Mike Davis

Lives in United States Dallas, TX, United States
Has a website at http://www.accessz.com
Joined on Jun 12, 2002

Comments

Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

As theaters slowly converted to digital projectors, it was the motion picture industry that prolonged the demise of Kodak film production, well after the majority of roll film still photograghers had rushed into digital cameras.

Interestingly, we can now thank the interest of analog-loving cinematograghers for Ektachrome's resurrection - first, in 35mm motion picture stock, ahead of still photography roll or sheet films.

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/customers/productions/default.htm

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 15:06 UTC as 45th comment
On article Dell's 8K monitor goes on sale in March for $5000 (221 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dragonrider: 8K at 32" is just plain silly. I have a 32" 4k monitor and would be much happier if it were at least 40 in. It is a great monitor, but running at 150% in windows is a waste of pixels and 8k would have to run at 300% to be readable. When are we going to see some decent 40-46 in 4k monitors with ips panels and full color gamut?

Sounds logical to me. Might you therefore recommend an 80-inch diagonal for 8K, at the same viewing distance used with a 40-inch diagonal for 4K?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 09:45 UTC
On article Dell's 8K monitor goes on sale in March for $5000 (221 comments in total)
In reply to:

EskeRahn: It does sound a bit like overkill on a 32" monitor, unless you use it really close...

Most people can just distinguish details down to around 1/12000 of the viewing distance. At my age it is more like 1/7000. I have met a single eagled eyed guy with a 1/25000 limit though, I'm sure he would love it.

I have made some test-sheets where you can test your eyes in seconds, that can be found here: http://eskerahn.dk/wordpress/?p=32

Yes! There are lots of people who are already seated too far away from their 4k displays. Almost no one is going to sit closely enough to actually resolve the pixels of an 8k display.

My calculations, per THX recommendations, show that for the following resolutions in a 32-in. diagonal, you can sit no farther than the distances stated if you want to actually enjoy all of the pixels. This assumes you can resolve an angular resolution of 1.0 arc-minute.

For 1080 vertical in a 32-inch, sit no farther than 4.16 ft. (1.27m)
For 2160 (4k) vertical in a 32-inch, sit no farther than 2.08 ft. (0.63m)
For 4320 (8k) vertical in a 32-inch, sit no farther than 1.04 ft. (0.32m)

For 4k displays, multiply the diagonal by 0.78 to get the maximum viewing distance.
For 8k displays, multiply the diagonal by 0.39 to get the maximum viewing distance.

If you buy an 8k display and insist on sitting at the max. distance for a 4k display (or farther still), you might as well have purchased a 4k display!

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 00:40 UTC
In reply to:

AstroStan: "color distracts you from the image"

And goosed-up color, even more so. I can't help but notice that nearly every photo in the recent awards is hyper-saturated. But I suppose that's what grabs the competition for eyeballs, even if it's only a 1-3 second glance. This aesthetic runs rampant in pretty pic astro-imaging.

Exactly. I think it starts with super-saturated television. Our culture is jaded to color.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2016 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: Canon really has been making improvements with each revision of this series. For this latest $2199 edition, look at the DxOMark Sharpness > Field Map for a FL of 16mm FL at f/8:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-16-35mm-F28L-III-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R---Measurements__1009

Then open a new tab and compare the Sharpness > Field Map for the currently $1399 (Amazon) mark ii version at 16mm and f/8:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF16-35mm-F2.8L-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R---Measurements__1009

Open yet another tab to compare the Sharpness > Field Map for the currently priced $1749 (Amazon), but discontinued, original version, at 16mm and f/8:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-16-35mm-F28L-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R---Measurements__1009

https://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/CanonEOS5DSR/Result/DakResult/Canon_EF_16_35mm_F28L_III_USM/MTF_v2/MTF_ACUTANCE_16mm_f8.png

https://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/CanonEOS5DSR/Result/DakResult/Canon_EF16_35mm_F28L_II_USM/MTF_v2/MTF_ACUTANCE_16mm_f8.png

https://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/CanonEOS5DSR/Result/DakResult/Canon_EF_16_35mm_F28L_USM/MTF_v2/MTF_ACUTANCE_16mm_f8.png

https://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/SonyA6000/Result/DakResult/Sony_E_10_18mm_F4/MTF_v2/MTF_ACUTANCE_10mm_f8.png

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 13:26 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: Canon really has been making improvements with each revision of this series. For this latest $2199 edition, look at the DxOMark Sharpness > Field Map for a FL of 16mm FL at f/8:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-16-35mm-F28L-III-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R---Measurements__1009

Then open a new tab and compare the Sharpness > Field Map for the currently $1399 (Amazon) mark ii version at 16mm and f/8:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF16-35mm-F2.8L-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R---Measurements__1009

Open yet another tab to compare the Sharpness > Field Map for the currently priced $1749 (Amazon), but discontinued, original version, at 16mm and f/8:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-16-35mm-F28L-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R---Measurements__1009

There's more to a lens than DxOMark Sharpness Field Map measurements, but just for grins, open yet another tab to compare these three Canon full-frame lenses to the currently $748 (Amazon) Sony 10-18mm f/4 (for e mount APS-C bodies), at the equivalent 10mm FL and f/8 (which yields more DoF, but no visible diffraction at any given print size and viewing distance that's reasonable for the pixel count) than a 16mm full-frame lens at f/8):

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-E-10-18mm-F4-mounted-on-Sony-A6000---Measurements__942

This beats the mark i and mark ii versions of the Canon 16-35mm by a country mile (on a 24MP body). But again, there's more to a lens than DxOMark Sharpness Field Map measurements.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 18:08 UTC

Canon really has been making improvements with each revision of this series. For this latest $2199 edition, look at the DxOMark Sharpness > Field Map for a FL of 16mm FL at f/8:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-16-35mm-F28L-III-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R---Measurements__1009

Then open a new tab and compare the Sharpness > Field Map for the currently $1399 (Amazon) mark ii version at 16mm and f/8:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF16-35mm-F2.8L-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R---Measurements__1009

Open yet another tab to compare the Sharpness > Field Map for the currently priced $1749 (Amazon), but discontinued, original version, at 16mm and f/8:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-16-35mm-F28L-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R---Measurements__1009

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 18:06 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
On article 'Ethereal' takes you to Iceland in 4K (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonny1976: have seen better and more interesting video from iceland...but my point is what's the point of this?
time-lapse are interesting for their kind animation style...this video lack this and look just plainly a video shot normally at 60 frame per second....so they really made this video from still frame? i use drone e for video and still and the inspire has super stabilization but at this level to mimic a video is a bit strange.
i still don't understand the choice of time-lapse if the output is just a video.

The scale of those landscapes is what you're failing to appreciate. Nothing made by DJI can fly that fast. The topography of the land is so much better revealed to the eye when time lapse has us flying at multiples of the actual drone speed. The video could have been produced by shooting from a Bell Ranger, but it wasn't. That's the magic of this guy's work.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 13:27 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: Canon has a (very expensive) movie camera (ME20F-SH) that uses the same concept. The pixels are 7.5X larger than normal, and it has a "sensitivity in excess of 4,000,000 ISO".

Anyway, this Casio looks like a cute concept. It would be interesting if camera companies did more in this area.

Except in this Casio action cam, the sensor is so small for 1920x1080 pixels, that it can't possibly have "larger than normal" pixels.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2016 at 21:50 UTC

Further research at the specifications tab of this page:

http://casio.jp/dc/products/ex_fr110h/spec/

... reveals that it has a small, 1/2.8-inch, CMOS sensor (5.15 x 3.86 mm).

For 1920x1080 still captures, that's a pixel density of 1920 / 5.15 = 373 pixels/mm, which is horrible in terms of vulnerability to noise and diffraction.

So, I'm having a hard time believing the photosites could be large enough to enjoy any of the claimed benefits. There's no way to fit anything but tiny photosites on that sensor (in a 1920x1080 array).

Something doesn't make sense here. I suspect it's just a fixed-aperture (f/2.8), low-resolution, 51200 ISO camera with a very typical, cheap little digicam sensor.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2016 at 21:37 UTC as 40th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Mike Davis: I have to hand it to Apple for using sufficiently fast lenses relative to the sensor size and pixel count - f/2.8 and f/1.8 - to avoid visible diffraction in a non-resampled 360 dpi print, measuring 8.3 x 11.1-in., suffering an enlargement factor of 57.5x, yet still supporting subject detail to a resolution of 5 lp/mm after enlargement, when viewed as closely as 25cm (9.84 in.). Viewed, instead, from 50cm (20 in.), an uncropped capture could support 2.5 lp/mm (180 dpi) in a 16.6 x 22.2-in. print from the iPhone 7. Lots of other factors could inhibit that resolution, but at least diffraction would not inhibit a post-enlargement goal of 5 lp/mm and 2.5 lp/mm, respectively, for the two combinations of print size and viewing distance I've given.

This assumes the CMOS sensors actually do measure 4.9 x 3.7cm, that a 30% loss of resolution will occur due to an AA filter and the RGBG algorithm, and that the lenses cannot stop down to smaller apertures.

Better late than never... I neglected to mention that, at any given ISO setting, the smaller sensor will suffer a much lower SNR than that available with a larger sensor that's 8 times larger, having the same number of Megapixels. Astute iPhone users have surely noticed how noisy the captures can be when taken with inadequate illumination (where the automatic ISO is set to higher values to compensate the lack of light.) Hint: stick to shooting brightly lit scenes when using small sensors. There, I feel much better. :-)

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 22:53 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: I have to hand it to Apple for using sufficiently fast lenses relative to the sensor size and pixel count - f/2.8 and f/1.8 - to avoid visible diffraction in a non-resampled 360 dpi print, measuring 8.3 x 11.1-in., suffering an enlargement factor of 57.5x, yet still supporting subject detail to a resolution of 5 lp/mm after enlargement, when viewed as closely as 25cm (9.84 in.). Viewed, instead, from 50cm (20 in.), an uncropped capture could support 2.5 lp/mm (180 dpi) in a 16.6 x 22.2-in. print from the iPhone 7. Lots of other factors could inhibit that resolution, but at least diffraction would not inhibit a post-enlargement goal of 5 lp/mm and 2.5 lp/mm, respectively, for the two combinations of print size and viewing distance I've given.

This assumes the CMOS sensors actually do measure 4.9 x 3.7cm, that a 30% loss of resolution will occur due to an AA filter and the RGBG algorithm, and that the lenses cannot stop down to smaller apertures.

The user of a full-frame 12MP CMOS sensor (Nikon D700, Sony Alpha 7s) can stop down as far as f/17.7 to achieve the same diffraction and DoF (same diameters of Airy disks and circles of confusion) as that had with the iPhone 7's 4.9 x 3.7mm sensor, thanks to the larger sensor suffering only a 7x enlargement factor vs. the 4.9 x 3.7mm iPhone sensor suffering a 57.5x enlargement factor to make that 8.3x11.1-inch print. In the end, the only difference is that the smaller sensor operates at shutter speeds that are 8 times faster for any given ISO setting and lighting - and, presumably, the user of the iPhone 7 has no control over aperture selection. The DSLRs offer a choice of several f-Numbers for exercising creative license (any f-Number less than f/17.7, when the goal is to produce n 8.3x11.1-inch print, retaining 5 lp/mm worth of genuine subject detail (or, as is also available to the iPhone 7, a 16.6x22.2-inch print holding 2.5 lp/mm (180 CMOS dpi) worth of subject detail.)

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 14:37 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: I have to hand it to Apple for using sufficiently fast lenses relative to the sensor size and pixel count - f/2.8 and f/1.8 - to avoid visible diffraction in a non-resampled 360 dpi print, measuring 8.3 x 11.1-in., suffering an enlargement factor of 57.5x, yet still supporting subject detail to a resolution of 5 lp/mm after enlargement, when viewed as closely as 25cm (9.84 in.). Viewed, instead, from 50cm (20 in.), an uncropped capture could support 2.5 lp/mm (180 dpi) in a 16.6 x 22.2-in. print from the iPhone 7. Lots of other factors could inhibit that resolution, but at least diffraction would not inhibit a post-enlargement goal of 5 lp/mm and 2.5 lp/mm, respectively, for the two combinations of print size and viewing distance I've given.

This assumes the CMOS sensors actually do measure 4.9 x 3.7cm, that a 30% loss of resolution will occur due to an AA filter and the RGBG algorithm, and that the lenses cannot stop down to smaller apertures.

The f-Number at which diffraction will just begin to inhibit your desired final image resolution, for an anticipated enlargement factor and viewing distance can be calculated as follows:

Max. Permissible f-Number = Max. Permissible CoC / 0.00135383

Source: http://photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial (in the section on diffraction)

To calculate the Max. Permissible CoC used in DoF calculations:

Max. Permissible CoC Diameter (mm) = anticipated viewing distance (cm) / desired final image resoltuion (lp/mm) for a 25cm viewing distance / anticipated enlargement factor / 25

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Notice, that both the CoC diameter and the f-Number at which diffraction would begin to inhibit a desired final image resolution are both dependent on only two variables: enlargement factor and viewing distance.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: I have to hand it to Apple for using sufficiently fast lenses relative to the sensor size and pixel count - f/2.8 and f/1.8 - to avoid visible diffraction in a non-resampled 360 dpi print, measuring 8.3 x 11.1-in., suffering an enlargement factor of 57.5x, yet still supporting subject detail to a resolution of 5 lp/mm after enlargement, when viewed as closely as 25cm (9.84 in.). Viewed, instead, from 50cm (20 in.), an uncropped capture could support 2.5 lp/mm (180 dpi) in a 16.6 x 22.2-in. print from the iPhone 7. Lots of other factors could inhibit that resolution, but at least diffraction would not inhibit a post-enlargement goal of 5 lp/mm and 2.5 lp/mm, respectively, for the two combinations of print size and viewing distance I've given.

This assumes the CMOS sensors actually do measure 4.9 x 3.7cm, that a 30% loss of resolution will occur due to an AA filter and the RGBG algorithm, and that the lenses cannot stop down to smaller apertures.

The figures I've given here are achievable with just about any 12MP CMOS sensor and matching lenses, as long as the user does not stop down below the f-Number at which diffraction will begin to inhibit 5 lp/mm (360 CMOS dpi) in an 8.3x11.1-inch print. The larger the sensor, the lower will be the enlargement factor needed to reach that print size, and thus, the less magnified will be diffraction's Airy disks at any given f-Number and wavelength (color) of light.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: I have to hand it to Apple for using sufficiently fast lenses relative to the sensor size and pixel count - f/2.8 and f/1.8 - to avoid visible diffraction in a non-resampled 360 dpi print, measuring 8.3 x 11.1-in., suffering an enlargement factor of 57.5x, yet still supporting subject detail to a resolution of 5 lp/mm after enlargement, when viewed as closely as 25cm (9.84 in.). Viewed, instead, from 50cm (20 in.), an uncropped capture could support 2.5 lp/mm (180 dpi) in a 16.6 x 22.2-in. print from the iPhone 7. Lots of other factors could inhibit that resolution, but at least diffraction would not inhibit a post-enlargement goal of 5 lp/mm and 2.5 lp/mm, respectively, for the two combinations of print size and viewing distance I've given.

This assumes the CMOS sensors actually do measure 4.9 x 3.7cm, that a 30% loss of resolution will occur due to an AA filter and the RGBG algorithm, and that the lenses cannot stop down to smaller apertures.

THX, the people who publish specifications for home and commercial theaters, use a more relaxed figure of 1.0 arc-minute, which equates to 6.88 lp/mm in a print viewed at a distance of 25cm. Thus, 5 lp/mm in an 8x11-inch print (coming from a 360 dpi non-resampled CMOS capture) is pretty good. I would venture to say that most prints - from all sources, film or digital, across all formats, don't come anywhere close to holding this much subject detail - for various reasons - primarily related to poor technique or simply the aesthetic choice to use selective focus. They might have edge sharpness (acuity), but as with a very precisely executed number painting, they lack resolution (subject detail). Let me add that I'm not ascribing any magic abilities to the iPhone 7's sensors and lenses.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: I have to hand it to Apple for using sufficiently fast lenses relative to the sensor size and pixel count - f/2.8 and f/1.8 - to avoid visible diffraction in a non-resampled 360 dpi print, measuring 8.3 x 11.1-in., suffering an enlargement factor of 57.5x, yet still supporting subject detail to a resolution of 5 lp/mm after enlargement, when viewed as closely as 25cm (9.84 in.). Viewed, instead, from 50cm (20 in.), an uncropped capture could support 2.5 lp/mm (180 dpi) in a 16.6 x 22.2-in. print from the iPhone 7. Lots of other factors could inhibit that resolution, but at least diffraction would not inhibit a post-enlargement goal of 5 lp/mm and 2.5 lp/mm, respectively, for the two combinations of print size and viewing distance I've given.

This assumes the CMOS sensors actually do measure 4.9 x 3.7cm, that a 30% loss of resolution will occur due to an AA filter and the RGBG algorithm, and that the lenses cannot stop down to smaller apertures.

Ignoring things like defocus, motion blur, and the resolution of the lenses themselves - which I think we can safely assume will support the pixel count of the 12 MP sensors - looking only at resolution limitations imposed by diffraction and pixel count, and considering the fact that CMOS sensors typically lose about 30% of the resolution to the aforementioned AA filter and RGBG algorithm, the answer to your question has already been stated in my post, above - albeit, somewhat densely. I'll rephrase it this way: The math says we should be able to deliver 360 dpi (5 lp/mm) worth of genuine subject detail to an 8.3 x 11.1-in. print, using an uncropped capture. 5 lp/mm is 5/8th of 8 lp/mm - which equates to 0.68 arc-minute of angular resolution in a print viewed at a distance of 25cm (9.84-inches). 8 lp/mm is the generally agreed limit of acuity of healthy human eyes.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 14:34 UTC

I have to hand it to Apple for using sufficiently fast lenses relative to the sensor size and pixel count - f/2.8 and f/1.8 - to avoid visible diffraction in a non-resampled 360 dpi print, measuring 8.3 x 11.1-in., suffering an enlargement factor of 57.5x, yet still supporting subject detail to a resolution of 5 lp/mm after enlargement, when viewed as closely as 25cm (9.84 in.). Viewed, instead, from 50cm (20 in.), an uncropped capture could support 2.5 lp/mm (180 dpi) in a 16.6 x 22.2-in. print from the iPhone 7. Lots of other factors could inhibit that resolution, but at least diffraction would not inhibit a post-enlargement goal of 5 lp/mm and 2.5 lp/mm, respectively, for the two combinations of print size and viewing distance I've given.

This assumes the CMOS sensors actually do measure 4.9 x 3.7cm, that a 30% loss of resolution will occur due to an AA filter and the RGBG algorithm, and that the lenses cannot stop down to smaller apertures.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 22:26 UTC as 155th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

mmarian: No disrespect to Adams achievement and his status in history of photography but glorification of triviality in this video is a bit sad. All except the multiple lightsource enlarger head with individual switches which usefulness is debatable, the rest is just plain common knowledge and very typical darkroom setup. I had such hand made dodge and burn patches myself and the strip exposure test was a commonplace in those days. I was working on a 10x8" enlarger on horizontal rails in tge darkroom floor and remote control and magnetic wall myslef in a professional colour laboratory many years ago. I was making prints color and b&w up to 15 feet long and 4 feet wide with paper held by magnets. The only guide in total darkness were the tiny florescent patches sticked to the magnets. The magnifying focusing tool seen in the video was something commonly used those days as well. So, what else? That to achieve the desirable final print took a long time a many trials and errors?? Well, those were the times of darkrooms and silver halid paper and chemicals. We used to even tone the B&W photos by immersing them in two hand prepared chemical compound dilutions in two stage proces to get a blue tone etc etc. Not very healthy I have to admit.... And we used to dry the large print by taping them to the walls to achieve "that look" and when dry, cutting the brown paper glue tape with stanley knife alonge the edge of the print. ..Anyway, the video might sound very fascinating to current generation of people who have only experienced the marvels of digital technology but to folks from the yesterdays talking about common darkroom equipment and methods with such an awe and wonder sounds a bit odd and almost off-putting.

Agreed. I should cut him some slack, but as I watched him reaching for words, It struck me that he isn't familiar with the vocabulary of darkroom technique. He would do well to read "The Negative" and "The Print" before conducting any more interviews in his father's darkroom.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 10:54 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

jaxson: 3D via this method is always odd for the brain. Normally we focus at different 'depths' into a scene, but with 3D we're constantly focusing very close to our eyes, and the designer determines where the focus point in the scene is. Not sure if it's a major, but it's actually quite different when you think about it.

I'm also still concerned that the tools to view just aren't there yet. I'm not keen on heading to a theatre where I'm wearing head gear someone else just wore.

Pushing the virtual image out to at least 30 inches would greatly reduce this problem, as would increasing viewer brightness to "stop down" our pupils, avoiding the very unrealistic use of selective focus (which only makes sense when shooting for 2D), and lastly, putting an end to the excessively frequent and unrealistic use of negative parallax, as seen in so many 3D films, where otherwise seasoned and accomplished 2D cinematographers just cannot resist poking us in the eyes with everything from shotgun barrels to saw-toothed piranhas. 3D content will never be perceived as real, until it becomes completely transparent to both the storytelling and the visual experience. We don't walk around in the real world saying, "Cool! I can see in 3D!" Neither should such thoughts come to mind when experiencing VR. Less is more!

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 16:59 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Davis: As pointed out in part II of this article, the greatest limitation in achieving full "immersion" is that of resolution in the digital displays. To varying degrees, we resist the notion that VR is "real" when the display resolution is so far below that which healthy human eyes can naturally perceive.

THX recommendations for theater and TV viewing distances support the generally accepted figure of 1 arc-minute (1/60th of one degree) of angular resolution as the limit of human visual acuity. None of today's head-mounted displays are getting anywhere close to that.

Even if we we could purchase a viewer that delivers "4k" to each eye (using two 4k smartphones?) , we would only be getting 2160x4096 or 8.85 MP to each eye, which just isn't enough to emulate reality when it is spread across angles of view as great as those expected in VR headsets.

Sadly, the entire digital display market is driven by the video formats streamed into our homes. We're stuck at "4k" for now, and it's unlikely any of the display manufacturers are going to start cranking out "4k" (8.8 MP) displays with a 2-inch diagonal, anytime soon, much less 760 MP displays with a two-inch diagonal.

But... Revisiting the idea of a 40-degree FoV, both horizontal and diagonal - again, similar to an 8-foot square hole in a wall viewed from 10-feet away - we can, today, experience resolutions as high as 1-arc minute (the equivalent of 8 lp/mm in an 8-inch print viewed at 10 inches) using a handheld, illuminated stereoscope made for viewing stills (sorry, no video) captured on medium format color transparency film. Digital display technology has fallen way behind sensor resolutions - it can't compete with analog displays when it comes to presenting a lot of subject detail in small, handheld or head-mounted viewers.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 16:23 UTC
Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »