its "mental" block not metal lol...and years? lol, how about 2 decades worth of experience in computer engineering, graphics card design, as well as OWNERSHIP of a plethora of monitors and display devices - that should rattle that egotistical cavity between your ears. as i keep telling ya, its not IF but when you go to a 1080p set, you can send me a thank you later.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I'm baffled by how the concept of scaling is so difficult for you to understand, but this should help:
http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/720ponED.jpg
http://www.sunflower.com/~kyleb/720ponED.jpg
Take a close up pic of the 1920x1080 calibration screen...i dare ya.
edit: or better yet, how about a real hi-res scan:
http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs7/i/2005/23...uakecon_Dedication_16_10_by_sosuke.jpg
let's see how much you'd be missing out on
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
You are lucky your link doesn't work as there is a bit of vagina showing in the pic you tried to link there and that wouldn't go over well with the mods. As for a close up pic of the calibration screen, what are you expecting to get out of that? that it is interpolated is a given, and how it interpolated is obvious from the pic I posted, a closer pic isn't going to change anything there.
Todd33
Diamond Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 7,842
- 2
- 81
Yes downsampling a 1280x720 screen to 852x480 looks like garbage with text, as it should. Scaling tricks are fine for images, but not things with high contrast lines like with text. I would have a headache in 2 minutes. Running at native res will make the text clean, but of course you lose your desktop space.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I don't get headaches or any trouble at all reading the text on my destop downsampled from 1280x720. It looks sharper in person than my old tiny camara could manage in that pic, and while obviously not as sharp as it would at native resolution, it is still plenty sharp enough to suit my needs.
simply put having used SD, edtv, 720p, in both projector and rear/front projection/plasma/lcd/dlp, I will simply say that 1080p is simply in its own class.
The sheer amount of real este, the absolute sharpness of the text @ its native rez, and the dynaic range of the colors on my 1080p tv is unparralled.
I like it better than Sony XRD's
The sheer amount of real este, the absolute sharpness of the text @ its native rez, and the dynaic range of the colors on my 1080p tv is unparralled.
I like it better than Sony XRD's
Originally posted by: ST
Take a close up pic of the 1920x1080 calibration screen...i dare ya.
edit: or better yet, how about a real hi-res scan:
http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs7/i/2005/23...uakecon_Dedication_16_10_by_sosuke.jpg
let's see how much you'd be missing out on
hot damn
I don't use my 50" Panny plasma as a computer monitor. But I do use it for Xbox 360. There's nothing quite like lounging on your comfy couch with your wireless controller on your lap playing PGR3. There are times where the game looks like a live telecast. But I digress...
No question that plasma in my mind has the best picture among the big three techs. Spent months and months staring at 'em with live HD feeds but didn't pull the trigger till prices dropped dramatically last year. Key is that plasma pixels generate light while DLPs reflect it and LCDs filter it. Color rendition is saturated and brilliant on plasmas compared to DLPs and LCDs.
Lots of people use plasmas as monitors. As someone mentioned, just head over to the AVS forum for many examples. I have no sympathy for those few who burn their screens.....use common sense for gosh sake. It's hard these days to burn a modern plasma but if you crank the contrast to max and watch alot of static imaging you'll get what you deserve. Keep the contrast in the middle (where is should be anyway) and watch as much static imaging as you want......as I do with ESPN and various sports with static scoreboards. If you like to view things with the unnatural brightness of LCD monitors, you might have problems accepting the more natural light of plasmas.
No question that plasma in my mind has the best picture among the big three techs. Spent months and months staring at 'em with live HD feeds but didn't pull the trigger till prices dropped dramatically last year. Key is that plasma pixels generate light while DLPs reflect it and LCDs filter it. Color rendition is saturated and brilliant on plasmas compared to DLPs and LCDs.
Lots of people use plasmas as monitors. As someone mentioned, just head over to the AVS forum for many examples. I have no sympathy for those few who burn their screens.....use common sense for gosh sake. It's hard these days to burn a modern plasma but if you crank the contrast to max and watch alot of static imaging you'll get what you deserve. Keep the contrast in the middle (where is should be anyway) and watch as much static imaging as you want......as I do with ESPN and various sports with static scoreboards. If you like to view things with the unnatural brightness of LCD monitors, you might have problems accepting the more natural light of plasmas.
Todd33
Diamond Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 7,842
- 2
- 81
When you have to write a paragraph on how to baby a plasma it makes me that much happier that I didn't buy one. I have enough to think about with two kids, work, gaming, etc. than to treat my TV like a glass slipper. I read and post in the AVSforums daily and do not notice much talk about plasmas for HDTV. I do notice the large 20+ page threads on new 1080P screens though. I would guess people who have bought plasmas for DVD/TV have then built HTPCs, but people who are shopping monitors for HTPCs are not buying plasmas in large percentages. Just a hunch. Again, 80% of us are playing games and working on LCDs, so deriding them based on color and contrast seems kind of desperate. The Dell 20", 24" and 30" and the Apple 30" are what technologies again? Where are all the complaint threads about how poor they look?
And that's what CRT monitor owners say about LCD technology. "Be careful with the LCD screen, it is much more fragile than the glass tube of a CRT monitor." And that's why I'm glad I didn't buy an LCD. :roll: Give me a break man. These are basic steps taken to take care of a plasma TV. How hard is it to turn down the brightness on a plasma? You do it once, and you're done. The facts are, plasmas provide the best most vibrant picture. The only people that would argue with that are people who haven't seen a side by side comparison or can't afford it so they put it down. If you want a 1080p HDTV plasma, they are available now, but aren't cheap. If they aren't worth it to you, that's one thing. But there is no denying they provide the best picture quailty. Put whichever LCD you'd like up against Pioneer's 1080p 50" plasma, and I'm sure just about everyone would say the plasma looks better. Now when the new LCDs come out (Q4 '06), and if they are offered at an affordable price, it should knock the plasma TVs right out of the market. At that point, I don't see ANY benefits to having a plasma.
Ummm, the BIGGEST complaint from professional graphic designers is that the color reproduction on LCD is lacking. And you've got to be blind to not be able to tell the color vibrance between an LCD (especially if you are comparing Dell LCD) to a nice plasma. Like I said, put the best LCD up against Pioneer's 1080p plasma and see which TV people will choose based on PQ. I'll place my bets on the plasma set.
Hadsus, Panasonic plasmas are beautiful. 360 games and HD content I'm sure look awesome on it! Nice TV!
Therein lies the problem Jack - you cite a $10k, one off Plasma TV set against more readily available and much cheaper $2k 1080p LCDTV sets. Again, in SDTV feeds and such, no doubt Plasma will hold their own, but in hi-resolution progressive inputs at 1920x1080, resolution makes a remarkable diff.
Snowman - sorry i posted a pic of some females- i was not aware of your sexual preferenece.
ST, plasmas have always been regarded as one of the most expensive HDTV technologies. But people in here have been throwing out blanket statement which are far from the facts. Now if you want to say, LCDs have a better price/performance ratio than plasmas, I'd tend to agree with you, somewhat. Now I said "somewhat," because each technology has it's own strong points at let's say the <$3000 mark. Generally you can get a 47-50" LCD which is capable of 1080p resolution where a plasma at that price will only be able to offer 720p. On paper you'd think the LCD is the obvious choice. But for me, I'd take the 720p display due to the fact that the plasma's colors and vibrance are so much better than the LCD's. However others may prefer the LCD's higher resolution. In a perfect world, you'd have both. But that comes at a price. Like I said, hopefully with the new LCDs you won't have to make that choice. They should also provide for some AMAZING color accuracy as they will be using the new HDMI 1.3 standard and should definitely surpass the plasma's PQ. As always, there is something always better around the corner, but I'm willing to wait just a little longer as this seems to be the perfect set for me. Hoepfully it's not $50,000 when it's release.
They should have an 82" out though. TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter