Random Thoughts Thread

[jp1]

So you are saying there is no benefit from HD now from your 98 tv?

Yup, that is what me's be sayings.

"Benefit" is subjective. Really subjective too when it isn't quantifiable.

Ok, so I've been messing around, but doesn't the fact it is subjective also mean it is quantifiable in varying degrees to different individuals?

[Luke]

Your pet peeves are cute.

Do some research on the megapixel resolution of the human eye in contrast to modern technological ones when you're bored.

Thing is, I've done my homework. I know how fascinating and incredible human eyes can be, but I also know their limitations.

Wink wink: My pet peeve is people with pet peeves.

Kidding.

I think memory and longevity are radical things. Shiny doesn't do much for me (save for Earthworm Jim). Hate hate hate soap opera effect, tv's that promise but don't deliver, and even the concept that 4k is "the new thing". It's old, dated, and crap.

Movies and tv don't need to be super crisp, they need a good story. Screw special effects, every movie has 'em. Just write a good movie. If I was a boy, which I was at some point, and my Mother read me the script of SHREK, I wouldn't even need the visuals. In fact, I would prefer just having the script read to me (it really, really is a great script).

Forget 4k, 1080p...It should not be about resolution.

Does resolution add much? No. Not in my loud opinion. It doesn't count for squat, but if ree rees think that a chart makes them spend a boat load on a tv, well, good for the manufacturer of the tv.

...upon reflection, it is a bit silly that I'm "talking" to a group of people that should prefer substance over style. This is retro gaming community, or was.

[jp1]

I prefer both.

[dsheinem]

I get that some of what you are up to is funnin', Luke, but if you can't concede that the basic principle of resolution vs. distance is a provable phenomenon, I don't know what to say.

Please feel free to debunk my sources. Maddox is good fun, but the only thing your suggestion led to is an article where he talks about the shitty resolution of the iPad camera, an article which largely confirms my points about distance and resolution.

Here's a bit on the human eye and resolution (with an emphasis on MegaPixels). It is by someone who has a PhD in Planetary Science and is involved in photography for NASA.

Here's a piece on visual acuity and resolution from an industry standpoint. It states "note how the majority of viewers can resolve more than 2K resolution from every seat in the theater." That's based on distance vs resolution. The same principle applies in the home.

Here's a sucker neuroscientist on resolution and distance:

The visual resolution of the human eye is about 1 arc minute. At a viewing distance of 20″, that translates to about 170 dpi (or pixels-per-inch / PPI), which equals a dot pitch of around 0.14 mm. LCD monitors today have a dot pitch of .18mm to .24mm.

A 30″ monitor with a 16:9 aspect ratio would be sized around 26″ x 15″. To achieve 170 dpi, it would need a resolution of 4400 x 2600 pixels [a MacBook Retina display is 2880 x 1880].

If you want to lean in closer, say to 10″, and still not see the pixels, then you would need to double that resolution.”

The science is not really debatable. The chart you are laughing off and the websites you are dismissing are grounded in these principles. I agree with you, in most standard living room setups, 4K makes no difference. In setups where you are close and the screen is large (e.g. an arcade), the differences are discernible.

[Luke]

doesn't the fact it is subjective also mean it is quantifiable

No facts, for one.

For two, I said qualitative (I hope I did) not quantifiable. Even though both are related although completely different (it's weird).

[jp1]

So you are saying there is no benefit from HD now from your 98 tv?

Yup, that is what me's be sayings.

"Benefit" is subjective. Really subjective too when it isn't quantifiable.

Nope, quantifiable dude. Sorry, typos be damned.

[Exhuminator]

Movies and tv don't need to be super crisp
Forget 4k, 1080p...It should not be about resolution.
Does resolution add much? No.

As someone who enjoys copious modern nature documentaries, I disagree.

[Jmustang1968]

If you cant see the value of resolution from 240 or 480 to 1080 and beyond then I dont know what to tell you. Substance and style benefits do not need to be mutually exclusive.

This os basically like I said earlier. Luke says it doesnt matter to him thus it shouldn't matter to anyone.

[Luke]

[quote="Jmustang1968] Luke says it doesnt matter to him thus it shouldn't matter to anyone.[/quote]

This is the opposite of what I say, again it's your perspective.

I say my piece, loud at that, and then people interpret that as "Luke's Gospel". But when I say "Love Root Beer barrels, not a fan of sour Gummy Bears" people take it as "If you like sour Gummy Bears, Luke disagrees with you". This is the same stupid approach some mods on this forum take, who are quick to judge and not actually take the time to read what I post.

And fart if I'm going to use "proof" from some bs website that is "the first thing on google".

I like seahorses.

[dsheinem]

[quote="Jmustang1968] Luke says it doesnt matter to him thus it shouldn't matter to anyone.

This is the opposite of what I say, again it's your perspective.

I say my piece, loud at that, and then people interpret that as "Luke's Gospel". But when I say "Love Root Beer barrels, not a fan of sour Gummy Bears" people take it as "If you like sour Gummy Bears, Luke disagrees with you". This is the same stupid approach some mods on this forum take, who are quick to judge and not actually take the time to read what I post.

And fart if I'm going to use "proof" from some bs website that is "the first thing on google".

I like seahorses.[/quote][/quote]

I'll take your unwillingness to engage meaningfully as a concession to either the fact you've learned something new or to your comfort in continued ignorance on the matter.