rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini) (02/02/89)
A Dataquest marketing study distributed at a 1988 Bay Area SIGGRAPH meeting stated that 2K by 2K was optimal COLOR screen resolution from a visual physiology point of view. (Maybe twice that for monochrome). They concluded that this was one of the major factors for CRT not getting larger. (The other reason is probably the electronic switching limits of single gun CRTs.) I remember the medium price ($25K-50K) color graphics terminals growing from 480 to 1024 scan lines from 1980 to 1985, then essentially stopping their size increase (but not their price decrease).
LadyHawke@cup.portal.com (Classic - Concepts) (02/10/89)
re: The Dataquest marketing study distributed at SIGGRAPH that described
2K x 2K as optimal for humans
A couple of years ago we did an informal study of screen resolutions when
trying to decide on monitors, slide presentations, output devices (such
as film recorders) and found that the vast majority of people simply didn't
notice any difference between 2K x 2K and higher resolutions. However, when
we showed all the same data, images, equipment, projects to a group of
graphic artists, they all belched, made faces, groaned and showed other
considerable signs of outright physical discomfort and immediately could
identify differences between 2K and 4K and even immediate recognition
between 4K and higher. Well, economics and averages being what they are
the company decided to purchase the 2K graphics package and accessories.
Unfortunately, the people who had to work with it and create and display
the images were the staff of the Graphic Arts department. They did so
reluctantly and with theatric, but genuine moaning and groaning...myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) (02/14/89)
>re: The Dataquest marketing study distributed at SIGGRAPH that described > 2K x 2K as optimal for humans "Optimal" does not necessarily mean "best"; certainly, you could see the difference between 2k x 2k and 4k x 4k displays, but is the 4k worth the extra money? (Consider: four times the memory, a *much* more expensive display, etc., not to mention the additional horsepower needed just to keep up with the 2k x 2k's performance - horsepower that would be better spent making the 2k x 2k faster.) Bob Myers KC0EW HP Graphics Tech. Div.| Opinions expressed here are not Ft. Collins, Colorado | those of my employer or any other {the known universe}!hplabs!hpfcla!myers | sentient life-form on this planet.
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (02/26/89)
In article <17670009@hpfcdj.HP.COM> myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes: >>re: The Dataquest marketing study distributed at SIGGRAPH that described >> 2K x 2K as optimal for humans > >"Optimal" does not necessarily mean "best"; certainly, you could see the >difference between 2k x 2k and 4k x 4k displays, but is the 4k worth the >extra money? I'd describe "optimal" resolution for a single still image as "each pixel subtends 1 minute of arc at the viewer's eye at the expected viewing distance". This is, more or less, the resolution limit of the eye. More resolution than this is mostly wasted; less and it may not appear razor-sharp. The actual number of pixels in an image then depends on the viewing distance and the field of view that you wish covered. For example, an 8 x 10 inch photograph viewed from 10 inches away covers a visual field of 53 x 44 degrees. To cover this with 1-arc-minute pixels, you need 3438 x 2750 pixels. Seems like more than 2K to me! 2048 is adequate for a 6-inch wide field viewed from 10 inches, or a screen 30 feet wide viewed from 50 feet, so 2K is probably fine for movies as seen from where most people in the audience sit. But it sure isn't good enough for IMAX. Of course, if you are trying to do animation in real time on your hardware, spatial resolution will have to be traded against screen update rates (temporal resolution) to get the best-looking display for the intended purpose for the money. For a flight simulator, I'll take 256 pixels updated 60 times a second over 2k pixels updated once a second any day..