Printable View
Its not that the games are not using the display. its that the hardware in the PC is not fast enough to do real-time life like video. Companies like Pixar use server farms to render the final CGI video they produce and its not real time. It will be a while before PC hardware gets fast enough to renter lifelike video.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreyB
Siming @ (1920 x 1200) x 3 24" 5760 x 1200 is fun though. I'm thinking of adding 2 21" lcd for the center instruments. I'm just out of space.
Gaming at this rez with first person view kinda sucks - fish eyed unless the games support it correctly. It's great for 2d isometric map type games.
http://i617.photobucket.com/albums/t...o1205us/07.jpg
http://i617.photobucket.com/albums/t...o1205us/08.jpg
Shit.... My eyes are so bad I can barely see the difference in standard and HD much less the rest of that crap..... I'll spend my money on better sound and go fast goodies!!
Alan is correct. It is hardware limited by the CPU/GPU. When I render out my videos and 3D models I have to use my Intel 2 x Xeon Proliant server as my render farm "Distributed Rendering" as it would most likely melt most of your home/gaming rigs with the amount of data it has to process. Especially when I output at 60 fps H.264 full 1080p.
BTW I work in those formats as I know other can see the difference and it it always better to work in the highest output you can as it makes it easier when editing things together or when you need to down convert for say YouTube as the video quality still looks superb in the end.
again with the apples to oranges comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreyB
let's just stick with games to games comparison OR a movies to movies comparison. more resolution is better: period. if this weren't the case, medium-format cameras wouldn't need 45mp sensors.
Well if I was to remove the capability of a 1080p resolution, I would be ending the very point of my argument. Yes more resolution is better to a point. On a computer monitor you are 6" from maybe it's more important. My point still stands, no game in existance is using the full capability of a 1080p screen, if they were they would look just like a HD movie, which has been established no game does. What don't you understand? You make a thread calling me a retard based on what exactly? Is my point not spot on, that there is a whole Lot more to making a game look better than screen resolution? Or are you in fact the dense one for not getting a very simple consept?
Concept*
LoL...
http://i.qkme.me/3qxc9j.jpg
Haha, I am on a phone, that's my excuse and I am sticking to it
They don't, You can print a perfectly acceptable 11x17 image from a 12mp image.Quote:
Originally Posted by IPD
High MP sensors in cheap point and shoot cameras make up for the lack of zoom. It lets you have detail to crop.
i agree about point & shoot. that's why 14mp is like the new standard. medium format isn't used for making just magazine covers though: and that's what i was driving at. it wasn't until resolutions jumped above 30mp that grain film started to become inferior to digital offerings--based on detail available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan92RTTT
what :corey: is arguing is illogical, because according to his premises, we should all go back to 480i gaming--since the detail of even a 480i game "isn't lifelike enough to match TV at 480i". in his mind, clearly there's no need for 1080p when 480i hasn't yet "fully maximized its potential"; or at least that's the nuts and bolts of why he's arguing against going past 1080p for gaming.
what real-life experience has taught us (or at least those of us who have actually extensively gamed on a PC) is that a higher resolution will always offer a better graphical experience--and that our enjoyment of said experience is irrespective to its duplication of "lifelike".