Im so sick and tired of 1080p.

[MarkXIX]

What irks me about the whole "HD" crap is how hard it is to get a laptop with a decent screen anymore. The vast majority of them are "HD" - 1366x768. Utter crap, c'mon my old IBM T41 or heck even my crappy old gateway had a better resolution than that.

It is one of the few reasons I haven't upgraded from my IBM T60, at least it has a screen resolution that's worth something.

Agree. Well over 5 years ago I could get a 1600x1200 laptop display, now you practically have to beg for that kind of display.

 

[Minjin]

Mostly I was wondering about it for car audio. I don't listen to music much on my home system, when I do its usually the Sirius music from my Dish Network receiver. I run a NAD receiver and Paradigm speakers. Once and a while I play a CD on it but not often.

HD Radio is a HUGE improvement. It is quite noticeable with FM stations but AM is where you'll be blown away. It is like a veil has been lifted and you suddenly get to hear what the people actually sound like.

My HD radio receiver for the car was $50. If it was crazy money, I wouldn't endorse it but they are dirt cheap.

 

[Nebor]

Agree. Well over 5 years ago I could get a 1600x1200 laptop display, now you practically have to beg for that kind of display.

Meh, I'd rather have an HD display in my laptop.

 

[MarkXIX]

Meh, I'd rather have an HD display in my laptop.

What, something like 720p?

 

[Gintaras]

Then the Fuck You We Want More Money Edition.

It's good idea for the Federal Reserve - to print HD dollar bills...

 

[SparkyJJO]

Meh, I'd rather have an HD display in my laptop.

You do realize that you can almost fit two 720p "HD" video streams on top of each other at 1600x1200, and a single 720p "HD" stream fits with room to spare, right?

5 years ago I had a laptop with 1920x1200 - that could fit a 1080p HD stream easily with some vertical space left. But you have to beg to get a 1920x1080 on a laptop now.

The majority of today's "HD" laptop screens are an utter joke.

 

[n7]

No one 30" center and two 4:3 20's in portrait is best. Every bezel lines up perfect and you got massive real estate for text/web/doc content on both sides.

Yup, that's awesome.

 

[Ben90]

What a shitty car to have as a background.

 

[FelixDeCat]

The majority of today's "HD" laptop screens are an utter joke.

And the majority of people who own them usually watch Glee.

 

[SparkyJJO]

What a shitty car to have as a background.

Never mind that it will blow the doors off your car

 

[Nebor]

Never mind that it will blow the doors off your car

Jealousy manifests itself in strange ways.

 

[sdifox]

lulwhut, TV <> computer monitor.

 

[sao123]

the problem isnt 1080P alone... the problem is material is filmed in 1:2.39, then shown on 1080P...

if the industry wants to film in 1:2.39, then they need to give us 21:9 screens.
whoever came up with the idea of watching a movie in letterbox on a 16:9 screen is a moron. Use the entire vertical height of the screen.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

You probably remember my rant about the fact that companies that manufacture computer moniters started making them in a 16x9 aspect ratio vs. the previous 16x10. It was less expensive to produce and they could market it as some sort of "improvement". Less vertical workspace for websites and spreadsheets, lessened ability to view images like "longcat" and all in full HD!



So I get an email from Best Buy pitching a 70 inch LCD television. I go and check it out and the resolution is still the same, 1080p. My first thought was "when they heck are they going to finally up the ante and take the resolution up a notch"? I dunno, maybe something like 1480p or something like that. As you can see its quite doable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions

But these manufacturers dont care. They are just interested in making a quick buck and thats it. To hell with progress in the mainstream consumer market.

Can you eyes even resolve 1080P at your viewing distance from that 70" diagonal TV?

 

[CZroe]

OP is complaining that a 70" TV isn't higher than 1080p resolution? WTF? IT'S A TV! There is no source for higher resolution content and making it higher only means that your 1080i/p content will need to be scaled (IOW, effed with). 16:10 was actually made to maintain aspect ratio for 16:9 content with a little extra vertical space for persistent controls (progress indicator, playback controls, etc). That's VERY useful in a production environment.

the problem isnt 1080P alone... the problem is material is filmed in 1:2.39, then shown on 1080P...

if the industry wants to film in 1:2.39, then they need to give us 21:9 screens.
whoever came up with the idea of watching a movie in letterbox on a 16:9 screen is a moron. Use the entire vertical height of the screen.

You are an idiot. This isn't even worth responding to but I may if I get bored enough. I will go ahead and point out that 16:9 was chosen because some theatrical films are filmed at a very close aspect and it sits well between "scope" and "academy" aspects.

 

[Paladin3]

Jesus, Barfo, I just you'd in the back of my mouth a little.

 

[ViviTheMage]

There's no source material for TVs higher than 1080p anyways.

that and marketing has hammered away 1080p.

 

[Aikouka]

I am more sick of the the letters HD . They print it in bold on everything a person can view, even damn sunglasses.

I've always disliked random 'p' resolutions being thrown out by people or businesses. I mean, the point of me saying 1080p is that you know I'm talking about 1920 by 1080 lines of resolution. When you just throw out a number with a 'p' on the end, this tells me only a single dimension :\.

 

[TwiceOver]

A MillionEightyPee.

 

[sao123]

OP is complaining that a 70" TV isn't higher than 1080p resolution? WTF? IT'S A TV! There is no source for higher resolution content and making it higher only means that your 1080i/p content will need to be scaled (IOW, effed with). 16:10 was actually made to maintain aspect ratio for 16:9 content with a little extra vertical space for persistent controls (progress indicator, playback controls, etc). That's VERY useful in a production environment.



You are an idiot. This isn't even worth responding to but I may if I get bored enough. I will go ahead and point out that 16:9 was chosen because some theatrical films are filmed at a very close aspect and it sits well between "scope" and "academy" aspects.

16:9 isnt the problem... 1:2.39 is.
Why would anyone want to watch a movie which promises 28% wider picture at an expense of 26% of the vertical height?

Thats a 7% reduction in total picture area, and vertical space is more significant than width, and vertical height is the determining factor in viewing distance.

so what im really saying is that for anyone who properly spaces their veiwing from viewer to screen on 16:9 widescreen material, then they now have to sit 25% closer to see the same level of detail.
Thats Dumb!

 

[Schfifty Five]

No one 30" center and two 4:3 20's in portrait is best. Every bezel lines up perfect and you got massive real estate for text/web/doc content on both sides.

The monitor on the right looks like a widescreen.

 

[ElFenix]

The monitor on the right looks like a widescreen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreshortening#Foreshortening

 

[gorcorps]

IMO there's still too much SD content, and it all still looks pretty bad when scaled. Putting an even bigger gap in that right now would make a lot of stuff look pretty awful. Plus we're still struggling to get all of our media outlets into the current 1080p. Current consoles still don't output that natively when playing games.

 

[CZroe]

16:9 isnt the problem... 1:2.39 is.
Why would anyone want to watch a movie which promises 28% wider picture at an expense of 26% of the vertical height?

Thats a 7% reduction in total picture area, and vertical space is more significant than width, and vertical height is the determining factor in viewing distance.

so what im really saying is that for anyone who properly spaces their veiwing from viewer to screen on 16:9 widescreen material, then they now have to sit 25% closer to see the same level of detail.
Thats Dumb!

I understand viewing distace calculations, but you complained about the film industry, which has been using scope aspect for decades longer than 16:9 or 1080p and DOES NOT give us anything to view it on. Even in cinemas, the different aspects do not fit the screen and are shown with appropriate letterboxing and pillarboxing. They don't change the screen shape or the seating distance. The DPI of a CinemaScope aspect film and a 16:9 film on a particular set does not change just because the AR's vertical space did, so the optimal seating distance does not change even if blowing it up would be more comfortable for you.