This.
A lot of money for something that is physically impossible to see.
It's like spending thousands and thousands on a new surround sound system because it has sub-sonic and ultra-sonic frequencies... and thinking you're getting a good deal... even though those frequencies are far outside of the human hearing range.
A lot of money for something that is physically impossible to see.
It's like spending thousands and thousands on a new surround sound system because it has sub-sonic and ultra-sonic frequencies... and thinking you're getting a good deal... even though those frequencies are far outside of the human hearing range.
The problem is that the common acuity charts that try to make the resolution case were actually based upon what they used to make eye charts. That has a fundamental flaw in this endeavor that was never addressed.
Eye charts were based upon whether or not you could distinguish one glyph from another, not whether you can actually see one "better" than the same one at a different range. Completely different comparator.
In any case, this not being a science forum, I'm not going to do too much of a deep dive into this stuff. But you can absolutely see 3840x2160 vs 1920x1080, even at larger distances than your couch.
__________________
Rules:
Rules:
When women have a poet, they want a cowboy.Understand this last part, and you'll get them all.
When they have a cowboy, they want a poet.
They'll say "I don't care if he's a poet or cowboy, so long as he's a nice guy. But oh, I'm so attracted to that bad guy over there."