I'm not out to start an argument about picture detail. This was just a little experiment I tried. It seems to have some merit, so I thought I'd share for fun.
It's based on a theory I read somewhere on the internet. A poster was adamant he could see 1080p worth of detail at quite a distance because his LCD TV had a dead pixel and he could always see it. Someone replied to say that's not detail as such, because it takes more than one pixel to provide detail, so the test would be to have two dead pixels, one pixel apart. If you can see two dead pixels, you can see 1080p worth of detail. If you can only see one, you can't. Not my theory, but it seemed reasonable, so I thought I'd try it. If there's any merit to it I'm definitely not seeing 1080p worth of picture detail at normal viewing distance (a fair way back for me), but I can when I get closer.
There's six pics. One with black pixels on a white background spaced horizontally (a white pixel in between), another with two black pixels spaced vertically, and one with four black pixels arranged in a square with white pixels in between. Those three pics are repeated, except they have white pixels on a black background.
They're pretty small PNG images and they all zip up to just 2kB. Obviously they'll only be useful running fullscreen on a 1080p monitor or TV. Have a play if you want to.....
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Last edited by hello_hello; 24th Mar 2016 at 20:52.
I bought a new TV for about 2k € and it had only one "dead" sub pixel, it was the green subpixel which light up when is shoudn't and wasn't lighting when it should, the consequence was another color at this pixel.
At first I thought it is some dirt, but then I saw it was a inverted "dead" pixel, don't know how to call it better, I returned the TV and got a new one, no cost extra. I'm very happy that I returned it, because if you know it is there you will always look at it. Trust me I know it, it is my personal experience ...
I'm not saying a dead pixel is nothing to worry about. It'd drive me nuts. I was just using it as an example of what might be considered picture "detail".
I like to use alternating black and white lines or a checkerboard pattern:
As you get farther away from the screen you won't be able to tell which patches are lines/checks vs. which are solid grey. Be sure you are getting pixel-for-pixel mapping or you will get scaling artifacts. At 12 feet from our 46" 1080p TV I can just barely see a difference. At 10 feet it's pretty obvious.
Of course, you'll never see video this sharp in a professionally produced video. But this will tell you what your potential visible acuity is.
For me, your image produces about the same result as mine in respect to distance vs detail, only your image is more user friendly.
I think you have better eyes than I do. For me it's all over by about 10" from my 51" Plasma. I think I'd need to be sitting no more than 7 or 8 feet away to get the full benefit of 1080p. I tried a 27" LCD and the detail disappears at about 5 feet.
Even if it's not "optimal" distance, I think for me a comfortable viewing distance from a TV would probably be right on the edge of seeing 1080p worth of detail. I've never been one for sitting really close.
I wonder what the average viewing distance is these days? The sofa in our living room puts our viewing distance at 10 feet from a 51" screen, for no other reason than that's where the furniture has to go, although I don't think I'd want it any closer. In my room I'm a bit further away unless I'm sitting at my desk, because that's where the furniture has to go.