There is something I don't understand. How big is full hd physically? What I want to know is that when I have a 1080 image, what size is the optimal display where the picture needs very little streching/shrinking. This probably raises the question of how the 1080 image was captured.
Source of the question.
When one walks into a shop, they see a 22" monitor sporting a 1080p resolution and a 52" tv sporting a 1080p resolution.
So how is it that the same amount of lines can fit onto a 22" inch display?
Peltz's tv, a 26" Philips LCD with a resolution of 1366*768. Diagonal resolution in Pixels is SQRT(1366*1366+768*768)=1567 and PPI=1567/26=60.
Peltz's display, a 20" Asus LCD with a resolution of 1440*1050. Diagonal resolution in Pices is SQRT(1440*1440+1050*1050)=1782 and PPI=1782/20=89.
So the same amount of lines can be achieved by what, using smaller pixels or what? If i had a theoretical screen of 8000" could in that case the size of a pixel be theoretically the size of a SUV?
Lets look at this from the other side. When I take a picture with my camera, I can also choose a resolution. But that picture is also affected by the type of lenses used, the viewing angle of the objective and more.
Going to stop here for the moment to give my brain some breathing room. It feels like I am missing something but I just cant put my finger on it. Then there's the human eye and the broadcast signal and ffs how is one average person supposed to sort through this shit. I guess the end result should come down to guidelines for resolutions ie one shouldn't buy a screen with x resolution below y inches because they dont benefit from it nor above z inches because it looks like crap on it. For instance a 2000p screen wouldn't make much sense on a 6" screen because it would look exactly the same as a 1000p screen. But a 1000p or 2000p would not make sense on a 500" screen because it would look like shit. Is there some way to rationalize this shit or should I just say "fuck it" and move on.