Asklemmy

43891 readers

984 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

148

Why is HD or 3D so impressive on a flat screen, but we walk around in real life with the highest definition possible and the most realistic 3D and it's completely mundane? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I guess this could have just been a shower thought as well...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Because that's comparing oranges to apples.

In terms of pure image quality, real objects would win every time because they only have to be filtered by our eyes - digital images are filtered through the GPU and screen before ever reaching our eyes.

As such, the real contest is the ability of displays to make digital images look comparable to those real objects - because that's harder to do vs. ust looking at the real life object, it's more impressive to us.