Electronics360: "8K TVs: An Evolution of Resolution"

I wanted to chime in on the visual perception difference between 1080p and 4k. Though the math that says at distance X the human eye cannot perceive the difference is totally correct. It only refers to pixelation. No the eye cannot pick out one single pixel next to the other. But I have yet to see any mathematician or biologist for that matter chime in on if the human eye can pick up on the difference in sharpness or more importantly the difference in color detail. Let me explain. First the Sharpness. Lets make it simple. Let say we want to make a 1 pixel wide circle. If we have 1000 pixels to do it will probably look pretty good depending on the size. But if we have twice as many pixels and make a circle of the same size then the curve of that circle will be that much closer to an analog circle. The more pixels the more you can approximate a true analog circle. The closer you can come to an analog circle the more natural it will look. Can the eye see that. I am not sure as I believe what I called color detail factors in as well. Now lets take those same 1000 pixels and make a straight line. This straight line will be a color gradient. From white to some other color The gradient is to take even steps in color tone from one end of the line to the other. with a 1000 pixel line you have 1000 even steps in color. Now lets make a line of 2000 pixels of the same length as the 1000 pixel line and apply the same concept. Now we have 2000 even steps in color in the same space. Again, the more pixels you can cram in there the more you can approximate a true analog. Again, the closer to analog you get the more natural the color gradient will look. I have a 1080p TV and a 4K TV of the same size. When I put a 4k image on them side by side (Adjusting the tvs to as close as equal as I can get them. Color tone, Brightness, etc) the 4K image definitely looks more natural, closer to real if you will. The difference is totally noticeable. Now sure, is it noticeable enough to run out and replace your tv. Probably not for most people. Most people I know cant even tell when a 4x3 image has been side stretched to fill a 16x9 screen. But the difference is there and I argue that my eyes can see it. I look forward to someone who can possibly prove me right or wrong with math and biology. But until then my position stands.

You are right, but that does not mean that it is important enough to make a difference to the average TV consumer. If millennials are willing to watch a movie on a 5.5" screen and listen with earbuds, the nuance you are speaking about is missed by most. Resolution changes, along with the inevitable bells and whistles that are added to TVs each year are there to attract attention and separate one brand or model from another. This is not a science business, its a marketing one, perhaps sadly, and has been since TV's early days, and while the higher pixel count or sub-pixel arrangement means a great deal to those who develop or measure them, if the marketing guys can't come up with a way to use it to sell more TVs, it goes back to the lab. If its something that they can give a catchy name to, regardless of the incremental improvement in quality, its good for a year, or until the next trend comes along, regardless of whether it is a legitimate change that will proliferate across the industry, or one that will piss consumers off when they realize that the set they just bought with the latest and greatest technology will not be compatible with next year's iteration.

I can see the difference, but I still won't pay more for it because I know that if it is a legitimate technology change, competition in the TV space is so great that the premium on the change will drop quickly. I can wait, and most others wouldn't even notice the difference.