Time to Upgrade from you HDTV to UHDTV

[DJNY]

Me either.

But got a projector

The Optoma 131x. I just use it for watching films (2-3 / month) and for playing PS3 games.


I´m looking forward to the PS4. My projector is good at least for the next 3years. Full HD and very awesome 3D. Paid $800 and it´s much nicer than the $2000 55" Samsung LED a friend of mine has

Good to know TonyT :beer: , I think DJNY's projector is sounding pretty good and it has 3d

~ LB

With the Supertooth Disco 2 and the Tupplur Ikea roller shutter along my window I´m pretty happy what I got for <$1000

I used to watch Hobbit 3D yesterday with a friend of mine. We were totally amazed by the picture during the whole movie.

 

[Lazerbeak]

So cool DJNY, I was always concerned about projectors having a washed out image but the contrast looks good

One day, Need a bigger wall and some $ Spending it all on Lasers right now

~ LB

 

[Bionic-Badger]

Those retina displays are actually pretty good, but more for the fact that they mimic the resolution of paper, and therefore you can produce crisper lines and fonts, than the ability to pack more distinguishable data on the screen.

 

[Lazerbeak]

That's interesting as the debate is whether or not the human eye can even distinguish the difference past a certain resolution. Mimicking paper kind of makes sense.

~ LB

 

[Eudaimonium]

I only ever use my HD TV to play games on it, when I feel like moving my PC from my room to living room. That's all I ever do with it, my folks watch some news and shows but it's pretty much off 90% of the time.

Now, with this stupidly high resolution numbers, first off no GPU is going to run games at those resolutions (most are capped at 2540x1440 per one display panel or something like that anyway), second, even if they did, the performance drop would probably be unbareable for anything other than highest of ends PCs. Which I don't have.

For the moment they cost way too much money and offer nothing in return.

Not to mention that in this part of the world, there's neither HD content being aired, nor is an average's person internet connection fast enough for HD. There's literaly not much reason to buy even the "so outdated" HD TV.

 

[tonyt]

Not to mention that in this part of the world, there's neither HD content being aired, nor is an average's person internet connection fast enough for HD. There's literaly not much reason to buy even the "so outdated" HD TV.

We have had 1080HD free to air tv for a decade in Australia.. Actually.. A little more than a decade.. All we have is digital now as all analogue signals have been turned off. If you don't have a digital TV you need a set top box or you can't get tv anymore.

 

[Eudaimonium]

We have had 1080HD free to air tv for a decade in Australia.. Actually.. A little more than a decade.. All we have is digital now as all analogue signals have been turned off. If you don't have a digital TV you need a set top box or you can't get tv anymore.

I do have digital TV, analogues where shut down 2 years back IIRC.

But I sincerely doubt it's in 1920x1080 pixels resolution. It looks freaking horrible if you are sitting at my preferred distance, which is the one when you're still able to read pixel font.

Sometimes when we want to watch a movie, I'll bring my computer, plug it in via HDMI and play any of the 8-12GB movies I've got, and difference is stunning. Same when firing up a game. The difference in percieved sharpness of the imagine is very large.

 

[DJNY]

Those retina displays are actually pretty good, but more for the fact that they mimic the resolution of paper, and therefore you can produce crisper lines and fonts, than the ability to pack more distinguishable data on the screen.

I don´t know how many $$ I saved since I got my iPad3 in April 2012. The retina screen is so good that I no longer need to print out university papers for learning. Even 6 hours of learning from the screen and I got no headache. I´m using Adobe for higlighting textparts and writing down comments. For longer text stuff I use Office2 HD. The compatible Logitech keyboard (costs around $100) is a very useful investation for this device.
A friend of mine has the iPad2 with the original Apple keyboard. She couldn´t learn from the screen, she learned from my iPad after her experiences with the iPad2. The Apple keyboard isn´t near as good as the Logitech keyboard. It has a worse pressure point than the Logitech and is thicker.

So here the higher resolution is definitely a big + in my book.

 

[benmwv]

Yeah, you can definitely tell the difference. They claim a human eye can't see the pixels at this resolution. Well I can see the individual pixels on both my retina iphone (960x640, 326ppi) and my gs3 (720x1280, 306ppi). I do think the new gs4 and htc one could truly be past the point where you can see the pixels with 1920x1080 and both > 400ppi displays.

 

[Eudaimonium]

Well what they really mean is, you can't tell the individual pixels from one another under normal viewing conditions (half an arm's lenght) at over 300ppi.

But what's it got to do with TV's?

 

[DJNY]

Was an excursion from my personal experiences with UHD on Smart devices.

Have yet to see an UHD TV!

 

[Bionic-Badger]

I only ever use my HD TV to play games on it, when I feel like moving my PC from my room to living room. That's all I ever do with it, my folks watch some news and shows but it's pretty much off 90% of the time.

I still consider TVs relatively "backwards" when it comes to resolution. These 1080p screens have only recently become common and mainstream where it's been relatively standard for almost a decade on PCs.

Now, with this stupidly high resolution numbers, first off no GPU is going to run games at those resolutions (most are capped at 2540x1440 per one display panel or something like that anyway), second, even if they did, the performance drop would probably be unbearable for anything other than highest of ends PCs. Which I don't have.

For the moment they cost way too much money and offer nothing in return.

Well you could say the same about moving beyond 1024x768 too, that you really get "nothing in return" at least substantially. It's not like you're gaining all that much more visual detail, or that the effects are any grander. Yet higher resolutions, such as 1920x1200, are still quite nice to game with simply because you can see more detail, or have graphics smoother. At higher pixel resolutions effects such as aliasing are hidden within the pixels as well. Plus, advanced gaming hardware becomes mainstream a year or two after it is initially released, so I wouldn't knock it just because you can't afford the highest end at the moment. Trickle-down hardware innovations and all that.

I'd love to have that resolution, not so much for games, but for the added desktop space. It would nearly double my current resolution, though I think the vertical resolution should be a proper computer 2400px high, not that lame 2160 that comes from the lower-quality TV standards. Then I could fit even more tasks on my vertical taskbar without it creating a horizontal scrollbar.

I don´t know how many $$ I saved since I got my iPad3 in April 2012. The retina screen is so good that I no longer need to print out university papers for learning. Even 6 hours of learning from the screen and I got no headache.

So here the higher resolution is definitely a big + in my book.

Though I'm fine with reading documents on a regular computer monitor (IPS type), it would definitely be an improvement on the retina display.

Pixel resolution is definitely one of those things that you can never have too much of unless the supporting hardware can't deal with it.

 

[Eudaimonium]

Far more simpler to get a second monitor to increase your desktop space. I "borrowed" my dad's monitor, now I have two.

Can't imagine myself living on single-monitor now.

Primary one is 22" 7 year old 1680x1050, showing it's age in yellow-tint white, compared to second one, which is 19" 1024x768. It sounds horrible, but it rocks tits.

Have music and IM programs on second display while gaming, or scretching Blender across both, it's beautiful.

 

[Bionic-Badger]

Not simpler, but cheaper.

But yeah, once you go with two you can't go back. Even those people who think it'd be too much: once they try it, they'll love it.

Still, having a single large monitor (larger than two) avoids the span between the screens, maintains color consistency across the entire desktop (I've got it close, but it can never be perfect), and increases vertical space as well. With higher pixel densities the screen itself wouldn't have to be all that much larger -- maybe 30" for the primary -- and I could still add a second monitor in addition to the primary. However, I think I'll be holding off upgrading monitors until I can get higher pixel densities and good screen technology.

I'm pretty happy with my current setup with two monitors of the same size. I've contemplated adding a third monitor on the right side, but I'd have to shift the desk and move the printer. Computer desktop real estate is great stuff, but real-desktop real estate sometimes can't keep up! I think my attraction to large monitors comes from when I was a kid and always had a small monitors (14" I think?) and couldn't afford anything better. It did make it easier to play Starcraft though, since I didn't have to look across large spans of monitor space to see where stuff was.

 

[RawPaul]

It's the commercials. They drive me insane, and led me to drop cable years ago.

I was at my brother's not long ago, and he does have regular TV's and service.

Couldn't stand watching anything, and was on netflix within 15 minutes.

There are literally CONSTANT,LONG,LOUD, STUPID commericals. After having gotten used to watching shows without commercials, I really don't understand how people do it.

I mean the typical half hour slot is filled by shows that run only ~20 minutes. If there is an intro, you're lucky to get 19 minutes of what you've actually sad down to watch.

Want to watch an episode of something that'sanhourlong? No problem, sit through 17-20 minutes of commercial breaks.

I don't have any delusions about he value of my time, but neither do I want to simply waste my time being bombarded with ads for things I'll likely never need, or want. It's beyond me that people are willing to sit there zombified for a third of the time.

I haven't had cable in over 10 years. Nothing but re-runs of the same boring crap. A few shows I like come over the air so I watch those, but record the others on my PC using a tuner card that way I can skip the commercials. My only problem with all this tech is it does no good to have a million pixels if the picture starts cutting out and freezing due to poor broadcasting or a bad transfer on-line. At least with the old analog you might have gotten a little static but you could at least tell what was going on.
Heaven forbid it starts to storm. Yea, even cable craps out then. I'll be happy when they come out with the wireless holographic glasses that stream right in front of your eye so I can continue watching while I go to the fridge or bathroom.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

I'll be happy when they come out with the wireless holographic glasses that stream right in front of your eye so I can continue watching while I go to the fridge or bathroom.

If you're going to dream, DREAM BIG!

I want direct neural stimulation that can bypass my lousy ears, and crappy eyes, add in smell, feel, and taste... complete immersive sensory input, but without the body getting in the way.

What do you suppose is the resolution of the brain? :tinfoil: