Carlton Bale

For any given viewing distance, there's a recommended screen size; further there are diminishing returns to resolution given the Mark One eyeball's resolution power: * https://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance * https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationshi…

Can't find any results for 13" displays. But there have already been several blind tests carried out for TV's that show people can make out the difference. http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-1080p-201311153442.htm https://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/comment-page-1/ https://www.slashcam.com/news/single/4K-vs-8K--Who-can-tell-the-differ…

It's about choice and control over your data - an educated user knows that with hardware encryption, it is very difficult to retrieve data if the hardware fails. There's also the trust factor where you would prefer to have the keys, rather than trust some device. (E.g. Some Western Digital drives have problems with their hardware encryption and made the data on it irretrievable for many - https://github.com/andlabs/reallymine/issues/53 . More here - https://carltonbale.com/western-digital-mybook-drive-lock-encryption-f… What is being questioned and criticized is the removal of this choice. Especially when a product claims a commitment to privacy.

except of course, it isn't. https://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/, https://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/, etc. etc.

With a 55" screen you'd have to be within 3.5 feet to be able to see a difference with 4k. So no eye test needed. Your brain is either lying to you or the 4k screen you tested with is better than the non-4k you used. http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

It has to be huge... From: http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/ "What the chart shows is that, for a 84-inch screen, 4k resolution isn’t fully apparent until you are at least 5.5 feet or closer to the screen. For a “tiny” 55-inch screen, you’ll need to be 3.5 feet or closer. Needless to say, most consumers aren’t going to sit close enough to see any of extra resolution 4k offers, much less 8k."

There is a max resolution that people care about, often talked about with 4k TVs. Look at the chart in this example: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ So eventually, we will get there :) There is also talk about how we actually only mentally process a small focus point in high resolution, and a renderer that could track our focus point could use a lot less GPU compute for a scene if fast enough.

Here's the full article: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ It doesn't really say, but I would guess it has to do with when you start to see individual pixels.

At what distance though, without that your statement isn't helpful. We all know the human doesn't have resolution like a screen but if we ignore the optics of our eyes I think thats pointless. There are people saying they use their phones 6" away from their face. Ok, but that is not at all how anyone I know uses their phones at least distance wise. My example of tv screen and resolution is geared more to this: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ Take an 80" 4k tv, you need to sit about 5 feet for an average human to see the difference. I'd like to see equivalents for phones and dpi/screen size and distance.

People can not see 4k resolution at normal couch viewing distances unless they have really huge displays. http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

The original comment missed the point of the chart in the article you link: the increased pixel density is useless __at TV viewing distances__. When you go down to about 2 feet from the screen, 4k is pretty apparent on a 30 inch screen. A clearer chart is at [1], and the Carlton Bale's original article even has a handy calculator that lets you verify this [2]. 1: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html 2: http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Unless you're sitting within 7 feet of a 70" screen 4k is completely pointless: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

You're sitting close enough to a large screen that you can benefit from 1080p. Indeed, at that distance, I think you might just be able to get some benefit from 4k. Most people do not sit 1.5m from a 50" screen however. (I'm assuming that the calculations in this blog post: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ are correct.)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't need more than 1080p resolution for watching a video. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I think you need to be within 5 feet of a typical 42" screen to notice an improvement of 4k over 1080p. That's bit close for my taste! Now if you have some kind of enormous video setup that would benefit, then more power to you. EDIT: I found an article on the subject: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

In the majority of situations, most people cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Of course, people who are interested in home cinema type setups ("videophiles"?) will be able to tell immediately. I think that a major change you will see in the future is the size of the screens. In order to take advantage of a 4k stream a monitor needs to occupy a much larger fraction of your vision than 1080p. So 3 metre screens or projections in people's homes will become more common if resolutions are going to meaningfully increase. http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

Every file in S3 can become a torrent just by appending ?torrent: http://carltonbale.com/how-to-create-and-seed-a-torrent-download-on-am…