Can The Human Eye See 8k & Is It 8k Useless?

Manufacturers are attempting to persuade us that 4K resolution isn’t good, just as we’re becoming used to the concept of viewing (and recording) 4K video.

The reality is that we will soon need Full Ultra High Definition, or 8K since 4K is merely UHD at best. Are we being sold a dud if we think 8K is the future? It’s time to start digging.

The “Arms Race” Of High Resolution.

A new kind of LED screen first appeared on the market around 2010. In a bid to compete with the human eye’s resolution, Apple introduced its “retina” screens. Several competing producers have released products with very similar technologies to stay ahead of the pack.

4K televisions were introduced in 2012. Ultra-High Definition (UHD) was the new benchmark, and it provided four times the resolution of Full HD TVs (or 1080p).

Since 1080p already provided exceptional resolution, the jump to 4K was enormous. Videographers still have a hard time getting their hands on 4K-capable cameras and editing software.

Getting ultra-fast internet, larger hard drives, quicker memory cards, and a more robust machine are all necessities in this case.

Now, “Full” UHD, or 8K, is on the horizon. An 8K “prosumer” camera has been unveiled by electronics giant Sharp, and numerous TVs are now available, although at absurdly high prices.

8K resolution is four times that of 4K, making it the gold standard for picture quality. Does it ring a bell? That’s why 4K was promoted, so of course you’d expect it to be a hit.

Critical Analysis Of 4k

This is because 4K was first developed for use in theatres and then adapted for use in home theatres. It has been shown that the human eye cannot discern the difference between 4K and 1080p, making 1080p perfectly enough for the typical household television.

That’s not to suggest 4K doesn’t have its uses; the difference in image quality between 1080p and 4K may be striking, especially on a large screen like a 32-inch computer monitor.

That’s precisely why the 4K format was developed. However, it is typically excessive for other uses.

So, if 4K’s advantages were already minimal, what’s the point of 8K? Is it simply another ploy by electronics companies to get us to buy new TVs and cameras?

Then then, maybe it’ll usher in a new era of breathtaking picture quality. We need to learn more about pixel density and eye clarity to provide a satisfactory response to that issue.

Why is it crucial that conflicts be established?

These very high-resolution displays are being developed with the end objective of reaching or beyond the resolving capabilities of the human eye.

When a person’s eyes can no longer differentiate between two points, they have reached their visual acuity limit. Resolving angle, not pixels, is the standard by which the sharpness of vision is evaluated.

Sun Systems’ Michael F. Deering claims that the average person has a visual acuity of 0.0078 degrees or 0.47 arc minutes. Our “visual resolution” is closer to 1 arc minute (or 0.0167 degrees).

With these facts and a little trigonometry, we can determine an easy formula for how screen resolution relates to both viewing distance and screen size.

We may easily get the formula for a 16:9 widescreen aspect ratio:

The number of rows of pixels in a display is proportional to the screen’s diagonal size in inches and the viewing distance (feet)

Here is a rundown of the most popular display dimensions:

• Pixels in a single horizontal row
• The number of pixels in a row
• Standard High Definition (HD) 1080p 720p SD
• True HD 1280720
• Quad HD 1920 x 1080
• Ultra HD (4K) 2560 x 1440; Full Ultra HD (8K) 3840 x 2160; Full HD (7680 x 4320)

Finally, let’s put this into practice with some instances from the real world…

You may find a table of screen sizes and their optimal viewing distances* down below. You may be surprised by the findings:

The best resolution for a screen (and standard required)

• 15-inch screen seen from 18 inches away yields 1400 (Quad HD)
• Displaying in 1680 at 2 feet, a 24-inch desktop monitor (4K)
• From a distance of 2 metres (7.9 feet), a 32-inch desktop monitor’s image fills a full (4K)
• 32-inch screen, 3.6-foot viewing distance, 1244 (Quad HD)
• A television set 43 inches in size seen from 4.8 feet away has a 1254 (Quad HD)
• 65-inch screen, 7.3-foot viewing distance, 1247 (Quad HD)

Home theatre gurus THX suggest a viewing distance of *36 inches for a TV, which provides an excellent viewing angle. The optimal distance for seeing a computer screen is per guidelines issued by the College of Optometrists.

According to these instances, the sweet spot for resolution is somewhere between Quad HD and 4K. Interestingly, this demonstrates that 4K resolution is already excessive for typical television use.

Although THX recommends a certain minimum viewing distance, getting the most out of the experience requires sitting considerably closer than that.

Full HD is probably more than enough for the vast majority of uses in the real world. See for yourself:

If you want to view a resolution higher than 4K, you should sit no more than 3 feet away.

So, what’s next for 8K?

The question of whether or not an 8K resolution is necessary arises if 4K is already excessive. Simply put, no.

Wrap-around displays, planetariums, and virtual reality were the original inspirations for 8K. That which has a field of vision more than 60 degrees.

While it’s true that sitting very near to a huge flat screen will provide a more “immersive” experience, this will also result in a skewed field of vision. The video we are seeing on our flat displays was not intended to be seen at this angle.

In conclusion, 8K is too advanced for even the largest standard flat-screen televisions. Manufacturers that promote 8K for mainstream TV watching miss the point, since the technology was designed for virtual reality.

What about an 8K video recording?

Canon released the Canon EOS R5, a powerful new camera capable of 8K resolution, in July 2020. (I am on the list to get one, but I am more interested in taking still photographs.)

Canon sees 8K as a niche market, therefore they’re marketing it as a capturing tool rather than a final consumer product.

When shooting in 8K, you have much more flexibility in post-production. You can make a 4K final result after engaging in post-production practices including cropping, zooming, stabilizing, and tracking.

Why the Refresh Rate Is the Only Thing That Matters?

The fact that the great majority of TVs sold in North America are between 40 and 60 inches in size with little price differences between 1080 (2K) and 4K models is not because size and resolution are unimportant.

Therefore, 4K displays of around 50 inches in size provide the best price/performance ratio.

The frame rate, or the frequency with which a new picture is shown on the screen, is what matters. Because of this, we cannot tell the difference between a video that refreshes at 100 frames per second and one that refreshes at a much higher rate than that.

Images with a high frame rate, such as a vehicle pursuit or a hand movement, may seem choppy or blurry at a lower resolution.

This is because 30 frames per second are the standard for filmmaking, yet this is woefully inadequate for fast-paced action. All but the cheapest 2019 TVs have the capability of 60 FPS, and several can even reach 120 FPS.

The frame rate is what truly matters, and the 4K screen you’re going to purchase won’t be any better than your old 2K (1080P) screen.

Conclusion

In the end, it seems that the mass market has little need for 8K resolution. With 4K, we’ve already hit the hard boundaries of what the human eye can see. Because that’s how it was intended to work.

In other words, there are better ways to spend your money than purchasing an 8K TV next year just to show off to your buddies.

In contrast, high-end 8K cameras have a bright future. Yes, if you want to edit and make a superior 4K video by filming in 8K. But not for “higher quality” 8K home footage right out of the camera. Just don’t give in to the urge.