Eyes Resolution & Monitor Pixel Size
Hughes
I wonder if this is just a coincidence or design.
Human eyes have a average resolution of 60 arcseconds for brightly
illuminated target.
My monitor has a pixel pitch of 0.264mm.
When I view it at a distance of of 800mm (0.8 mtr). The 0.264mm pixel
subtends at an angle of
theta = 2 arctan (0.5 (0.264)/800) * 206265
= 68.07 arcsec
The angle of the pixel subtended at a viewing
distance of 0.8 mtrs is 68 arcseconds close to
human eyes resolution of 60 arcseconds. Is this
just a coincidence or did they make the pixel
size of the monitor to match the resolution
specification of human eyes by design?
Hughes
Ray Fischer
Higher resolution is expensive. It makes sense that people would a
monitor that is as sharp as they can see but not more expensive than
needed.
Evolution in action.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Savageduck
Hughes/Eugene,
As I have said before, you need to stop mind fucking yourself and get a life.
Your obsessive insistence for the arcane is becoming tiresome, whether
it is crappy Russian scopes, or this next incredibly bizarre view of
your monitor. (It isn't a Russian monitor is it?)
More and more your posts have the hint of an insecure troll who wants
the World to believe he is an intellectual on a quest for knowledge.
When responders, who have obvious knowledge and experience, make
sincere and informative replies, you throw more of your ignorance into
the stew and undermine their sincere efforts to help you.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Hughes
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's uncalled for. I was reading this web site:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
It has a setting called "Set Circle of Confusion = Twice
Pixel Size" in the Diffraction Java Calculator with
this explanation: "" The "set CoC = Twice Pixel Size" checkbox is
intended to give you an indication of when diffraction will become
visible when viewing your digital image at 100% on a computer screen."
I wonder how he calculates it. When I calcultes how
a pixel would subtend when seen from a normal
viewing distance of 0.8 mtr. I was surprised to see
the value very close to the resolution of the human
eye. So I wonder if it is designed that way and ask
here.
Hughes
Savageduck
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I apologize, however there is substantial
evidence in your posts and exchanges to support my impression.
I know it's just my impression, but there it is.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
whisky-dave
"Hughes" <eugen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfd8101a-99ea-49ec...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if this is just a coincidence or design.
>
> Human eyes have a average resolution of 60 arcseconds for brightly
> illuminated target.
>
> My monitor has a pixel pitch of 0.264mm.
Not all monitors are the same.
> When I view it at a distance of of 800mm (0.8 mtr).
I view mine at about 500mm
The 0.264mm pixel
> subtends at an angle of
> theta = 2 arctan (0.5 (0.264)/800) * 206265
> = 68.07 arcsec
>
> The angle of the pixel subtended at a viewing
> distance of 0.8 mtrs is 68 arcseconds close to
> human eyes resolution of 60 arcseconds. Is this
> just a coincidence or did they make the pixel
> size of the monitor to match the resolution
> specification of human eyes by design?
If you take your 800mm that's 31.49 inches.
That's about 10 times pi . but so what.
What makes you think 800mm has any meaning.
If such a meaning was meant surely they'd set distance of 1 metre
a true SI unit.
Playing with numbers can prove anything, i.e Captain Kirk caused 911
Well the numbers in 1701 add up to 9 the first and last are 1s 911
The word Enterprise has 9 letters, and there's 11 in captain Kirk . 911
Coincidence well some don't think so, but they are, or should be
in specially padded homes and kept away from sharp objects ;-)
mcescher
> "Hughes" <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote in message
mmmmm, pi......
Dave Typinski
Coincidence, I imagine. It just happens to be where the industry has
stabilized for now. If display manufacturers could make a large
display with 0.1mm pixels for $300, they would. Same with the video
card manufacturers.
Besides, not everyone looks at their display from 80cm away. For
example, I look at mine from about 50cm.
So, the native pixel size of a display is determined by several
factors. I imagine it's a balance between manufacturing cost, pixel
size, and what consumers desire--or more accurately what they'll
accept. We all /want/ displays with 0.05mm pixels, perfect color
rendition, and infinite contrast--driven by video cards with 64 gigs
of RAM and a 5 GHz GPU.
What we can /afford/, however, is a different matter.
--
Dave
Don Stauffer
If the monitor were designed for one specific application then it may be
design. But for a general purpose monitor, it is somewhat a combination
of coincidence and design.
Say I were designing a cockpit display for a military aircraft with a
night vision device such as a flir. Then the acuity of the operator
WOULD be a design factor.
However, for general commercial monitors there would be some effort to
determine what normal viewing distances are, and to avoid too high a
resolution that goes beyond the viewers acuity, but that would not be
the main driver. More to the point would be a cost-quality tradeoff.
In essence, many years ago, monitor resolution did not match- one could
see the pixels plainly. As TV and monitor business grew and involved
more money, there was a big effort to improve resolution, and of course
in TV systems the advent of HD standards. Eventually the performance
equaled or exceeded the needs based on acuity, and there is no longer
such a push for finer and finer ppi. Rather, the other factors,
brightness, contrast and color purity are now the big efforts.
Hughes
>
> - Show quoted text -
This may be why they say there is not much difference
in watching 720P vs 1080P HDTV shows at home at a normal sitting
distance because the 1080P pixels and
their separations are so small that our eyes 60 arcsecond resolution
can no longer detect them (maybe needing 20 arcsecond to see the
pixels separations). So there may
be no need for 2160P HDTV years from now unless
people get to see TV the same distance as viewing
monitors.
H
Chris.Bee
development of the common CRT TV from the infancy of computers. (ZX81
and BBC and vast rooms full of (mostly) white coated men using punched
card sorters and giant reels of tape)
It is quite amusing now to see science fiction programmes and films
displaying large numbers of B&W CRT screens in "futuristic" space
ships. If each new generation's tools and toys are magic to the
last.. what do we have in store in the next?
I wonder whether there will ever be a general move towards displays
attached to the head itself? I doubt that "special glasses" will take
off. Too many negative social aspects. Perhaps a direct connection to
the optic nerve or the brain itself by some means of inductance or
skin conductance? A projected 3D hologram? A permanent brain implant,
heads-up display with GPS, TV, film, radio, communication and
broadband? It sounds quite stressful! ;-)
J�rgen Exner
>I wonder whether there will ever be a general move towards displays
>attached to the head itself? I doubt that "special glasses" will take
>off. Too many negative social aspects. Perhaps a direct connection to
>the optic nerve or the brain itself by some means of inductance or
>skin conductance? A projected 3D hologram? A permanent brain implant,
>heads-up display with GPS, TV, film, radio, communication and
>broadband?
See "Richter 10" by Arthur C. Clark. He calls it "chipped" if I remember
correctly. Written in 1996 he was pretty good at forecasting the
proliferation of cameras everywhere, not implanted yet but many people
indeed can't live without their cell phones and blogs and spaces and
texting and sexting and ... any more.
jue
Golden California Girls
> This may be why they say there is not much difference
> in watching 720P vs 1080P HDTV shows at home at a normal sitting
> distance because the 1080P pixels and
> their separations are so small that our eyes 60 arcsecond resolution
> can no longer detect them (maybe needing 20 arcsecond to see the
> pixels separations). So there may
> be no need for 2160P HDTV years from now unless
> people get to see TV the same distance as viewing
> monitors.
http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/super_hi/index.html
It is as much better than HDTV than HDTV is to rabbit ears. It is so sharp it
is almost painful to the eyes.
Ofnuts
Monitor resolution ranges, due to market constraints, from "barely
readable" (around 50dpi) to "we can make it more expensive but noone
will see the difference" (around 200dpi). Sometimes there are
explanations for miracles or even mere coincidences.
--
Bertrand
Dr J R Stockton
>, Wed, 6 May 2009 09:59:32, J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com> posted:
>See "Richter 10" by Arthur C. Clark.
Never quote an author whose name you are unable to spell correctly.
"Richter 10" was co-authored, and probably largely written, by Mike
McQuay.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Kennedy McEwen
<stau...@usfamily.net> writes
>
>Say I were designing a cockpit display for a military aircraft with a
>night vision device such as a flir. Then the acuity of the operator
>WOULD be a design factor.
>
As someone who designs the FLIRs that produce images on those monitors,
I am sorry to say that you are very wide of the mark.
The drivers for selection of those monitors are, in order:
Cost
Size
Cost
Direct sunlight visibility
Cost
Weight
Cost
Power dissipation
Cost
I think I might have underplayed the importance of cost. ;-)
Seriously, you only have a limited amount of space in a cockpit to fit a
video display and it will be further from the pilot than you would like,
so its practical resolution to the operator is always going to be well
below SD TV standards, even if the display itself is much higher. Then
there is aircraft vibration to consider. By the time its all added up,
most of the time they can't tell the difference between Q-VGA and 720p
HD! There are a couple of exceptions, where the image is not presented
to just the pilot, but that is generally the case.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Chris.Bee
>
> Jürgen Exner posted:
> >See "Richter 10" by Arthur C. Clarke.
>
> Never quote an author whose name you are unable to spell correctly.
>
> "Richter 10" was co-authored, and probably largely written, by Mike
> McQuay.
"Never" was a bit strong, JR, and your tone quite unwarranted despite
your hero-worship of said author.
Notwithstanding the typo, Jürgen's information was both useful and
included the source.
Will a simple flogging do?
Or shall we chop of his hands before relieving him of his head?
Perhaps you were hoping for the head as your prize to show off at
Stockton Towers?
Dare I suggest a search for <tact & tone> ?