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

Actually, the biggest advantage to "HD" is progressive scanning, rather than just sheer resolution. I would rather watch something in 720p than in 1080i (seriously, interlacing a huge resolution like that looks like garbage).

At any rate, the increased resolution from 480p to 720p is noticeable and still worth watching. 1080p looks impressive on larger screens, but I wouldn't say you were "missing" the point of Blu-Ray watching just because you're watching in 720p. I would say that you're missing a lot more from not using surround sound than you are from using a lower than 1080p resolution.

-Betta

Thebettafish



1080p looks just as impressive on smaller screens.

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

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

[QUOTE="djsundowner"]

Honestly, if you're under 40", 1080p isn't going to be any improvement over 720p. However, there are a couple of deals out there:

snowren24



False and wrong. 1080p is 1080p and will always be 1080p. 1080p is 1920 x 1080 and will always be 1920 x 1080. This doesnt change due tio screen size. 1080p at 22" will look the same as 1080p at 60". 1080p is 1080p regardless of screen size. Im sick of people not understanding this.

Its viewing distances that matter, not screen size.

actually its a combination of viewing distance and size, Im sick of people not understanding this.



Yes, I know. Maybe I should have made that a bit more clear. I was trying to point out that screen size has nothing to do with resolution when people say 32" and under are no good for 1080p.

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

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

[QUOTE="Myzz617"] Off topic-you being here longer has nothing to do with what you actually know or what you think you may know. Try contributing to the community and learn on a daily basis rather than speaking in general. On topic-which is better a screen with a bunch of tight pixels squeezed together or a large screen with the same amount but more space to display them and a faster response time? You must live in a third world country where the movies project in a 15 inch format trying to say there is no difference esp when the response time is much longer, screen ratio difference and refresh rate, they all play a role in the type of image quality you get not just the end result resolution. Depending on the hardware you have the resolution can change and perhaps even get down-scaled. So im going to stop there because YOU clearly are not TECHNICAL enough to understand the difference in a 1080P image on a 22in monitor than on a 60in monitor. Yes they may look and appear the same but take your self to best buy and compare and perhaps you will see what i am talking about.

Myzz617



Please use your brain.

Being here or not being here, having more posts or having 1 post bears no relevance to my knowledge or your knowledge on the subject or any other subject you can talk about on here. So why did you even feel the need to bring it up.

If you had read the first comment I made to you I said 1080p is the same if you take out all other varibles.

The pixels bunched together means nothing, its the smae amount of pixels, you just need to view it closer.

22" at 1080p and 60" at 1080p are both the same if both are viewed at the correct viewing diatnce. PC monitors have been doing this for ages, long before the next gen consoles were out.

Resultion is fixed, this does not change just because your screen size is smaller. A 1080p image is still a 1080p image regardless if its on 22" or 60". Im sat here watching 1080p on a 24", it works, its infront of me.

No matter what you think or what you may know you think. 1080p at 22" is the same as 1080p at 60" if both are viewed from the correct distance.

I did read your first comment which is why i went more depth.To the average guys eye and those who dont notice the difference or the "other variables" in which you neglect, yes you are right. Me personally I would rather sit further away and watch a movie then up close and have my eyes start hurting, same applys to gaming. Apparently I use my brain more because i have made more posts, but wait my fingers just type so I dont think at all :-P. Which also leads to that I am an active member and I am constantly learning rather than speaking in general terms. To the tech savy crowd 1080P is not the exact same across the board of all screen sizes and perhaps you should learn how to punctuate properly and develop complete thoughts rather than you jumbled sentences. NATIVE Resolution is fixed but the variables that play a role into how that image is displayed can be a dissapointment with some manufactures devices at different screen sizes.



Right, we are kind of getting there.

Firstly, forget about how many posts you have or I have, it means nothing. You know nothing about me or what other forums Im active on.

Secondly, talking about punctuation, I know its bad, but yours is just as bad, yet another arguement that bears no relevance on the subject we are talking about.

Thirdly, my eyes dont hurt when watching my 24" 1080p monitor, if yours do, maybe you should go and see an optician.

Fourth, I was never talking about anything else other than resultion. Your first post on this thread stated -

"Thats because the res on smaller tv's you wont notice much difference."

Which is totally wrong. Smaller TV's alone have nothing to do with resolution. As already said, the resolution of 1080p 1920 x 1080 is the same be it on 22" or 60". The smaller the screen, the closer you have to sit, but the difference will always be the same, it doesnt differ.

I cant say it enough, there is no difference between 1080p on smaller screens. The only thing I was ever talking about was resolution as it is fixed. I wasnt talking about response time or contrast ratios, your the one that brought them into after I dared question your original post.

In conclusion. 1080p on a 22" screen is the same as 1080p on a 60" screen, you just have to sit closer to the smaller screen to be able to notice 1080p. Its a common myth that screens under a certain size are no good for 1080p

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="Myzz617"] A lv 12 80 poster is going to tell me, and sure im going to listen. Please if you know nothing about native resolutions dont bother talking.

Myzz617



Whats my level got to do with anything. I joined this site long before you did, I just dont visit it much. If thats your attitude, its a wonder your still here.

Getting back to the point, you clearly have no clue what your talking about. Please explain how a screen of 22" 1920 x 1080 is any different to a screen of 60" 1920 x 1080.

To save you any embarrasment, Ill do it myself. There is no difference. They both have the same amount of pixels. The smaller the screen, the closer the pixels hence the closer you need to sit or can sit. If you sit the same distance at a 60" screen, then them pixels are further apart hence you would be able to see the pixels hence why you need to sit further away from the bigger screen. As I said before, resolution is fixed, 1080p doesnt change just because screen size does.

Before you go round accusing people of not knowing what they are taking about, do a bit more research of the subject on hand and also how long the poster has been signed up, not that if I had 10000 posts would matter, amount of posts dont relate to knowledge.

Off topic-you being here longer has nothing to do with what you actually know or what you think you may know. Try contributing to the community and learn on a daily basis rather than speaking in general. On topic-which is better a screen with a bunch of tight pixels squeezed together or a large screen with the same amount but more space to display them and a faster response time? You must live in a third world country where the movies project in a 15 inch format trying to say there is no difference esp when the response time is much longer, screen ratio difference and refresh rate, they all play a role in the type of image quality you get not just the end result resolution. Depending on the hardware you have the resolution can change and perhaps even get down-scaled. So im going to stop there because YOU clearly are not TECHNICAL enough to understand the difference in a 1080P image on a 22in monitor than on a 60in monitor. Yes they may look and appear the same but take your self to best buy and compare and perhaps you will see what i am talking about.



Please use your brain.

Being here or not being here, having more posts or having 1 post bears no relevance to my knowledge or your knowledge on the subject or any other subject you can talk about on here. So why did you even feel the need to bring it up.

If you had read the first comment I made to you I said 1080p is the same if you take out all other varibles.

The pixels bunched together means nothing, its the smae amount of pixels, you just need to view it closer.

22" at 1080p and 60" at 1080p are both the same if both are viewed at the correct viewing diatnce. PC monitors have been doing this for ages, long before the next gen consoles were out.

Resultion is fixed, this does not change just because your screen size is smaller. A 1080p image is still a 1080p image regardless if its on 22" or 60". Im sat here watching 1080p on a 24", it works, its infront of me.

No matter what you think or what you may know you think. 1080p at 22" is the same as 1080p at 60" 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

#5 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

[QUOTE="Myzz617"] Thats because the res on smaller tv's you wont notice much difference. I have a 46in Sharp aquos and the games that display in 1080P are lovely. Myzz617



Wrong. 1080p is just the same at 22" as it is at 60". Your 46" 1080p TV will look no different to any other 1080p TV be it 22" or 60" (taking out all other variables). Resolution is fixed, it doesnt change because the screen size is smaller. Viewing distance is what matters.

A lv 12 80 poster is going to tell me, and sure im going to listen. Please if you know nothing about native resolutions dont bother talking.



Whats my level got to do with anything. I joined this site long before you did, I just dont visit it much. If thats your attitude, its a wonder your still here.

Getting back to the point, you clearly have no clue what your talking about. Please explain how a screen of 22" 1920 x 1080 is any different to a screen of 60" 1920 x 1080.

To save you any embarrasment, Ill do it myself. There is no difference. They both have the same amount of pixels. The smaller the screen, the closer the pixels hence the closer you need to sit or can sit. If you sit the same distance at a 60" screen, then them pixels are further apart hence you would be able to see the pixels hence why you need to sit further away from the bigger screen. As I said before, resolution is fixed, 1080p doesnt change just because screen size does.

Before you go round accusing people of not knowing what they are taking about, do a bit more research of the subject on hand and also how long the poster has been signed up, not that if I had 10000 posts would matter, amount of posts dont relate to knowledge.

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

So here is my problem guys. I have had my HDMI cable for well over2 year with no problems at all. I never usually unplug the HDMI cable for no reason and when I do it is usually to clean the ps3 or I'm going on a trip and when I plug it in no problems, but yesterday I rented Transformers 2 on Blu-ray and I decided to watch it in my living room because I heard Blu-Ray is best on bigger hdtv's. So I hooked it up downstairs and I wasn't able to get a picture. I tried everything. I held the button until that second "beep". Nothing worked so I just used my composite cables. THe next day I brought my ps3 back up to the tv I usually use to play and it still wouldn't get picture in HD.

Now my question to you guys is it the HDMI cord or the HDMI input in the ps3 itself? Oh! also the HDMI cord was about $50 bucks and was great quality. I never mishandle my ps3 so I doubt it is the HDMI input. My ps3 also recognizes the HDMi cord because it has said it does and it gives me the option to change. When I click it the screen just goes blank. So please help me. This will be great help for me and others with the same problem.

manystylez



Off topic (kind off) But who ever told you that Blu-rays look better on larger screens were wrong.

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="rastan"][QUOTE="LoserMike"]

If, it's 1080p and larger than 40 inches, the difference is huge.

LoserMike

Only if you sit closer than 5' from it. Otherwise the difference between 720p and 1080p is not evident. However at 5' on a 40" you should be able to see the difference between 480p and 720p.

He's asking for the difference between DVDs and Blu-Rays. That's 480p vs 1080p. So yes, like I said... HUGE!!!



Its only huge if you sit close enough to be able to notice the difference.

a 480p DVDor (576i/p here in the UK) will look just the same as a 1080p Blu-ray on a 40" screen if you are sat to far away from it.

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

If, it's 1080p and larger than 40 inches, the difference is huge.

LoserMike



Its got nothing to do with the size of the TV alone.

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

By normal viewing distance I mean the average viewing distance of 7-10 feet in most rooms. Resolution is entirely dependent on distance and th size of the image. Hence on smaller TV's unless you are sitting fairly close (the chart has been posted in these forums many times) the differences in resolution become less apparent as the human eye is the limitation not the equipment.rastan


Look, surely you reckonigse my name, we have come across each other a few times on here. You dont need to explain to me about viewing distances etc.

I was pulling you up about your 'normal' bit. And what you just wrote is no better either. You cant just have a normal or average viewing distance in your post and not explain what this is. As such, there is no normal or average viewing distance as what is normal or average to you, is not to someone else.

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

Honestly, if you're under 40", 1080p isn't going to be any improvement over 720p. However, there are a couple of deals out there:

djsundowner



False and wrong. 1080p is 1080p and will always be 1080p. 1080p is 1920 x 1080 and will always be 1920 x 1080. This doesnt change due tio screen size. 1080p at 22" will look the same as 1080p at 60". 1080p is 1080p regardless of screen size. Im sick of people not understanding this.

Its viewing distances that matter, not screen size.