37 replies · 1,132 views
Doctor? wrote: Well since we were writing it that way when you lot didn;t even exist, I think that narrows it down to who has it the wrong way round.
D M Y makes sense so does Y M D (particularly to a computer)
but the US M D Y format is just nonsensical.
Aye, you may have started it...but WE'RE FINISHING IT!!!! Move over...yer yesterdays kingdom!
Question? How much content is actually full "real" 1080p now? From the source, from the wiring? Do cheaper 1080p current TVs really decode full "HD" anyway? Who do you believe?
Might it be smarter to buy a cheap now 720p model, and buy a much better 1080p in a couple years, since they can still get much better.
Wal-mart is just an unpleasant place.
pumped full of drugs wrote: Question? How much content is actually full "real" 1080p now? From the source, from the wiring? Do cheaper 1080p current TVs really decode full "HD" anyway? Who do you believe?
Might it be smarter to buy a cheap now 720p model, and buy a much better 1080p in a couple years, since they can still get much better.
Content-wise, it depends on the source. Obviously HD-DVD/Blu- Ray will showcase 1080p best of all. Some FTA TV stations such as the TEN network down here offer full-HD programming. The others broadcast at 720p or less, but picture quality can still be superb on the right set.
I picked up a 50" 720p screen. You actually need to be sitting at a pretty precise distance from your set for the average eye to really see the benefits of 1080 over 720. Plus the sweet spot pricepoint for HD screens in the market is around the 42" 720p vicinity. You'll still pay a premium for a quality 1080p set - they'll drop drastically in the next two years.
:\pimp3:
Doctor? wrote:
Andrès wrote: i wouldn't take the 50" plasma cause all Sanyo Stuff is shit. Besides nobody is buying plasma these days....so look for a LCD
On it's way out soon, SED's are the coming thing apparently.
Sorry but what's an SED?
Surface-conduction electron-emitter display.
A bit like having each pixel operate as a tiny independent cathode ray tube.
It seems they're not gonna bother finishing the work and jump straight into OLED's (Organic light emitting diodes), according to someone up there ^ A shame, because I cannot see LED's being small enough for things like PC monitors. Where I can see them is in HUGE telly's, like having an F1/footy-stadium style Diamond screen on your wall.
The problem I have with LCD and Plasma (that upon further study, it appears will also affect SED/OLED) is that they are digital. A CRT "paints" the picture on the phosphor, it can aim at any point at all on the screen, and can adjust size and speed, giving you a huge range of options with resolution and refresh rate. On these new fangled digital displays you get, well, let's say 1280x1024. And that's IT. If you set your PC to 1024x768 the screen is still laid out as 1280x1024, so it's got 1024 dots, with which to show 768 dots, now since 768 doesn't divide into 1024, you can instantly see that some (most) of those 768 dots will be shifted (technically "quantised"...snapped to the nearest available valid position), the result is an ugly, or at least inelegant display. Worse, it undoes a fair bit of the hard work of your video card's antialiasing routines, as the display itself makes things all "steppy".
As an aside, you get the same thing in Audio, if you save a file as 8bit you will hear "burbling" which is "quantisation noise", because there are only 256 different levels the signal can have, rather than the 65536 of 16bit, everything gets shifted a bit and the waveforms end up looking like staircases. A fabulous example of this can be heard at the end of Dub vulture, where the word "hurt" is shifted WAY WAAAAAY down in pitch, which causes many other atifacts, but HUGELY increases the effect of quantisation, beacuse slowing things down means the "treads" of the "steps" get longer and longer, giving a less and less accurate representation of the signal.
Hi, BTW and now you know another thing about NOOL, do NOT ask ne a question unless you REALLY want an answer ;)
Binoche wrote: Wal-Mart” (Excerpt) By David Rovics
There’s a thousand acres becoming clear Cut down the forest, the big one’s here Cover the ground with a mass of tar Make sure there’s room for every car One floor half mile massive sprawl One store wonder super mall It’s spreading out far and wide Taking over the countryside Say goodbye to your forests, they’re going down Wal-Mart is coming to town
…No more local five and dime It’s all just Wal-Mart overtime But you can work all you want, night and day As long as you can stand the pay Just don’t get sick or have a kid You’ll end up like the last one did On the street and unemployed In a town that’s been destroyed Where misery has become a noun Wal-Mart is coming to town
Listen to David Rovics www.davidrovics.com
thems fightin' words for every southerner!
Doctor? wrote: Surface-conduction electron-emitter display.
A bit like having each pixel operate as a tiny independent cathode ray tube.
It seems they're not gonna bother finishing the work and jump straight into OLED's (Organic light emitting diodes), according to someone up there ^ A shame, because I cannot see LED's being small enough for things like PC monitors. Where I can see them is in HUGE telly's, like having an F1/footy-stadium style Diamond screen on your wall.
The problem I have with LCD and Plasma (that upon further study, it appears will also affect SED/OLED) is that they are digital. A CRT "paints" the picture on the phosphor, it can aim at any point at all on the screen, and can adjust size and speed, giving you a huge range of options with resolution and refresh rate. On these new fangled digital displays you get, well, let's say 1280x1024. And that's IT. If you set your PC to 1024x768 the screen is still laid out as 1280x1024, so it's got 1024 dots, with which to show 768 dots, now since 768 doesn't divide into 1024, you can instantly see that some (most) of those 768 dots will be shifted (technically "quantised"...snapped to the nearest available valid position), the result is an ugly, or at least inelegant display. Worse, it undoes a fair bit of the hard work of your video card's antialiasing routines, as the display itself makes things all "steppy".
As an aside, you get the same thing in Audio, if you save a file as 8bit you will hear "burbling" which is "quantisation noise", because there are only 256 different levels the signal can have, rather than the 65536 of 16bit, everything gets shifted a bit and the waveforms end up looking like staircases. A fabulous example of this can be heard at the end of Dub vulture, where the word "hurt" is shifted WAY WAAAAAY down in pitch, which causes many other atifacts, but HUGELY increases the effect of quantisation, beacuse slowing things down means the "treads" of the "steps" get longer and longer, giving a less and less accurate representation of the signal.
Hi, BTW and now you know another thing about NOOL, do NOT ask ne a question unless you REALLY want an answer ;)
True, but the crt is a big clunky thing that takes up alot of space.....and its one down fall is that the clarity is in the center of the screen and gets worse the further out you go, whereas an LCD and plasma have the same clarity throughout the screen....I've noted that there is suppose to be a lag time with LCDs in video games, but I've never really seen it, or my eyes don't catch it...
Doctor? wrote: Surface-conduction electron-emitter display.
A bit like having each pixel operate as a tiny independent cathode ray tube.
It seems they're not gonna bother finishing the work and jump straight into OLED's (Organic light emitting diodes), according to someone up there ^ A shame, because I cannot see LED's being small enough for things like PC monitors. Where I can see them is in HUGE telly's, like having an F1/footy-stadium style Diamond screen on your wall.
Dunno if I'm imagining it, but I thought I read some company had already produced OLED monitors, albeit only 11" (!!) displays. It sais the big issue is their current ultra short lifespan, only 5000 hours, it claimed, unless I'm garbling it all.
PS I was just about to google this anyway, but which is more power efficient CRT or LCD? I'm sure everyone always claimed LCD used much less power than CRT, but just the other day I read someone claiming the exact opposite.
edit, having googled it, I think I was right the first time. Dunno why someone claimed LCD TVs use more than CRT, unless he was muddling it up with digital vs analog reception.
