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="bobtheo"]since im new im gonna say it short and sweet.... pimp, you are on the right side of this unnecessary argument.... and i have to agree with you, it does make a difference on resolution cause i should know i just got a new monitor.... this one is bigger than my last one, and well i had to change sum settings to correct this sizing problem..... oh btw you continue...lol (its fun to watch) Nibroc420



Makes no sense at all.

But its pretty simple. TV/Monitor size does not change resolution and/or make it look better.

But the correct increase of distance, resolution and Screen size can make things look nicer.



No they cant

A 22" 1080p will look the same as a 100" 1080p TV if both are viewed from the correct distance. They will look the same because they are the same (1080p).

The increase of distance on a larger 1080p TV will just make it the same as a decrease in distance on a smaller 1080p TV.

A 1080p resolution is a 1080p resolution, its the same.

Screen size changes, so does viewing distance, but it will not make it look any nicer.

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

since im new im gonna say it short and sweet.... pimp, you are on the right side of this unnecessary argument.... and i have to agree with you, it does make a difference on resolution cause i should know i just got a new monitor.... this one is bigger than my last one, and well i had to change sum settings to correct this sizing problem..... oh btw you continue...lol (its fun to watch) bobtheo


Makes no sense at all.

But its pretty simple. TV/Monitor size does not change resolution and/or make it look better.

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

Well it really depends on what your using the tv for. For console gaming and watching movies obviously a larger screen is best. Two people huddled up around a 22 inch watching a blue ray or playing SF4 is stupid. And that's where big TVs come into play. It really depends on the size of your room and seating position. For a big room you need a big TV.

ShimmerMan



Thats certainly not true (big room, big TV) As you say, it depends on your viewing distance. You might have a big room, but be sat pretty close to your TV.

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

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

So regardless of the squabbling, you both actually agree on the same things now right?

1080p = 1080p, but depending on the distance you sit from your TV (taking its size into account also) can effect the quality of the image (either the pixels are too small to see from your distance, or the pixels are too large and become too noticeable from your distance.)

If you both agree with this I don't really understand what you're both arguing about.

FamiBox



Nope, I dont agree with (because its wrong) that 1080p on larger screens is better because the pixels are bigger, Thats nonsense and what he believes. The pixels being bigger does not make the image better. There is no difference between a 1080p image at 22" as there is at 1080p at 60" if both are viewed from the correct distance, yet he is clearly saying a bigger 1080p TV would be better.

I thought he was saying a bigger TV would be better depending on viewing distance, not just flat out better from the same viewing distance.

Clearly a bigger TV would look better at a certain viewing distance, as your eyes would be able to see more detail.



In simple terms, a 22" 1080p TV will look the same as a 100" 1080p, if both are viewed from the correct distances.

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

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

[QUOTE="pimperjones"]

You're such a sore loser. Looks better does not mean the resolution is higher Einstein. Bigger pixels does not mean higher resolution. Are you slow or something? I think 100ft theaters looks better than 50ft theaters. Doesn't mean I think 100ft theaters have higher resolution. I know for a fact that both theaters are running the same 35mm print. But you know what I think 100ft theaters look better. Debates are won with proof not childish rants. I have already proven my point by quoting our original replies. What's wrong, can't handle it. Prove me wrong.

pimperjones



Your really strange at debating.

Lets take a comment from one of your earlier posts.

"Thus a 23" 1080p set looks different from a 42" 1080p set. For the simple reason that each individual pixel is bigger as the TVs get bigger."

Thats nonsesne and you know it. Pixel size does not relate to the screen looking better or not. All it means is that the larger the TV the TV the bigger the pixel size the further back you need to be, you wont see any extra detail in a 100" 1080p TV over a 22" 1080p TV if both are viewed from the correct distance.

Listen boy don't you ever put words in my mouth again. I said looks different not higher resolution, just like how 100ft movie theater looks different from a 50ft theater. If you can find me ever mentioning that a bigger 1080p TV has higher resolution, that a smaller 1080p TV. I will call you the pimp. Until then, don't assume what I mean. Read what I say. I suggest you read what Soyt has said. You may learn something. Did you not pass grade school?



Ive never put words in your mouth.

The sooner you realise that a 22" 1080p TV looks the same as a 100" 1080p if both are viewed from the correct distance (and we are only talking about resolution here) the better, because your just making yourself look a fool. In no way, shape or form can a 1080p set look different to another 1080p set if both are viewed from the correct distance, the resolution, the pixels are the same, regardless of wether the pixels are bigger or not, it makes no difference apart from having to sit further back so you dont see the indvidual pixels.

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

You're such a sore loser. Looks better does not mean the resolution is higher Einstein. Bigger pixels does not mean higher resolution. Are you slow or something? I think 100ft theaters looks better than 50ft theaters. Doesn't mean I think 100ft theaters have higher resolution. I know for a fact that both theaters are running the same 35mm print. But you know what I think 100ft theaters look better. Debates are won with proof not childish rants. I have already proven my point by quoting our original replies. What's wrong, can't handle it. Prove me wrong.

pimperjones



Your really strange at debating.

Lets take a comment from one of your earlier posts.

"Thus a 23" 1080p set looks different from a 42" 1080p set. For the simple reason that each individual pixel is bigger as the TVs get bigger."

Thats nonsesne and you know it. Pixel size does not relate to the screen looking better or not. All it means is that the larger the TV the TV the bigger the pixel size the further back you need to be, you wont see any extra detail in a 100" 1080p TV over a 22" 1080p TV if both are viewed from the correct distance.

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

The irony. Before calling someone else childish, you need to ask yourself who started writing only in CAPITALS? Real, men don't get upset, they get technical. And honestly who here beside you would benefit from crying to the mods? Rastan? Me? No, Occams Razor would suggest that only you would go to the mods, as no one else stands to benefit. Back to topic. From the very start It would seem to me, that you simply stumbled upon a wiki that states that 1080p = 1920x1080 and thus decided to crown yourself the Tzar of image resolution. I've tested you many times, with slight pointers just to see if you actualy understand the technical aspects of what you claim to understand so vividly. Yet, you failed in every test, with that aside I will start from scratch. My original post

It's all subjective. If you have really poor vision 480p and 1080p won't even make a difference. As far as 42" goes, YES 100% 42" is the sweet spot for 1080p. It only gets better as you go up. I think 32" 1080p TVs are a overkill. But 42" 1080p. You'd be blind not to see the difference. At 1080p is when you begin to actually see the fine grains of the film. At 720p it looks sharp, but at 1080p it looks grainy sharp. Very hard to explain. At 1080p is when you start to actually see the very grain like particles that actually compose the image. It's like getting really close up to an oil painting and you start seeing the texture of the canvas. pimperjones

Where in my post did I ever mention 1080p increases in resolution as you go up? Nowhere. My first sentence was it's all subjective. Your reply.

There is no sweet spot for 1080p. 1080p is 1080p which is 1920 x 1080. Resolution does not change due to screen size, it will be the same amount of pixels on the screen. 1080p does not get better with bigger screen size. 1080p at 22" is the same as 1080p at 60".

Where in my post did I ever say that resolution changes as you go up in size??? You need to read and not assume or dream. Does it say anywhere in my post that 1080p becomes 2K when it the TV gets bigger? No. Right away you lost. Because you were essentially arguing against something that only exists in your imagination. You state that I suggested that 1080p becomes higher resolution as the TV gets bigger? Where do you see this? Are you iliterate? The rest of the argument pretty much has me explaining that viewing experience changes as the size of the format changes,even if the resolution stays the same. Which you have yet to refute. My simple analogy which you have yet to be able to counter. Is that 35mm/70mm never changes in it's resolution threshhold. Thus according you your logic, projected film viewing experience is the same no matter what size the projection is. Which would negate the value of IMAX, thus rendering you mute point of 60" being the same as 22" if the resolutions match. The reason why nobody agrees with your opinions on this matter is not because others lose the debate. Judging by 162 posts you haven't won many debates anyways. The reason is cause you make no sense half the time. And you have no means of articulating your views. Honestly you debate like a 13 year old. Reading your sentences is like reading the rambling of a child, sometimes you don't even make any sense.



Your changing the argument yet again because your losing a battle you can never win.

Your the one that stated bigger 1080p TV's look better than smaller 1080ps because the pixels are bigger. End off. You simply can not admit that you got it wrong. Again, you can waffle on all you want, all the posts are there to see by other posters of how much a fool you have made yourself look.

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

Stop changing the topic. Do you think there is a difference between 60" tv and 22" tv in one's viewing experience? 1080p, 2k, 8K, 35mm, 70mm, is irrelevant here. All of these are fixed resolution threshholds some analog, others digital, they all look different depending on what medium they are viewed at. Contrast, screen size, color gamut, all change the viewing experience. The question is simple, 60" and 22" = Difference? If not, then I will never agree with you. Simple as that. pimperjones


You have changed your argument that much that you now dont even know why your talking to me. I came in this thread for one reason and one reason alone, resolution. forget anything else we were and still are only talking about resolution. Its funny that every conversation I have on this subject, it leads into the person not agreing with me, find that they lost the debate, then turn it around and come out with resolution is not the only thing and start talking about loads of other things.

My originial point in here was and still is resolution. Go back and re read what I had put first and what I quoted you first and you will see this.

A 22" 1080p TV looks no different (resolution wise) to a 100" 1080p TV (if both are viewed from the correct distance) as resolution is fixed. A larger 1080p screen with bigger pixels does not make 1080p better, It means you have to sit further back so you dont see the pixels. The same for a small 1080p screen, its the same amount of pixels, the same information, just smaller pixels, hence you need to sit closer (or can sit closer with out seeing the actual pixels).

You can waffle on all you want, that is and always was my only point in this thread, yet you argued/flamed like a little kid who lost every part of the argument and even accused me of going to the mods. If nothing short of not knowing what your talking about, I would sharpen your debating skills, because they seem very childish and imature.

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

I never said thatresolution becomes higher, I said viewing experience. 1080p resolution does not change. Neither does 35mm resolution. Both formats retain their own resolution threshhold regardless of display size. But the bigger the display, the more emmersive the experience, the more the resolution becomes more apparent. The resolution is always there, but it's about seeing it and experiencing it. Very simple, bigger theater screens = better movie going experience. The resolution never changes whether you watch your movie in a small 50ft theater or a large 100ft theater. But the viewing experience changes. Otherwise there would be no point of having IMAX and huge multiplexes. The viewing experience changes, not the resolution. One can never get the same viewing experience form 22" compared to 100". That was my point.

pimperjones



Im sorry but your argument is so jumbled that I think you have forgot why I first quoted you in this thread.

And again, the resolution does not become more apparent on larger screens, it cant as you agree that resolution doesnt change, so it obviously can not become more apparent. Bigger screen and larger pixels does not equate to resolution becoming more apparent. A resolution of 1080p is just that and will look the same at 22" as it does at 100" if both are viewed from the correct distance, one doesnt get more apparent the bigger the screen.

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

Stop using distance as a means to force your opinion. From Mars everything on Earth looks the same. Does that mean it's all the same? Scientifically speaking you move far enough everything even the grand canyon will look like nothing more than a spec. Does that make everything the same? Distance changes everything, but one cannot use distance as a means to equalize all subjects of different sizes. From where we stand, the sun looks no bigger than an orange, I assure you the sun is much bigger than the orange. pimperjones


Im not doing anything. Im telling you that a 22" 1080p screen is the same as a 100" 1080p screen. The resolution is the same, it doesnt change, so if both are viewed from the correct distance then they will both look the same. Resolution does not get better with larger screens and bigger pixels, it just means you have to sit further away so you dont see the indvidual pixels. I cant put this any simpiler.