A new study published in Nature by University of Cambridge researchers just dropped a pixelated bomb on the entire Ultra-HD market, but as anyone with myopia can tell you, if you take your glasses off, even SD still looks pretty good :)
A new study published in Nature by University of Cambridge researchers just dropped a pixelated bomb on the entire Ultra-HD market, but as anyone with myopia can tell you, if you take your glasses off, even SD still looks pretty good :)
Pixel density is what makes content appear sharp rather than raw resolution. 800p on a 7" screen is plenty, if you think about it a 50" 1080p TV is almost 10x the size with a 25% increase in resolution
I tried that, and I’m not totally sure about the correctness of my numbers, but your numbers intuitively seem off to me:
How did you arrive at this? I’d argue a 50" screen is much more than 10 times the size of a 7" screen.
The inches are measured diagonally, and I see how 50" is somewhat “almost 10x” of 7", as 49" would be 7 times longer diagonally than a 7", and 7.something is " almost" 10.
But if we assume both screens have a 16:9 ratio, the 50" screen has a width of ≈110.69 cm and height of ≈62.26 cm, while the 7" is only ≈15.50 by ≈8.72 cm.
The area of the 7" is 135.08 cm² while for the 50" it’s ≈6891.92 cm². The ratio between these two numbers is ≈51.02, which I believe means the 50" screen is more than 51x the physical size.
At least, that number seems more realistic to me. I’m looking at my 6.7" phone screen right now and comparing it to my 55" TV screen, and it seems very possible that the phone screen could fit more than 50 times inside the TV screen, not just “almost 10x”.
If I totally misunderstood you, please explain what you mean.
My numbers for width and height were calculated using this display calculator site that someone else mentioned somewhere under this post, and I rounded the decimals after doing the calculations with all decimals included.