

At the very least, upgrading to "4K" 2160p will result in better average digital media playback if your library consists of mixed 720/1080 content.

1080 -> 2160 turns each pixel into 4
720 -> 2160 turns each pixel into 9

720 -> 1080 isn't so simple.
1280x720 to 1920x1080 is exactly 2.25x the pixels, so each pixel becomes 2 and 1/4 of a pixel, but pixels are either whole or none.. so it results in some pixels being changed and others not, while doing all sorts of inaccurate crap inbetween.

From Left to Right
Native - Scaled 2.25x - Scaled 2.25x with Interpolation - And finally 2x in each direction.
15h0Qju.pngLYisJUc.pngU2W5QtD.pngwIT5Zx2.png

Scaling by anything but a whole number destroys quality.
Due to this alone, I think a 2160p monitor would be a huge upgrade for anyone who has 720p and 1080p content. Even a better upgrade than an 8bit panel over a 6bit one, and better than an IPS over TN. Though all three combined would obviously be ideal.
i7 Sandy
(8 items)
 
Skylake Pentium
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600K ASRock Z75 Pro3 GTX 970 16GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
250GB Samsung 850 Evo WinXP Pro / Win7 Pro 1080p 60Hz Thermaltake Smart M850W 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G4400 ASRock H110M-HDV GTX 550 Ti 8GB (2x4) 
Hard DriveOSPowerOther
250GB SSD Windows 7 500W 300Mbps WLAN 
  hide details  
Reply
i7 Sandy
(8 items)
 
Skylake Pentium
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600K ASRock Z75 Pro3 GTX 970 16GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
250GB Samsung 850 Evo WinXP Pro / Win7 Pro 1080p 60Hz Thermaltake Smart M850W 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G4400 ASRock H110M-HDV GTX 550 Ti 8GB (2x4) 
Hard DriveOSPowerOther
250GB SSD Windows 7 500W 300Mbps WLAN 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Monitors and Displays
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › Do you think 4K will be the end of pixel density?