32" 1080p HDTV vs 30" 2560x1600 monitor - Flat Panel Monitors - Computer Peripherals
resolution: more is always better. suck it.
Printable View
32" 1080p HDTV vs 30" 2560x1600 monitor - Flat Panel Monitors - Computer Peripherals
resolution: more is always better. suck it.
Hmm, someone else is looking a little idiotic here....
Which one of these will look better running BF3?
http://www.healthcastle.com/sites/de...potato_570.jpg
I vote Potato because I don't like sweet potatoes at all.
Why IPD is an idiot!
Why 4K TVs are stupid | TV and Home Theater - CNET Reviews
4k or resolutions higher than 1080p for a TV and for a computer monitor are very different things.
I can't see any need for 4k TV's in most houshould. In reality most people can't even see the difference between 720p and 1080p.
That said I would kill for a monitor with a resolution higher than 1080. I think any laptop with a rez smaller than that should be trashed. Hell they ate a rip off and should not be made.
as i sit here and type this, i can see pixels on my 1080p monitor. THAT annoys the bejezus out of me.
What was corey trying to say 30" 2560x1600 monitors are a waste?
Wait until you do work on them.
No, that isnt what I said. What I said is simply that games, ALL games are not using the 1080p resolution to its fullest yet. My point was this, if my 1080P monitor can display a near perfect, real looking HD video, then the monitor is not the limiting factor in a a game at 1080p. The game developers and the hardware of the PC is the main limiting factor to get a real life looking game, not the monitors resolution.
Making that statement really wound up IPD. This all started because I was talking about a game I really enjoy on my iphone, IPD quickly called me out as "not a real gamer" and that because of that, my opinion doesnt count.
Agreed. Saw Sony's new 4k tv in person at their store in Vegas, can't tell a bit of difference (it was their 65" model, not the huge 85" one.) The only people that will benefit from 4k resolutions are people who have home theaters with screens 100" and up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan92RTTT
That is silly. HD video is no where near close to real life. HD is a moniker meant to appeal to the uninformed masses.
Its far more real life looking than ANY video game.
Of course you can't tell a difference if the source material is all going to be 1080pQuote:
Originally Posted by UTRacerX9
The source material is 4k. Wouldn't be much of a selling point if they were playing typical bluray discs now would it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest Gump
What was it playing? How was it compressed? Was it in a typical store where they screw up all the display settings to get it to "pop" next to the others or was it actually calibrated properly?Quote:
Originally Posted by UTRacerX9
The same game at a higher resolution is always going to provide more detail if the game engine is good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreyB
I really think you are getting off track here.
You could view a photo on a 14" monitor at 640x480 from 1991 and it would look more "real life" looking than any game on the most advanced, highest resolution monitor today.
I am not off track, you guys are off track. The very basis for this argument was that games are not using the full capability of the displays they are currently using. And this can be proven as fact by simply popping in a HD video and comparing it to any game out there.
It's the Sony store in Vegas, there are no competitors tv's next to it for comparison. When you buy a 4k tv, they give you a media server with several 4k movies/content loaded onto it, with plans to have downloadable 4k content coming out this year.
Ive never noticed a difference between games and HD video... but i also think this is a silly Argument as well as i am just as happy with a 24" tv from 20 years ago like i had as i am with a big 1080P 50+inch lcd or whatever is in my living room. Only thing that bugs me is on older tvs the screens dont fit very well anymore so things on the edges such as rpm and speed might be cut off.
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".
Its illogical how? If you cant make a game look as good on a 480i screen as a video on the same screen, I challenge you to prove that the screen resolution is the reason.
you keep arguing against a straw-man. i didn't say resolution was the reason. i've been saying this whole time that better resolution will provide better graphic experience--and this has ZERO to do with making it more lifelike. i don't need an FPS to look lifelike for me to enjoy it. what WILL increase my enjoyment is finer pixel resolution, which will improve my performance on things like sniping.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreyB
i seriously think you were dropped on your head multiple times as a child.
You are an idiot, you think you need better than 1080p to help the accuracy of sniping in a game? Really? My point has always been, even in chat when this started, that resolution alone isn't why games haven't progressed to your liking. More pixels, but not to be more real life looking, thats funny shit. I bet game developers everywhere dont care about looking more life like.......
Bill, my monitor must have increased its resolution by magic, because that looks awesome.
you are really showing your ignorance now. at extreme distances (within the context of a game) pixel-popping has always been the bane of gamers. artificial anomalies which confuse the player about the existence of a real target. the finer (higher) the resolution, the less of a problem this is.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreyB
actually, you're right. resolution isn't the only reason games haven't progressed to my liking. it's just one symptom of the profiteering of EA and Activision (and the like). it still baffles me how you think that resolution and "lifelike" are inexorably tied together. by that logic, super mario galaxy should have looked like a live-action movie compared to 8-bit super mario bros; after all, even though both are at 480...the source material on the wii is considerably higher than that of the NES.
for me, resolution has always been a fundamental battle against AA (anti-aliasing). it's a known fact that higher resolutions without AA are graphically superior to lower resolutions with AA. I would just prefer to have all games natively programmed ~ 4k resolution, thereby virtually eliminating the need for AA and doing away with pixel-popping altogether.
Your life will change once you use a 2560x1440 monitor.
unsubscribing to stupid thread in 3...2.....1....