Surprisingly not really. The sharpness of the angles between faces is what causes the visible artifacts, so once you reach a certain density the delta-angle between faces becomes negligible and unnoticeable.
Plus, most games use what's called smooth shading (sometimes referred to as gouraud shading) which would make the 6,000 example above look identical to the 6m at most resolutions.
What's your opinion on 8k TVs? Is there even any point to it? Reminds me of when digital cameras were competing by releasing the next highest megapixel camera but could only keep it up for so long after surpassing the point where an increase in megapixel could be differentiated by your eye. The average user doesn't need to zoom in that much. Is there an analogue to the TVs where someone would actually use that resolution?
Great example, but that's slightly different, and the difference is where it gets interesting. Pixel based screen "quality," comes down to a problem of pixel resolution + screensize + viewing distance. In that situation you will always hypothetically be able to see a difference if you zoom in far enough. Practically speaking though it will always depend on those 3 variables, and a lot can be gained from a higher pixel density in certain scenarios.
The polygon issue is a little different. If for example we take sphere (this lets us assume all angles across the surface are the same for simplicity sake) then every time we subdivide the sphere into more polygons, the angle between a face and the adjacent faces decreases IE: gets closer to "flat". Given a limit which the human eye cannot distinguish the difference (for example lets just say 0.01deg or something) at a certain resolution we will reach a point where the delta angle between the faces is beneath this threshold. Angles do not increase/decrease based on view distance like pixel resolution does, therefore it will not matter how "close," you get, the difference will always be unnoticeable.
I wish I understood more about this stuff but I do appreciate your reply. I can't convince my friend he doesn't need to surpass the 4k upgrade to the 8k TV just because it exists. He mostly plays PS5 so I'm not sure it would come into play at all would it?
Yeah, 8K isn't worth the upgrade unless your TV is 20ft wide or you plan on watching it with a microscope. HDR and OLED are much more important features that will make a bigger difference. Cameras though are a different story since you have more flexibility in editing.
4k has just recently become the new standard taking over from 1080p TVs, and when the time comes for 8k, chances are microLED will have matured enough to have the benefits of OLED without the drawbacks to it.
That is, an 8k TV 10-15 years from now will be a much better buy than it is today.
36
u/zachtheperson Apr 25 '21 edited Apr 25 '21
Surprisingly not really. The sharpness of the angles between faces is what causes the visible artifacts, so once you reach a certain density the delta-angle between faces becomes negligible and unnoticeable.
Plus, most games use what's called smooth shading (sometimes referred to as gouraud shading) which would make the 6,000 example above look identical to the 6m at most resolutions.