1080p

"Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing." (granfury) 04/30/2020 at 23:59 • Filed to: None

1

12

It just isn’t as impressive as it once was now that I’ve experienced 4K. I remember being amazed at my first 720p TV, and now that would probably seem kind of fuzzy. I still have several 720p sets, but haven’t used any of them in ages

I guess it doesn’t help that this 42” monitor is less than 30 inches from my head, close enough to see each pixel.

I still remember the first time I experienced HDTV back in 1996 when Sony brought hundreds of thousands worth of gear to DirecTV International, where I worked back them,   for a demo. It blew us away, but would probably be nothing by today’s standards. 

Grindintosecond > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 05/01/2020 at 00:18

1

4K? What a piece of shit. 8k60 is the minimum these days!!

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > Grindintosecond 05/01/2020 at 00:31

0

I’m old school and dig the now  retro nature of 4K 

HammerheadFistpunch > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 05/01/2020 at 00:36

0

its all about that viewing distance.

facw > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 05/01/2020 at 00:41

1

A bit dated now, but still:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Of course today it seems like almost all new TVs are 4K, while a great many monitors sold have terrible pixel densities, to say nothing of the ubiquitous and appalling 15.6" 1366x768 “HD” laptop screens found throughout the lower end of the laptop marketplace.

The phones are keeping up though, mine has a 3040x1440 screen because? I guess because Apple brought us a competition for needlessly high small-scale displays, simply because they didn’t want app makers to have to rewrite their shit right away so wanted pixel doubling to be an option, thus establishing an absurd PPI baseline for phones.

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > HammerheadFistpunch 05/01/2020 at 00:51

1

Oh yeah, I know. When it was in the living room it was just fine, and when I bought the 49" 4K I moved it into the office. It sat there on the table for nearly a year, and yesterday I decided to open it up and see if I can find the problem, which I believe I did. I was using it as a TV just for testing purposes to ensure that the distortion problem has been eradicated.  

I’m not sure exactly what to do with it now, but I’m thinking of firing up FSX or maybe hooking up the xbone and use it for a little gaming, with the closeness making for a possibly more immersive environment. Here in the office I actually prefer watching TV on the 27" 1080p monitor that’s a little farther away.

ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 05/01/2020 at 00:52

1

I’m still rocking a 55" 1080p main TV in living room, but I’ve recently made the jump from a 1080p 27" monitor to a 32" 1440p (144hz) sitting close . Things are bigly and sharp on the folding/oppoing/sim racing machine.

horizonsofkhaos > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 05/01/2020 at 01:13

1

1080p is still great but a lot of folks are used to poor HD sources. Whether that’s the original source being poor or it being compressed poorly. It’s crazy to me that broadcasters never updated to being able to find a suitable 1080p broadcast format but we’re jumping into the possibility of 4k broadcasts.

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > facw 05/01/2020 at 01:17

0

On a related note, I have a video card that I just don’t understand. It’s a GT 730, not a very fast card, but with a whopping 4GB of RAM. I only bought it because it was actually cheaper than the 1GB and 2GB versions, so WTF, why not.

Even though I have a couple of 27" monitors, they aren’t my first choice. I use one as a TV and one as a secondary screen, but the main one is a 24" debranded HP with a resolution of 1920x1200 that I got on CL for $10 - I really like the extra height. As a third monitor I keep an old Dell 4x3 screen, rotated to have a resolution of 1200x1600. It’s much better than any widescreen display for reading documents since the aspect ratio is close to that of a sheet of letter-size paper.

My phone has a full HD display, but yeah, it seems like overkill. It’s an iPhone 6S Plus, and it’s getting a little old. I read about the new SE and think that despite the lower resolution compared to my existing phone it would be just fine.

There is something on Amazon that is ridiculously cheap for what it claims to be, and I have a hard time believing that the listing is accurate . I think it’s meant for a Raspberry Pi, and it says that it has a full 1920x1080 resolution in a 3.5" screen. Yeah, no - I can’t believe that.

I do wish I had a notebook with a full HD display. I have several with thr hated but ubiquitous 1366x768 screens, but actually prefer using an ancient 2008 MacBook Pro because of the higher resolution at essentially the same screen size. I do have a 17" HP i5 of some sort, but I can’t remember the resolution; it wouldn’t surprise me if it is still on the lower side.

Years ago my dad bought a top of the line high-end Dell Pentium III notebook. He owned his own company, and at the end of the year he’d do major capital expenditures if it was a good year rather than having the excess profits heavily taxed. To that end, the company would invest in new company vehicles or computers. This Dell, which I probably still have, came out back in the days when Windows, 98 in this case, didn’t know how to scale for high-resolution screens. As a result, you had your choice of larger, but blurry text (if you ran at less than the native resolution of the screen), or sharp but tiny text if you used the screen’s native resolution, with neither one being particularly appealing, especially not after having dropped several thousand dollars on it. It eventually died, and Dell’s estimate to repair was more than the cost of a new computer so he gave it to me and bought something else . I found the same (if not better) model on eBay with a broken screen and combined the two into one and used it for years.

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > horizonsofkhaos 05/01/2020 at 01:24

0

I’m mostly using a 4th generation Apple TV these days and it works quite nicely . I found it at a pawn shop and got it cheap because they couldn’t get the remote to work and figured that I’d have to buy a new one. No need for the 4K version, unless, of course, I find a similar bargain.

The Xbox One S is what I use for 4K content. It’s probably overkill, but like the Apple TV and even the LG 4K TV, it was a bargain so I figured ‘WTF - why not?’

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com 05/01/2020 at 01:30

2

If the 55" DLP TV I had in the living room didn’t die I’d still be using it. It was probably close to $9,000 when new, made in Germany, and had a cool motorized base. It was a stunning bit of technology and  weighed a friggin’ ton, mostly because that front panel was one giant, thick piece of glass. I found it at Goodwill for $100 back in 2013 and got my money’s worth out of it, but a few years later the color wheel blew itself to pieces leaving me with a high-definition black and white TV.

ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 05/01/2020 at 01:32

0

The good Germans, ja.

facw > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 05/01/2020 at 02:49

1

I think if slow RAM is cheap, video card makers will sometimes just pile it on to trick unsophisticated buyers into thinking they are getting a massively more powerful card.

My desk currently has a 30" 2560x1600 and two 24" 1920x1200 (in portrait, so they really needed that extra 120 vs. a 1080p 16:9 screen). I would have loved to have those in higher resolution, but the options we extremely limited, and no one was making higher resolution screens in 16:10, and in portrait, 16:9 becomes a bit too narrow. I’ve tried replacing the middle one with a 43" 4K screen, but both models I tried sucked. Might have to do a 32" 4K display, though those are actually slightly shorter than the 30" 16:10, and depending on the screen scaling, might display less content vertically as well.

Back in 2001 I had a 1600x1200 work laptop, which was astounding for the time. My personal desktop display could only do 1280x1024, and my personal laptop was 800x600 (and passive matrix... ew). You’re right that display scaling sucked back then, but I’ve never really minded tiny text (though I will say that the 13.3" 3200x1800 screen on my current laptop makes things a bit uncomfortable, so I have it scaled to effectively be 2560x1600, which is really nice).