v. interesting, but does it really matter? imho, 1920x1080p will do fine for consumers for a VERY VERY long time. even with the Japanese Ultra Defintion @8440x4440 it won't really matter cause it'll only be marginally better but at too much of an expense and space. most people don't have houses that can accomodate a '4k' image. cinemas can benefit but i think even '2k' is fine for the cinema (on the largest of screens). it's just that when you go beyond so much resolution it becomes meaningless... unless you need spy gear/satellite stuff. then you'll need it to be as high as possible.

i think somebody got the point with the word seamless.
first part is getting seamless pixels (so you can not see the discrete components of the picture, being pixels or dot on paper), so you can say that it is enough.
The second part is then to consider if we admit that it is enough to consider having this only in one direction, eyes focused on a screen) or covering all the field of vision.
the third part is not really really a pixel count, but rely more on the refresh rate (the pixel lifetime).
And the fourth part is counting it twice (we got two eyes) for depth perception.
Probably you have been already fooled by some demo of HD screen disguised in a window or fish tank, when seen at reasonable distance looking like real life until you convince yourself of the trick by gluing you nose on the screen.

<<<-- Originally posted by Christopher C. Murphy : Online about a year ago somewhere I read this article about the Japanese...they created a super-HD camera. It was like 8k or something and they took it out and shot on the street while driving. They weaved through traffic and tried to give a real life like ride.

They projected it for people sitting in chairs in a room and they all started barfing! Apparently, the "motion" made them sick because their bodies weren't moving. That's going to be some really cool stuff when they figure out how to get it all together. -->>>

Murph,

That barfing sensation has more to do with human sensory disagreement than the optical properties of the camera. If those people had closed their eyes, the sensation would have disappeared. It's a type of vertigo. The human ear has three rings mounted roughly vertical, horizontal, and a 45 degree angle. These rings are filled with fluid that comes in contact with small sensory hairs inside the ring. When you move or tilt your head fast enough to impart motion to the fluid in these rings, you perceive motion. That's all fine and good as long as the image your eyes see agrees with the movement of the fluid. However, when a pilot looks out the window and sees nothing but darkness or gray clouds, they will not perceive a slow movement in any direction because the fluid isn't disrupted. Without a moving horizon in the visual frame as a cross check, vertigo ensues. The reason you get dizzy when you stop spinning in a circle is because you have the fluid still moving while your eyes say you aren't anymore or if the fluid moves faster on one side of the head than the other. This is also how thrill rides at the amusement park work to make you dizzy.

I mentioned this because our senses work together and anytime there is diagreement, the brain gets confused and it cam lead to barfing (motion sickness), vertigo (not knowing which way is up or down, left or right), or both. It requires extensive training to make your brain disbelieve what your senses may be telling you using an alternate reference. In aviation, that's what an 'instrument rating' is for. Learning to trust the instruments and not what your body is saying. I could go on and on about how this knowledge is put to 'everyday use' like your example above, but I will save that for another time and/or forum.

All in all, a very interesting thread here.

regards,

-gb-

Now just divide that by 4 to find out the amount of reds, greens, and blues, and low-light cells in your eye if your brain could only process light, and nothing else. We have a blind spot and hearing and motor skills and all that processing power constantly being used up in our brains so the regular resolution of the human eye is around 6-8 megapixels per color and 2.2 megapixels (HD) in low-light. Plus, our eyes have way better exposure compensation (using section by section exposure control) than any HD camcorder. any type of film can do this but if someone can make a camcorder that could do intellegent section by section exposure, we will be one step closer to reality on physical memory (Tape, P2, and HDD). IMAX is the best example (although it's film) of virtual reality.

What Murph is saying is that the resolution is so high, it easily "fools" the brain into interpreting the video as real, causing the miscommunication of sensory data and the subsequent queesy effect.