When will there be a PC to run MSFS?

[Nyxx 6,993]

wow not only a pointless topic we are now down to PPI or is it pixel gap!!!

Do they not go hand in hand? If you have 100 PPI the gap is going to be bigger than if you have 200 PPI.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Nyxx

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Nope, because the visible part of the pixel varies in intensity and MTF regardless of the spacing being the same in the same technology, that is why MTF is used to get a true analog representation of the actual resolution being seen, not the resolution of the device.

Look at his original post....

"The funny thing is that people tend to forget that basically all that matters is not the screen size or the resolution of the screen, but the pixel density of the screen."

He specifically pointed out Pixel density as a separate issue from resolution, then people brought PPI into it later claiming I was confusing it as a separate thing, but I was responding to his point of him stating it as a separate thing.

PPI doesn't mean anything in the destination, literally nothing when comparing what our eyes can resolve if you already know the RESOLUTION discussion is 4k vs 1080p.

It's like saying 4k is higher resolution than 1080p so the discussion is invalid, but that doesn't have anything to do with at what point the eye can resolve those pixels.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[dogmanbird 269]

wait till one ventures into the VR world (if not already), adding lenses, over resolution to compensate for barrel distortion and super-sampling etc. I'm sure there'll be hours of fun to be had debating with folks who own the same headset, and with folks who paid 3 times that for something with the same resolution spread across an extra 70 degrees of view, and goddamnit, they're gonna argue tooth and nail their headset is just as sharp 

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

No idea about VR as I imagine the output glass has an effect as well. It's just really confusing for someone to claim pixel density as a separate issue from resolution, I guess he meant seating distance and how many pixels you are seeing (hmm), but that is again just restating the resolution argument (hence 1080p has fewer pixels so it must be worse looking).

I can tell you this, on my 120" projector, the pixels aren't nearly as well defined so the sharpness isn't nearly as good as my monitor even at the same resolution. There are sharper projectors, but they have low contrast at night, etc...

It's really hard for me to play on a monitor as the screen seems too small, and if I try to equate the size of the monitor to the same viewing distance, my focus perception tends to be distorted. If you notice, if you look at your phone too closely and try to pretend it's a bigger screen, it's not the same. Our eyes have a natural near-sightedness to light when trying to focus. Younger eyes can probably take it more than my 45+ year old eyes can. 

Haven't tried VR yet due to afraid I'll get dizzy. Sorry this discussion turned into a technical jargon misinterpretation, as that was what I was trying to avoid from the beginning, but people were stating things in a weird way.

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[AnkH 2,267]

34 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

PPI doesn't mean anything in the destination, literally nothing when comparing what our eyes can resolve if you already know the RESOLUTION discussion is 4k vs 1080p.

It's like saying 4k is higher resolution than 1080p so the discussion is invalid, but that doesn't have anything to do with at what point the eye can resolve those pixels.

You obviously did not get my point or I was not able to make myself clear. What I wanted to say is (I try again):

If you are sitting e.g. 1m from your monitor away, it is not the resolution that matters (alone), but the PPI of your screen on how your experience is influenced in regard of pixelated edges, crispness of the display etc. 

If you have a 27" 1440p screen 1m away with a PPI of 108 it might give you the experience of a crisper and better image compared to a 70" 4K screen 1m away, simply due to the fact that the PPI of the smaller screen is so much higher. I am specifically not talking about the overall experience, which might be still superior due to the huge size of the screen (but this is another field of experience). 

That is all I wanted to say by bringing PPI into account, not only 1080p vs. 4K etc...

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

5 minutes ago, AnkH said:

If you are sitting e.g. 1m from your monitor away, it is not the resolution that matters (alone), but the PPI of your screen on how your experience is influenced in regard of pixelated edges, crispness of the display etc. 

If you have a 27" 1440p screen 1m away with a PPI of 108 it might give you the experience of a crisper and better image compared to a 70" 4K screen 1m away, simply due to the fact that the PPI of the smaller screen is so much higher. I am specifically not talking about the overall experience, which might be still superior due to the huge size of the screen (but this is another field of experience). 

That is all I wanted to say by bringing PPI into account, not only 1080p vs. 4K etc...

You are talking about varying resolutions at the same seating distance, but in the end that sounds like a confusing way to say a simple thing, that if you make the screen smaller then it compensates for the poorer resolution. Again though, so many variables here, I've seen some Westinghouse TV's that are 4k that have such poor sharpness that the resolution wouldn't even matter, the 1080p Sony looked sharper than the Westinghouse (And this was because the Westinghouse MTF was so poor).

To equalize the variables, let's just assume someone is using a near-perfect pixel resolving definition monitor, a nice sharp monitor.

So on a 27" can they see a big difference between 4k and 1440p, nah I don't think so, any difference (maybe but it should be very very slight).
Now if they are sitting ridiculously close (closer than I can take), then maybe so, I don't know.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[craigeaglefire 197]

i reckon this would be fairly good - no available budget for it tho',

https://www.apple.com/au/pro-display-xdr/

[dogmanbird 269]

i've worked with colleagues who swear their 2012 apple monitor is no different to a current model for doing their graphic design work (working professionals) regarding clarity, sharpness and sometimes color, yet others can see a noticeable difference as do I.  Although I didn't think it was possible, I now accept there are people who genuinely can't see the difference in particular visual properties. This might be the case with Bobsk8 being happy with a TV at 2 feet away and less than 4k resolution etc which probably doesn't correspond with the norm.

It's the same with VR too. Some people with apparently perfectly good vision, who don't require any correction / glasses, and with similar IPD to me, cannot get our headsets to be clear, not matter what we try. It's quite bizarre.

   

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Well people have different eye sight, the 4k resolution viewing charts are based on 20/20 and also based on movies not PC gaming content (which is more sensitive). Keep in mind the only thing that really matters are the results of double blind tests and as they equate to the end results. Eyes vary in what they can see, but the double blind tests are relatively accurate for most people.

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Ray Proudfoot 8,955]

29 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

So on a 27" can they see a big difference between 4k and 1440p, nah I don't think so, any difference (maybe but it should be very very slight).

Depends what you’re looking at. 2160 versus 1440 represents a 50% increase in pixels.

If it’s the outside view I would agree the difference wouldn’t be significant but if you look at cockpit instruments it’s definitely a step up in resolution and readability.

 

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

2 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Depends what you’re looking at. 2160 versus 1440 represents a 50% increase in pixels.

If it’s the outside view I would agree the difference wouldn’t be significant but if you look at cockpit instruments it’s definitely a step up in resolution and readability.

 

The problem is people go to a different monitor (being 4k) but it has a different MTF than the previous monitor, because manufacturers were forced to increase MTF to equate real resolution as a higher output resolution, rather than just the actual resolution itself. Hence, a regular 4k monitor has a higher MFR standard on the MTF to be considered acceptable. This didn't use to be that much of an issue, but MTF is a big issue at these ultra-high resolutions, it is basically everything because the pixels are so small that is no longer about how many pixels but about how defined each pixel remains as it becomes so small.

The only way to compare the difference is to use the same device and vary the resolution (but then potential scaling artifacts), or to use very similar reference level devices.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Ray Proudfoot 8,955]

4 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

The problem is people go to a different monitor (being 4k) but it has a different MTF than the previous monitor, because manufacturers were forced to increase MTF to equate real resolution as a higher output resolution, rather than just the actual resolution itself. Hence, a regular 4k monitor has a higher MFR standard on the MTF to be considered acceptable. This didn't use to be that much of an issue, but MTF is a big issue at these ultra-high resolutions, it is basically everything because the pixels are so small that is no longer about how many pixels but about how defined each pixel remains as it becomes so small.

The only way to compare the difference is to use the same device and vary the resolution (but then potential scaling artifacts), or to use very similar reference level devices.

Are you trying to blind me with science? It would help if you described what MTF is to start with.

Let’s correct one thing first shall we. No monitor I know is 4K. That would require a horizontal resolution of 4096 pixels. The actual resolution is 3840 and is known as UHD.

As someone who moved from a 1920*1080 display to one with 3840*2160 I can assure you the difference is very noticeable on cockpit instruments. I sit around 2.5ft from the screen.

[Bobsk8 12,730]

2 hours ago, AnkH said:

Pixel density is only depending on the resolution and the screen size. I do not know why you think that this is somehow related to name-branded screens or not. Even the most expensive 70" screen with 4K will have only 63 ppi, no matter what panel is used and how expensive or cheap the screen is... 

Just take a look at your cell phone, why do you think that the image on this small display is so sharp? Exactly, because todays cell phones have a very high ppi, my S10E for example has a whopping 483 ppi. To achieve this on my 27" monitor, the screen would need a resolution of more than 8K (!). Of course, this is unrealistic (today) and as mentioned, I am never as close to my 27" screen as I am to the cell phone monitor. So I do not need such a pixel density on my computer screen. 

Same goes for your football stadium LED, this probably has an ultra-bad pixel density, but because we sit so far away from this screen, it does not really matter.

But vice versa, running 4K on a huge screen such as 70" is pretty much useless until you move your eyepoint so far away that the picture is really sharp. Certainly way more than the 1.40m mentioned here. Get closer, eg. 70cm, reduce the size by half and the resolution by half and you have exactly the same appearance. Get even closer, eg. 35cm, reduce again size and resolution by half and you still have the same experience. Or, what I am trying to say: the image on a 27" 1440p monitor is, assuming you sit a certain distance away, more crisp and sharp than on a 70" 4K display.

Sounds complicated and I am not very good in explaining it, but what I am trying to say is: it is not the resolution that defines how crisp and sharp a display appears, but how far away you sit from it and how high the pixel density is. 

Sounds like you understand how video and the eye work. 

[Farlis 2,287]

15 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I work in commercial very high end video, and have for years, right now we are using 8K monitors at work. I can't for the life of me figure out why someone sitting 2 feet from a monitor needs 4K, other than they like to watch their PC struggle while running MSFS. 

That is exactly why I didn't buy a 4K monitor. You just don't need it at desk distance. If I were sitting on a couch 6 feet away it would be a different matter.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,955]

2 minutes ago, Farlis said:

That is exactly why I didn't buy a 4K monitor. You just don't need it at desk distance. If I were sitting on a couch 6 feet away it would be a different matter.

Moving to a UHD display from 1920*1080 brought every instrument in my cockpit into perfect clarity with every sub-division of a gauge perfectly readable.

Have you tested your theory with a practical demonstration?