82" LCD.

[JackAxe]

I won't be replacing my Apple HD 30" with this thing anytime soon, especially since it has a lower resolution and pixels the size of the moon. :) It would be great for a HD wall TV setup in a "very" large room. :)

http://www.physorg.com/news3271.html

<]=)

[jjesusfreak01]

I won't be replacing my Apple HD 30" with this thing anytime soon, especially since it has a lower resolution and pixels the size of the moon. :) It would be great for a HD wall TV setup in a "very" large room. :)

http://www.physorg.com/news3271.html

<]=)
Yeah, it may have a lower resolution, but unless youve got an Alienware computer sitting around, and some insane game to play on it, its the highest resolution you need for any type of high resolution video. 1920 by 1080 is 1080i/p, the highest HD res. Any higher resolution may be good for a computer, but its extreme overkill for a TV. Thats still 27 pixels per inch, about the same as my 720p DLP monitor (thats an estimate).

[SamuraiCatJB]

1080i/p aught to be enough for anyone.... ;) *ducks*

[JackAxe]

Yeah, it may have a lower resolution, but unless youve got an Alienware computer sitting around, and some insane game to play on it, its the highest resolution you need for any type of high resolution video. 1920 by 1080 is 1080i/p, the highest HD res. Any higher resolution may be good for a computer, but its extreme overkill for a TV. Thats still 27 pixels per inch, about the same as my 720p DLP monitor (thats an estimate).

I play Warcraft 3 at 2556x1600. ;) But I agree that for pretty much anything not 108i, like standard broadcast, that peticular screen is just money waisted for the majority of us. That's why I would only use one of those in a very large room, or for presentations, where one can get some distance(At leas 10 feet.) from its massive pixels. :) Then I think the image quality would look decent, just like all current HDs. Distance is the ultimate filter.

What ticks me off about normal TV, is that Cox, our local cable provider has been sacrificing image quality for more channels. So I'm seeing compressing artifacts on my old Trinitron now days. It still doesn't look as bad as on a HD though.

And on this topic, the last thing I thought would look good on my HD, would be DVDs. I imagined that at 2560x1600 they would look like complete interpolated vomit for how close I sit to the screen. This is going by my experiences from watching DVDs on my cousin's and friend's 1080i screens. But in all actuallity DVDs look amazing at full screen. I'm guesing that the tinier pixels helped counter the interpolation or something like that. Anyhoo, it was a pleasent surprise. But I would never watch full screen TV on it, nor buy one just for the frontroom. It works best on my G5.

But if they release a 82" that can display about 10k pixels on the width, I would want one. Even if I had to roll back and forth in my chair just to take the entire screen. :)

<]=)

[jjesusfreak01]

But if they release a 82" that can display about 10k pixels on the width, I would want one. Even if I had to roll back and forth in my chair just to take the entire screen. If I remember correctly, this is about the resolution that film movies are converted to for digital archiving. So, eventually, maybe we can watch LOTR on a 10000 by 8000 pixel screen, what do you think about that?

As for watching DVDs, get a nice CRT projection. Most of them can display different sources in their native format, so a DVD is actually 720 by 480 progressive, and HDTV displays as 1080i or 720p. They do this by simply scanning the CRT beams a little differently for each source.

[zackepceo]

UHDTV is 4320p.. which would be just acceptable on an 82" display. 100dpi is the sweet spot.

[JackAxe]

Give it to me now, but with the SHDVD version though. I would like to see every pimple. :)

I watched the Matrix Reloaded at an iMax and there was one peticular scene, where I could clearly see stretch marks, I won't go any further. :)

<]=)

[JackAxe]

UHDTV is 4320p.. which would be just acceptable on an 82" display. 100dpi is the sweet spot.

I just make up my acronyms, you know the real ones. :D

<]=)

[SamuraiCatJB]

I want 16k x 8k double buffered and updating at 120hz. :)

[JackAxe]

But you don't need that refresh rate for a LCD. :D My HD displays 60 fps, because of it's 16 ms pixel speed thingy. The 12 ms display just over 80 fps. 120 Hz is so CRT. :D :p

I want a detachable screen from my main screen that will work with my detachable video card. :)

And on that note, where can I buy a small 10" or 12" LCD that displays 1024x768 and will work on a desktop?

<]=)

[SamuraiCatJB]

yes and no... I need twice the digital frame rate of standard video... we have many cameras running up to 120fps, its that I need to merge with my display. :) I could ask for 1200fps and 10000fps, for our high speed stuff, but I did want to stay reasonable. :rolleyes: ;) :p

[zackepceo]

You do know your eyes only see at a max of at most 80 hertz? Or is this another one of those fready-deaky government secret spy document the earth-o-tron things?

[JackAxe]

Yeah what Zack said. :p Then you need a 8+ms screen. That would display 120 fps at 60 Hz. :)

Most of my projects are 29.97 fps.

<]=)

[JackAxe]

Or is this another one of those fready-deaky government secret spy document the earth-o-tron things?

They need the higher Hz in order to see the Aliens performing their anal probes. :)

<]=)

[Gizmo]

They need the higher Hz in order to see the Aliens performing their anal probes. :)

<]=)
LOL!!! I just shot my pop out my nose!

[SamuraiCatJB]

You do know your eyes only see at a max of at most 80 hertz? Or is this another one of those fready-deaky government secret spy document the earth-o-tron things?

actually, the eye sees at higher resolution in the center, lower in the peripheral. although past studies have tried to establish a maximum response rate of the human nerveous system, they have yet to do so. Everytime a study is done with 100 people and find the highest response rate is 20hz, then 45hz, then 60hz, then 80hz. Studies of only fighter pilots have topped out at 120hz, but I personally think its all relative. Eventually we will find another exception and bump it more. :)

I see at 60hz most probably, 75hz causes me trouble. :) I often tell people if monitors cause them eye strain, to change the update type (Lcd vs CRT scanline) or change the update rate until they find a comfort range.

however, there is another reason.... when you are frame-synced your response time is limited to monitor refresh rates. This also sets your processing update rate at +- 1 frame since this is a truncate operation, if you miss your display response time limit by 1ms, you miss it to the next frame.

It is actually best to run twice as fast, or even faster than your incoming data rate, this I have written in several white papers. If your incoming data is 10hz and your output rate is 10hz, but miss one time segment by 1ms, you loose a full frame to 9hz, and an entire visualization of an incoming data point. By running twice your incoming data rate, you are guarenteed to operate and display within 1/2 of your incoming rate and guarenteed to never "miss" a visualization point. Even if you miss a frame, the next one catches it at just shortly past 1/2 of a incoming data point, well before the next data point.

If your incoming data is 60hz, the only way to guarentee to the bigwigs that you have visualized and responded to every data point, is to run at twice the incoming data rate, 120hz. :p

either that or 120hz is the operational frequency of the nerveous systems of the aliens at roswell.... and I am supplying them with cable TV... your choice. :p

[SamuraiCatJB]

LOL!!! I just shot my pop out my nose!

which I captured at 120hz. :p

[JackAxe]

Monkeys drink pop. :D

<]=)