Main > Main Forum
Petition to tv makers (your thoughts about that)
<< < (15/22) > >>
Blanka:

--- Quote from: saurian333 on January 07, 2010, 05:31:42 am ---Modern video games (also HD resolution)
--- End quote ---

The PC versions show that real modern games don't give ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- about the resolution. They are resolution independant. I like COD on my pivotted widescreen. I always shoot the bad guys from the roofs and towers first. And the N64 emulator shows that Mario Kart 64 renders perfectly at 1600x1200 :)
saurian333:

--- Quote from: Blanka on January 07, 2010, 09:15:24 am ---
--- Quote from: saurian333 on January 07, 2010, 05:31:42 am ---Modern video games (also HD resolution)
--- End quote ---

The PC versions show that real modern games don't give ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- about the resolution. They are resolution independant. I like COD on my pivotted widescreen. I always shoot the bad guys from the roofs and towers first. And the N64 emulator shows that Mario Kart 64 renders perfectly at 1600x1200 :)

--- End quote ---

I guess I meant to say "ratio" again, didn't actually mean "resolution."  I also meant current-generation consoles, specifically.  I should have specified that.  You're absolutely right about PC games; different animal, though.

As long as the topic of resolution has come up, I have to say that it does make a difference on some games.  I can play PS3 games on my monitor, but not usually on the TV.  While the PS3 will adjust to the TV's AR and resolution, certain elements (usually HUDs, speedometers, etc.) are impossible to read, sometimes rendering a game unplayable (COD4 being one of them).  They've put too much detail into the newer games to be able to view them properly at 640x480.

That sort of brings us back to how some people feel about LCDs for their classic games.  They're generally higher-res than arcade monitors or TVs, and provide a much clearer, crisper image.  Some people like that, and others like the old-school, traditional feel.

But again, I was actually referring to HD aspect ratio; "resolution" was a slip of the tongue (so to speak), and is actually neither here nor there in this discussion.
DJ_Izumi:
I personally very much like 16:9 and similar wide screen resolutions.  I have nothing agianst them.  The reason I have big old CRTs is cost and support of my light guns.  When your do gaming events and you want more TVs of your own to bring, it's a lot more economical to pick up used high end CRTs for less than $100.  Of course then you're trying to weasel a 99lb 27" Sony Trinitron out of the back of a sedan and get it into a university building or hotel, you're suddenly grunting out "I SWEAR TO GOD, MY NEXT TV WILL BE LCD."

And honestly, if so many movies have to be shown letter boxed on a 4:3 screen, is some pillar boxing on a 16:9 screen for old games and TV shows -really- so bad?
Blanka:
Most movies are letterboxed on 16:9 too.
The thing is mainly wether you consume media, or interact with it. If it's just consuming TV and HD games, 16:9 is fine. If those are just a small part of your digital lifestyle, 16:9 makes much less sense. I think 3:2 would be closest to your vision working-in-detail part. 16:10 screens work very good for me, and sometimes I turn them vertical for those typing and reading days. Reading text on 16:9 screens stinks.
RayB:

--- Quote from: protokatie on January 07, 2010, 05:25:22 am ---Not to derail, but speaking of "buzzword, kneejerk consumer sheep herding", has anyone seen the ads on TV for the new "Sun glasses with HD vision?".

--- End quote ---
In the 1990's the very same glasses were called "Blue Blockers".

Lasik or some other laser eye surgery chain also advertises "HD vision".
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page

Go to full version