trparkySome of us have bad eyesight and have to wear glasses or contacts to be able to see the outside world. My eyesight is pretty damn bad, if I'm not wearing my glasses I have to have my hand nearly at my nose for it to be in focus and even then I have to concentrate hard to focus on it; otherwise it's just a colored blob. For me (and others like me) screen resolution doesn't matter to us because our bad eyesight hinders us from seeing it.

that is irrelevant to the issue of the normal human being and what the normal human being can see.

HopelesslyFaithfulthat is irrelevant to the issue of the normal human being and what the normal human being can see.

Wait. Did you just insult me?

RejZoRAll I can say is lol and I guess you'll tell it for the 5th time because YOU don't get it. If you have to stare at the screen from 5cm for 10 seconds to spot a difference you're just proving my point. And no, my sight is perfectly good. Just because there is theoretical difference, that doesn't mean practical application makes any kind of god damn difference. And that was my point if you haven't get it yet. If you give bunch of 720p and 1080p phones to 100 people and 80 of them can't tell them apart without staring at pixels like absolute retards, then there's your problem.

lawls this isn't theoretical it is a proven fact. Just because you don't have trained eyes to see the difference between: sRGB or adobeRGB or if sRGB is off color, or motion blur from a LCD screen vs ULMB LCD screen vs CRT....doesn't make it any less of a fact that it is quite noticeable. Maybe take some pride in what you do and learn to see the difference???

This isn't even debatable. It is a cold hard fact that you keep pretending doesn't exist because willful ignorance somehow floats your boat.

If you can't tell 300ppi vs 600ppi from 1 or 2 feet away than you have never bothered to admire art or photography and have no idea what your talking about. These differences are easy to see via the naked eye.

trparkyWait. Did you just insult me?

are you 5 and take offense at basic statements about the key issue at hand?

Stocks dropping seems like an overreaction.

Prince ValiantStocks dropping seems like an overreaction.

you got to admire the lengths techpowerup goes to try to make a story out of nothing lol.

Some people need to learn that "theoretical" doesn't mean factually incorrect or unproven. Theoretically using 8K panels in 5 inch devices makes sense. Practically, it doesn't. But whatever, I'm apparently blind as a bat and this guy can see an ant from an airplane flying above the clouds...

I'm looking at other things when it comes to picture quality. In my case I'm not looking at pixel density at all, I'm instead looking at overall picture quality. Myself, I'm cursed with knowing how a well encoded video feed looks like so when I watch TV I have to force myself not to look for the macroblocking that is introduced by heavy MPEG compression. I have DirecTV which is known as the gold standard in HDTV picture quality in the broadcast TV industry, they are seen by many as the best in the industry but even they aren't perfect due to lack of bandwidth to people's homes and unfortunately I know what a properly encoded MPEG feed looks like.

RejZoRSome people need to learn that "theoretical" doesn't mean factually incorrect or unproven. Theoretically using 8K panels in 5 inch devices makes sense. Practically, it doesn't. But whatever, I'm apparently blind as a bat and this guy can see an ant from an airplane flying above the clouds...

its so cute when you try to say something smart but say something idiotic :slap:. that would be 1762.33 PPI and obviously beyond what the average human eye can see.:roll:Now if that 5 inch cell phone was than meant to be used in a VR headset.....that would actually make sense and be practical but once again you fail...

trparkyI'm looking at other things when it comes to picture quality. In my case I'm not looking at pixel density at all, I'm instead looking at overall picture quality. Myself, I'm cursed with knowing how a well encoded video feed looks like so when I watch TV I have to force myself not to look for the macroblocking that is introduced by heavy MPEG compression. I have DirecTV which is known as the gold standard in HDTV picture quality in the broadcast TV industry, they are seen by many as the best in the industry but even they aren't perfect due to lack of bandwidth to people's homes and unfortunately I know what a properly encoded MPEG feed looks like.

ugh even direct TV looks like ass. Netflix by far has the highest and best bit rate i have seen and hulu and all other TV station streaming services have awful bit rates. Amazon has a decent bit rate but not as good as netflix but much better than hulu. This is why i really like watching stuff on bluray. The quality is way better and even BDs have annoying compression artifacts :/

I know what you mean man!....I may even have spent the time to calibrate all my IPS screens too :rolleyes:

Yes I know DirecTV looks bad, they used to be a lot better before they started really crunching the compression ratios down. They really have a lack of bandwidth on their satellite fleet and it really shows. There are plans that are supposedly in place that in all AT&T areas they are going to shove the DirecTV feeds down FTTH but these are just rumors right now, hopefully they are true and they'll be able to decrease the compression closer to 12 Mbps (which is what most encoding experts agree should be the minimum) h.264 to improve picture quality. In broadcast TV there's not much better than DirecTV other than FiOS but they're not everywhere. Believe me, there's far worse than DirecTV; check out uVerse. They compress down to 5.7 Mbps h.264 per feed, it looks worse than DirecTV.

This why I can't stand the movement to 4K, everything is 4K this and 4K that. We don't have enough bandwidth to people's homes to deliver a properly encoded 1080p feed let alone a 4K feed that requires almost four to five times that amount of bandwidth. Let's fix 1080p first before we go onto the next big thing.

As for Blurays, the gold standard by which all other Blurays are measured up against and fail is James Cameron's Avatar. That Bluray is by far the best encoded Bluray ever made!