Does TV Resolution Matter?

Spoiler alert? The answer is yes, absolutely, or maybe a better way to say it is yes absolutely, but with a footnote. Before we get to all the weird stuff that footnote represents, we need to understand resolution itself. Resolution starts with the pixel. A pixel is the smallest possible unit of a digital image, a single point of light. When you hear manufacturers talk talking about resolution, they're describing

the number of pixels on a given screen. So an old school cathode ray TV would display the equivalent of three hundred thousand pixels on a screen, while an HDTV could pack more than two million pixels into a screen. The standard way for TV makers to classify resolution is with numbers followed by a letter. The numbers indicate the rows of horizontal pixels, So think four A D I, ten A D P and so on. The bigger the number,

the more pixels on the screen. The letters at the end of the numbers stand for I is interlaced and P for progressive scan. The differences are important, but fairly complicated, so let's save that one for another day. Using more pixels to create an image creates a smoother, less blocky, or pixelated image. So at first glance, it sounds as if more pixels equal a better experience. Right, Not so fast, slick.

Here's where our footnote comes in. Pixel density itself is not the only factor in the race toward a better sharper image. If we're looking at resolution as the ability to discern fine details, several other factors come into play. For instance, what's the source of the image, what roll does color play, how close or far are you from

the screen, and how big is the screen. For example, if you're watching a small enough screen, say inches from ten or more feet away, your I won't be able to tell the difference between anything from four eighty to four K. The farther you are away from the image source,

the smoother the picture appears. As for the size of the screen, well, sure, you could have a twenty inch TV with ten e D line resolution and it would still have the same number of pixels as a fifty five inch TV with otherwise identical specs, but the pixels would be physically smaller. So in this context, size definitely matters. If you put a h D t V with seven twenty line resolution next to another h D t V with ten e D, you may not be able to

tell the difference between the two. These are just a few of the pertinent factors in the overall equation. There's another big question here too. Does the human eye have a resolution limit? How many individual pixels can the human eye perceive? And that's a tricky question to our eyes are not cameras. Instead, they're an initial step to an intricate process involving loads of unconscious estimation and guesswork in

our brains. It is true that after a certain point, the human eye is unable to differentiate or appreciate the differences between some pixel densities. With the right source, material, equipment, and viewing distance, four K really can make a difference. For example, if you're sitting a few feet from a sixty inch four K television with an ultra high definition video feed, you'll be able to tell if it suddenly switches to regular HD or brace yourself standard definition. The

limits of HD TV aren't a failure of technology. There a limit of our biology. If we can't tell the difference between a lower resolution in TV and an HD version, then there's not much incentive to buy the latest ultra high definition TV set. But this isn't the end of the story. The race for higher resolution continues. Cameras that shooting four K have already become the norm, and each

year bring new innovations. These ultra high definition technologies may not make for a better picture on a home television, but in a movie theater it makes a big difference, and in the future we might not care as much about resolution. It's possible that other technologies like high dynamic range may become the next big thing. Check out the brainsaff channel on YouTube, and for more on this and thousands of other topics, visit how stuff works dot com.