TR Forums

I stumbled across this the other day, though I would share

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/visual_acuity.htm

So 8K is a complete scam for consumer equipment and 4K is dubious at normal HDTV viewing distances? I can't say I'm surprised, since well-encoded 1080p video is sharp enough that pixels don't exist for me on a 60" TV on my opposite wall.
Sure, the pixels are clear as day if I stand three feet away, but then I wouldn't be using a 60" TV at three feet.

2560x1440p is as much as anyone with normal vision can resolve on a 24" screen, also interesting. To discern 4K at 24" requires a visual accuity of 1.6 (20/12 vision) which is rare as hell in adults and not exactly common amongst the young either.

Given the sheer GPU cost of running things smoothly at 4K, it does re-affirm that 1440p is the sweet spot for desktop displays right now.

It's always good with a reminder on these things, nothing new, but good nonetheless.

Basically, this has been talked to death in photographic circles for ages, got a big renaissance when digital printing and DSLR's got higher in resolution and people started pixelpeaking and like "OMG, this is soo good / bad". The question is decently easy, you can see a certain resolution once an individual pixel gets small enough in your vision, it doesn't matter how many more you have. TV from the couch or a large print on the wall. Neither is supposed to be an arms length from you. Now some computer monitors on the other hand. And phone and tablet displays, those can definitely benefit from a higher DPI, and perhaps a projection.
96" on 3.5m could definitely take better then 1080p, but I doubt even 4K will make a large difference unless you also use it for stills.