If we talk screen resolution, then we need also talk about human eye resolution.
The discrimination ability of the eye. Resolution perhaps 2 arc minutes at best. So...
0.47 arc minutes (or 28 arc seconds) is the literature value, https://www.swift.ac.uk/about/files/vision.pdf. That translates to 0.08 mm at a 60 cm distance. Pixels on the Siglent 10" screen are about 0.22 mm wide, nearly three times as large.
Edit: Fiexd the link.
From the document:
Highest resolution perceivable pixels: 28 seconds of arc.
Several physical factors limit the highest spatial frequencies that can be perceived by the human eye. The diffraction limit of the pupil, the foveal cone spacing, neural trace and physiological tests all agree on a maximum perceived frequency of approximately one cycle per arcminute (half arc-minute pixels).
This is under optimal (but non-vernier†) conditions, including
100% contrast.
While not quite directly comparable, so-called “20/20” vision represents detecting image features twice as large.Variable resolution: 1/2@±1°, 1/4@±2°, 1/8@±5°, 1/16@±12°
This high resolution, however, applies only to the central 2° of vision. Outside of this, the cone
spacing and measured preceptorial acuity drop off even faster than the optical limits. In most
textbooks (see [2], page 60), this drop off is plotted as a sharp cusp. However, this representation does not do justice to how small the high spatial frequency perception region of the visual
field is. Figure 1a plots an alternate visualization of this data onto the surface of a unit sphere:
which portions of the 4π steradian field of view are perceived at what resolution. There are 5
false color bands, each corresponding to a factor of two less perceptorial resolution. Figure 1b
is a zoom into the central region of the sphere. The center most green region corresponds to the
central ±1° of the fovea. The purple from there to ±2°, red to ±5°, orange to ±12°, and yellow
to the optical edge caused by the human face. The white represents the non-visible regions.
This optical edge has a complex shape, and varies both in the individual and the literature. For
our calculations, we used the data of [3], where the maximum field of view varied horizontally
from -59° to +110°, and vertically from -70° to +56°. To show both sides of this more than
180° field, two unit spheres are shown, one for a right eye and one for a symmetrically reversed
left eye
Thus if the direction of gaze is known, across the entire visual field, the human visual system
can perceive approximately only one fifteenth the visual detail that would be discernible if
foveal resolutions were available for the entire fieldThis discussion is equally fruitless and useless as discussion between two gamer kids about difference between 414 and 432 frames per second.
At 60cm distance (good estimate by the way) pixel is not discernible by naked eye.
Again, unlike most of people here discussing this useless bullshit, I have the scope for two years.
No, you
cannot see pixels with naked eye.