• 1080p Gaming
    83 replies, posted
no because 1080i is faster
[QUOTE=Odellus;16420563]the difference between 1080i and 1080p is that 1080p is actually slower than 1080i. 1080p is used for slower screens (LCDs) whereas 1080i is mainly used in CRTs, because of their high refresh rate. 1080p on these monitors would suffer from flickering.[/QUOTE]err no, in a sense you're right, but closer to incorrect. 1080p is better than 1080i, 1080i's signal is sent out faster, yes, but the display then brings it down to about 24 frames per second, and you can see it being interlaced, still. with 1080p, it's typically 24Hz from the source, but that's only for films, and even films are not limited to 24Hz, there are plenty of 1080p 60FPS videos out there if you'd just look for them. [editline]02:03PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Odellus;16420670]no because 1080i is faster[/QUOTE] not really [editline]02:04PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ShaRose_;16420616]Sorry, wikipedia doesn't lie. Check out 22.2 surround sound as well.[/QUOTE] i'm talking about you, you don't have that, nor do you have 22.2 surround sound (which i've known of for a very long time)
1080p means progressive. Makes all rows go at once. 1080i means interlaced. Make all even rows go one frame, all odd rows go after, repeating. 1080p is superior quality wise. I played Sourceforts once in 1080p. Was beautiful. Oh, and my Wipeout HD runs in 1080p @ 60 FPS. Perfectly Possible.
well fffffffffff
[QUOTE=M_B;16420690]i'm talking about you, you don't have that, nor do you have 22.2 surround sound (which i've known of for a very long time)[/QUOTE] Of course I don't. I only have a 1280 X 1024 lcd that I got a long time ago.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;16420714]1080p means progressive. Makes all rows go at once. 1080i means interlaced. Make all even rows go one frame, all odd rows go after, repeating. 1080p is superior quality wise. I played Sourceforts once in 1080p. Was beautiful. Oh, and my Wipeout HD runs in 1080p @ 60 FPS. Perfectly Possible.[/QUOTE] well WipEout HD is 1080p and 60FPS, but the resolution width changes dynamically to maintain that framerate.
[QUOTE=ShaRose_;16420512][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision[/url] 4320P. I win.[/QUOTE] A CHALLENGER APPEARS [media]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/28k_RED_CAMERA.png[/media]
[QUOTE=M_B;16420690] i'm talking about you, you don't have that, nor do you have 22.2 surround sound (which i've known of for a very long time)[/QUOTE] Technically, can't you have any speaker set up you want? If I want 100.10, I can do that.
[QUOTE=Sgt Pringles;16421494]A CHALLENGER APPEARS [media]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/28k_RED_CAMERA.png[/media][/QUOTE] Fuck. You would need a monitor the size of a goddamn ..The size of a goddamn.. a godda.... There isn't even anything to fit it on!
I'm rocking a 21" 1680x1050 monitor but I've been wanting to get a 24ish+" 1080p monitor.
[QUOTE=bigdoggie;16421725]Fuck. You would need a monitor the size of a goddamn ..The size of a goddamn.. a godda.... There isn't even anything to fit it on![/QUOTE] There is no correlation between screen size and resolution. You could fit that on any screen you want, the pixels would have to be much smaller to fit that many though.
what in the fuck what has this been used with?
What about a 1,000,080p?
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;16421716]Technically, can't you have any speaker set up you want? If I want 100.10, I can do that.[/QUOTE] if you happen to be able to create your own audio decoding, your own receiver, your own amps, etc., yeah, you can, but you can't buy anything that would allow you to have more than 22.2. well, you could, but it would take far too many entirely separate A/V systems, and would be a complete bitch to synch up. [editline]04:39PM[/editline] [QUOTE=nerdygamer;16422394]What about a 1,000,080p?[/QUOTE] why 1,000,0[U]80[/U]p? why not just 1,000,000? [editline]04:40PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Odellus;16421955]what in the fuck what has this been used with?[/QUOTE] it hasn't, not yet at least. it will be used for theaters.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;16421936]There is no correlation between screen size and resolution. You could fit that on any screen you want, the pixels would have to be much smaller to fit that many though.[/QUOTE] Well yes, but I usually want to be able to harness the power of all my pixels.
It isn't 1200p it's [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WUXGA[/url] And most screens at least try to approximate 96 PPI, which is the Windows standard. Some deviate some aren't all that precise, but most try. A 22" at 1680 x 1050 for example is fairly close, as is a 24" at 1920 x 1200. A 30" screen for example is pretty much perfectly 96 IIRC. Funnily enough even Mac screens seem to do this. Despite that standard being 72 DPI.
[QUOTE=M_B;16423543]if you happen to be able to create your own audio decoding, your own receiver, your own amps, etc., yeah, you can, but you can't buy anything that would allow you to have more than 22.2. well, you could, but it would take far too many entirely separate A/V systems, and would be a complete bitch to synch up. [editline]04:39PM[/editline] why 1,000,0[U]80[/U]p? why not just 1,000,000? [editline]04:40PM[/editline] it hasn't, not yet at least. it will be used for theaters.[/QUOTE] good god I can't wait to see some 261 MP films.
-snip-
Audiophiles only care about stereo. For them it is faggots who care about multichannel. And they are right, the amount of channels has absolutely nothing to do with sound quality.
Just a question how the F* can you afford a 30' inch screen. Assuming your a 16 year old in a upper class suburban neighborhood. I've heard of dumpster diving in back on walmart and other big stores and you can find tv's and other cool shit that have been open scratched or need repairs a blind dog with one paw could do. *non-lawyer spokesperson*
[QUOTE=BmB;16423734]Audiophiles only care about stereo. For them it is faggots who care about multichannel. And they are right, the amount of channels has absolutely nothing to do with sound quality.[/QUOTE] i've never heard of an audiophile who hated surround sound, what the hell are you talking about? the amount of channels has a LOT to do with sound quality, you can only put so many sounds into and hear so many things out of one speaker/channel. you're not one of those people who slags something merely because you don't have it, are you? [editline]07:57PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Bonzai11;16425890]Just a question how the F* can you afford a 30' inch screen. Assuming your a 16 year old in a upper class suburban neighborhood. I've heard of dumpster diving in back on walmart and other big stores and you can find tv's and other cool shit that have been open scratched or need repairs a blind dog with one paw could do. *non-lawyer spokesperson*[/QUOTE] a 16 year old in an upper class suburban neighborhood should have no problem acquiring a 30-inch, not sure about a "30 foot inch", though.
[QUOTE=Bonzai11;16425890]Just a question how the F* can you afford a 30' inch screen. Assuming your a 16 year old in a upper class suburban neighborhood. I've heard of dumpster diving in back on walmart and other big stores and you can find tv's and other cool shit that have been open scratched or need repairs a blind dog with one paw could do. *non-lawyer spokesperson*[/QUOTE] are you serious I'ma do this tomorrow
[QUOTE=hatchet;16418195]1080p vs 1080i go![/QUOTE] 1080i is 540 lines every other frame, while 1080p is 1080 lines every frame. If you wanted to save space encoding, 1080i would use half the space as 1080p. [QUOTE=Odellus;16420670]no because 1080i is faster[/QUOTE] More like twice as slow because it only draws 540 lines every frame.
I'll have you know I game to 5.1 You can have as many sounds coming from one speaker as you want. You can have as much 3D from 2 channels as you want. Surround is largely superficial from an audiophile standpoint. Having good speakers and placement is a billion times more important to quality than having 8 speakers. Even in games I can barely hear the difference between well placed stereo and surround. The only place it makes a noticable difference is in films because they are mixed in a way that works best with surround.
as do i, but i have never heard an audiophile hate 5.1/7.1
Well no, but they don't care particularly much about it either. But I'm sure they will take offense to the implication that surround in itself somehow makes for better sound. Personally I agree, wtf is 22 channels good for? Nothing is what. I can't imagine anybody actually needing more than 6.1 for anything. Stereo, surround, vertical and sub should complete the illusion if the mixer knows wtf he's doing.
[QUOTE=BmB;16428118]Well no, but they don't care particularly much about it either. But I'm sure they will take offense to the implication that surround in itself somehow makes for better sound. Personally I agree, wtf is 22 channels good for? Nothing is what. I can't imagine anybody actually needing more than 6.1 for anything. Stereo, surround, vertical and sub should complete the illusion if the mixer knows wtf he's doing.[/QUOTE] Where the hell do you guys come up with all of this? Audiophiles *real audiophiles, not the just kid who saves up for a year to buy his front left and right reference models and can't afford any more* will never ever decline the chance to do a high quality 5.1 system for movies/games. Now if you get your mits on a two Magnaplanar's you could live with just two lol.
Why are we discussing speakers and sound in a monitors and video thread?
Because it has to do with a certain video format.
[QUOTE=Odellus;16428789]Because it has to do with a certain video format.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't.. 1080p just means 1,080 horizontal lines of pixels. It can be DivX, h.264, AAC, anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.