shawty1984's forum posts

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

[QUOTE="kryloc"]

Umm no. Screen Size + Viewing Distance = Potential for discernable difference. Screen size is a key factor in the equation, therefor not irrelevent.

And I can assure you, at the avg viewing distance of 6-8ft, you can tell the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 100 inch screen, but not a 22".

kryloc



Why does this always come up.

Im talking about size screen alone as everybody loves to throw around random numbers making stuff up. TV size alone makes no difference to resolution.A 1080p 22" TV wikll look exactly the same as a 100" 1080p TV if both are viewed from the correct distance, TV size alone makes no difference as a small screen will look exactly the same as a large screen as the resolution would be the same. Why do I have to point this out in every arument on this subject.

There is no average viewing distance. Everyone is different. People view from bedrooms, kitchens and living rooms of all shapes and sizes. Whats average to you, would not be average to someone else. Saying the average viewing distance is 6-8ft is pretty silly. Regardless, we were never talking about averages, again, this always comes up in these arguments when people dont know whatthey are talking about, its so annoying. Why cant people just understand that a 22" 1080p TV is exactly the same resolution wise as a 100" 1080p TV and will look exactly the same if both are viewed from the correct distance.

Sorry, but you really should stop spreading your half-truths and misinformation.

Average is what is given for the typical household. And is a baseline for people to grasp an understanding.

Screen Size matters, as much as resolution and viewing distance. You keep spouting it doesn't matter, but it's part of the formula. What would the theory of realitivity be if there was no Mass?

No one is making anything up btw, these are well documented facts and figures. Will there always be some variables to real life? Yes. But that doesn't mean we throw everything away that can help someone make a wise, and more economical decision.

Your problem is that you respond to someone that brings up a valid point, and attack it from only one point. You aren't contributing to the discussion, and infact, you're hindering by only stating misleading and one-sided information.

So please, do everyone a favor, and just stop.



I have never spread half truths and or misinformation.

There is no average, how many times does this have to be said. Unless you have polled every household int he world and worked the formula to average the distance, then any quote mentioning an average is just plain silly. It would make more sense of dropping the average and just asking the person what their viewing distance is.

Yes screen size matters, in relation to viewing distance. Screen size alone does not matter. It grinds on me that I have to keep repeating this. Im sick of people saying 32" is pointless for 1080p. Such a statement is so false, taking a TV size and then saying its no good is plain silly and stupid because the size of the screen itself does not affect resolution. Hence why screen size itself is irrelevant, please can you understand this?

Ill stop nothing until people stop posting false information. A resolution of 1080p 1920 x 1080 is the same be it on a 22" screen or a 100" screen. Resolution is fixed and does not change due to screen size, I wish people would stop with the myth that 1080p is only good for 50"+ screens, that is total nonsense.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

"Looking back"??? It should have been very apparent at the time that it wasnt the smartest idea. It helped Sony in the long run of the things... now that the PS3 and 360 are same price, it gives the PS3 an edge in value... but when the console cost $600 and Blu Ray was still a debatable format... it wasnt a smart move.carljohnson3456


Read that back, makes no sense. It helped Sony in the long run but wasnt a smart move when it was a debatable format? How do you come to that conclusion? Wasnt that the whole point of putting in to the PS3, to get Blu-ray into millions of homes. Id say that was a very smart move myself.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

think about it.... when the Playstation 3 was first released it cost WAY too much if the Bluray wasnt included then it would have brought down the price significantly. its 2010 and no game has even come close to harnessing the full potential of bluray discs (except maybe final fantasy, which could have been put on two discs).....

the better idea would have been to wait until next gen to include it.... do you agree SW?

xnacommunityxna



Thats why Sony are a business and your not, Do yourself a favour and never make your own business.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/284986.html

a little long, but this should answer any and all questions. screen sizes of larger than 60 in. are really the only way to tell a difference in pixel ratio with the human eye. the difference on a computer monitor is obviously much closer, because (duh) you are sitting much closer.

newhighscore



You just contradicted yourself there.

You say 60" + are the only way to tell the difference, then go onto say a computer monitor is different because your much closer.

Lets make this easy, it depends on viewing distance in relation to screen size and has nothing to do with screen size alone. Throwing random numbers about saying its no good on this is just silly and stupid.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

look in the freekin book man! can you read?

donmega1



Is that to me?

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

MW2, Cod:WaW, Quantum of Solace are some of my games that they are 1080p

ks1990steelman



No they are not. COD MW2 and COD WAW are both about 600p and are upscaled to 720p and or 1080p. Not sure what QoS is but at a guess, it wont be 1080p.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

[QUOTE="uRan_Ehr"][QUOTE="Cody13_2012"]

my thoughts exactly. All my TV does is 720p, and I think it looks orgasmic

hot_shot_9

Yep same here. I think I read something about you need to have at least a 40" screen and you have to stand at least 3 meter right in front of it to see a difference between 720p and 1080p.

Oooooh interesting. Anyway i play in 720p even though my tv does 1080i and 1080p(i think it does 1080p) and it looks great. Gottah get a hdmi wire off my friend, right now im playing with that other one, the multi coloured one(red, blue, green, red, white).



You should set your PS3 to output at 720p, 1080i and 1080p and then let the PS3 decide which is best to use. Regardless of this, if your TV is 1080p, then you are playing a 720p game upscaled to 1080p as that is the native resolution of your TV and it will always output at the native resolution unless you have black borders around your image.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

[QUOTE="my_name_is_ron"][QUOTE="Mages__Decent"] Okay, cheers. Is there any way that i can force the TV to render in 720p?brotherreese
it should switch automatically to 720p when you switch the ps3 on. the tv automatically adjusts to the source resolution

Wrong. You have to set the PS3 to output at 720p, then the t.v will display at that level. If it's set at 1080i / 1080p, then the PS3 will try to upscale to those levels.



You are both wrong. You need to set the PS3 to output at 720p, 1080i and 1080p. The PS3 will then choose which is best, for Uncharted 2 its 720p as the game is 720p. The PS3 then sends a 720p signal to the TV, if you have all 3 resolutions ticked, it will does this automatically. The TV (if 1080p) will then upscale the 720p image from the PS3 to 1080p (native resolution of the TV) unless there is black borders around the image which means it would be in 720p.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

ask anyone who knows what they are talking about and they will tell you that as far as games on PS3 or 360 are concerned or watching BluRay, any HDTV under 46" will show NO distinguishable difference between 720p and 1080p!! Anyone who pays the extra $300-1000 for 1080p on HDTV's under 46" is simply acting foolish with their $$$!!

NemeSyS-1



Thats one of the biggest myths in the technical land ever.

The difference can be seen on a 22" TV/Monitor if viewed from the correct distance. TV size alone means nothing to resolution, if they can fit 1920 x 1080 1080p on a screen, then if viewed from the correct distance that resolution will of course and very obviously look the same be it 22" or 100" and will look totally better than 720p on the same size screens, again if both are viewed from the correct distance.

If you know anyone that thinks they know what they are talking about, maybe you need to educate them with the above facts.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

[QUOTE="KaY_86"] i am talking about the DIFFERENCE between the two resolutions not the resolution itself..the difference is more clear with bigger screens but a 32' is not that big to notice the difference..again i am saying the difference which means that i know that they don't look the same!kryloc



I know you are, Im also telling you size of the TV is pretty much irelvant. The difference between 720p and 1080p at 22" is the same as it is at 100". The difference is not more clear with bigger screens as resolutions are fixed and do not change. You could have a 200" TV, it still wouldnt look any better to any other 1080p TV and the difference between 720p and 1080p at that size is just the same as at any other size.

Umm no. Screen Size + Viewing Distance = Potential for discernable difference. Screen size is a key factor in the equation, therefor not irrelevent.

And I can assure you, at the avg viewing distance of 6-8ft, you can tell the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 100 inch screen, but not a 22".



Why does this always come up.

Im talking about size screen alone as everybody loves to throw around random numbers making stuff up. TV size alone makes no difference to resolution.A 1080p 22" TV wikll look exactly the same as a 100" 1080p TV if both are viewed from the correct distance, TV size alone makes no difference as a small screen will look exactly the same as a large screen as the resolution would be the same. Why do I have to point this out in every arument on this subject.

There is no average viewing distance. Everyone is different. People view from bedrooms, kitchens and living rooms of all shapes and sizes. Whats average to you, would not be average to someone else. Saying the average viewing distance is 6-8ft is pretty silly. Regardless, we were never talking about averages, again, this always comes up in these arguments when people dont know whatthey are talking about, its so annoying. Why cant people just understand that a 22" 1080p TV is exactly the same resolution wise as a 100" 1080p TV and will look exactly the same if both are viewed from the correct distance.