OP
OP
Increasing the resolution of the screen will NOT solve the screen door effect. I don't know how many times to explain this to you. No matter how high you increase the resolution, you will still always have a screen door effect unless you affect the pixel density.
No matter how high you increase the resolution, the gaps between pixels become pronounced at certain points in the image due to the curvature of the lens. Again, you're not familiar with how these terms are used practically in virtual reality. I've explained it in clear detail to you already, but once again -- it doesn't matter the resolution of the screen, it matters how close the pixels are. You need to match the pixel density of the screen to the curvature of the optics (i.e. the lens) to eliminate screen door effect. What that means is, given resolution X, you allocate more pixels in bunches where the optics distort the display to counter the effect. The resolution of the image doesn't matter, you only have X number of pixels. What matters is how and where on the display you pack them closer together. Hence how density matters. It doesn't matter how high of a resolution you go, unless you vary the pixel density, you will always get screen door effect. This is how light works. You're arguing against physics here.
First of all, your first claim is absurd, and completely, factually, 100% wrong.
If the resolution of the display device was say 32K per eye, there is no way you could ever see a pixel on it if pixel pitch keeps being reduced, which it always is. There could be swathes of dead pixels and in VR you would never know. No gap between pixels will be apparent when the pixel cannot even be seen.
The curvature of a lens does not suddenly make physical gaps between pixels any bigger or smaller than they actually are. It distorts the view of them. The view of them is still an image based on the actual resolution of the screen. Dot pitch as we have explained on an 8K 70 inch TV is better than some 1080p TVs below 20 inches. Again, you clearly are just spouting extremely poor rhetoric here. When you say you only have X number of pixels, this is also illogical as this only matters on today's tech, which will easily be surpassed within a couple years. Few care about removing screen door on max 1440p devices. It's not going to happen, and the resolution is too poor to form photorealistic worlds anyway. We need at least 4K for that because we are so close to the screen. Can you see the space between pixels on your 42 inch TV in 1080p? No, you can't unless you get an inch away from it. Same logic applies here. On a 16K 42 inch screen you could not even see a dead pixel from distance. It's debateable if you could see one with a naked eye from short distance. Nevermind 16K at 6 inches or something lol. You could magnify that all you want for VR purposes. Not happening. SDE is effectively dead when we get to 16K.
You say I am arguing against physics, which is also another preposterous claim. It has to do with pixel spacing on a given display size. When you have a display with 32 million pixels you can afford to not care as much about any density issues across any uneven sections. And it still has to do with resolution because of display standards. I have never seen a major resolution increase not follow with a dot/pixel pitch shift downward. They might not be all intrinsically linked, but they sure as hell are linked in some way. I cannot believe you keep arguing that pixel density has nothing to do with resolution, when it is literally defined as a factor with display size. Even when you attenuate for depth and curvature and all kinds of other mathematical problems resolution is still the base standard of potential detail the display can produce. The smaller the pixels the less any dot pitch problems will persist on the same display type following current methods of production.
Last edited:
