Ive Been Tweetered
05-16-2005, 06:35 PM
#201
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wsklar
a) I can post pics of cars, doesn't mean I own them.
b) I dont care if you do or not
b) I dont care if you do or not
People have seen them in person. They know I have them. You are seriously the dumbest person I have ever met on the internet. I don't care what diplomas or BS certificates you have. You cannot comprehend the most simple and basic statements and reply with things like "well I like it because it says HD on the TV". You made a comment saying I can't afford 9k in A/V. You made yourself look like a complete asshole because of that. Anything else?
05-16-2005, 06:36 PM
#202
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by wsklar
Funny, its creating stress for me 
man, it's just talk on-line about a stupid TV. My goal was to be sure you know what you were buying, and that you were happy with your purchase.
You going to have to light my cat on fire or kick my dog/knock up my GF to make me mad or stressed out... lol
05-16-2005, 06:36 PM
#203
Go Giants
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JarodL
People have seen them in person. They know I have them. You are seriously the dumbest person I have ever met on the internet. I don't care what diplomas or BS certificates you have. You cannot comprehend the most simple and basic statements and reply with things like "well I like it because it says HD on the TV". You made a comment saying I can't afford 9k in A/V. You made yourself look like a complete asshole because of that. Anything else?
I don't think I am the one making myself look like an asshole....
05-16-2005, 06:37 PM
#204
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wsklar
I don't think I am the one making myself look like an asshole....You really can't be that dumb can you? Did you not say I can't afford 9k in AV equipment. Yes or no?
05-16-2005, 06:38 PM
#205
Go Giants
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by SiGGy
man, it's just talk on-line about a TV. My goal was to be sure you know what you were buying and that you were happy.
You going to have to light my cat on fire or kick my dog/knock up my GF to make me mad... lol
You going to have to light my cat on fire or kick my dog/knock up my GF to make me mad... lol
05-16-2005, 06:40 PM
#206
Go Giants
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JarodL
You really can't be that dumb can you? Did you not say I can't afford 9k in AV equipment. Yes or no?
05-16-2005, 06:42 PM
#207
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wsklar
Dude, stop sucking your dick. I don't know you, I don't know who saw what you say you have and I don't actually care. If you can afford 9L in AV stuff, congrats! You the man
Your an idiot. Don't make comments acting like your a big shot because you can buy a 9k POS A/V setup, and call other people out. You made a comment, I made you look like an idiot. Im not "sucking my dick".
05-16-2005, 06:42 PM
#208
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ATL
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SiGGy
yes, there are LCD displays with that resolution. And plasma, they are VERY $$ and not availble at best buy.
Oh I dont disagree on color temp. It's like having a set of near field studio monitors that are +/- 1dB from 90hz to 20k. They will reproduce music as the original recording artist intended. However some folks are use ot hearing music way colorized, and they EQ it. Or buy speakers that have way too much bass or treble.
NOW, color temp and video resolution are two different things both are subjective. If I took a 1080 LCoS rear projection TV and his "HD" 1024x768 TV and put them next to one another with a 1080i signal going into it. The difference would be night and day...
In the audio world, this would be like listening to a 64kbit MP3 and a 320KBIT. 64kbit being his "HD" tv, and 320kbit being a LCoS 1080 TV. Difference is night and day...
Ya, analog sucks
I look forward to the day the cable companies stop doing it for the low channels.
However I have 400+ channels, only 60 of are analog. 16 of them are HD (with only 6 full time HD)
Oh I dont disagree on color temp. It's like having a set of near field studio monitors that are +/- 1dB from 90hz to 20k. They will reproduce music as the original recording artist intended. However some folks are use ot hearing music way colorized, and they EQ it. Or buy speakers that have way too much bass or treble.
NOW, color temp and video resolution are two different things both are subjective. If I took a 1080 LCoS rear projection TV and his "HD" 1024x768 TV and put them next to one another with a 1080i signal going into it. The difference would be night and day...
In the audio world, this would be like listening to a 64kbit MP3 and a 320KBIT. 64kbit being his "HD" tv, and 320kbit being a LCoS 1080 TV. Difference is night and day...
Ya, analog sucks
I look forward to the day the cable companies stop doing it for the low channels.However I have 400+ channels, only 60 of are analog. 16 of them are HD (with only 6 full time HD)
I found this quote on the AVS Forum which sums up what I am trying to say.
"My suggestion to you is quit worrying about the specs and just enjoy the picture."
My Hitachi Plasma suites my needs perfectly and looks great, but I must say, if a DLP or LCos display would have worked for me I may have gone that route. To each his own...
05-16-2005, 06:49 PM
#209
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by PHUNBALL
I found this quote on the AVS Forum which sums up what I am trying to say.
"My suggestion to you is quit worrying about the specs and just enjoy the picture."
My Hitachi Plasma suites my needs perfectly and looks great, but I must say, if a DLP or LCos display would have worked for me I may have gone that route. To each his own...
It's a cop out to my aspect ratio resolution argument which I noted in a post above. I'm hoping you respond too.
What that statement means is; enjoy what you have. And I'll agree with that. However there is still a clear winner. And it's not the 4:3 resolution plasmas stretched to 16:9 screens. That concept is inherritantly wrong, for many reasons.
I'm going to call a spade a spade here..
You basically don't know how to argue this... which is why you posted that.
8-9 pages in, NO ONE has address the issues of a 4:3 aspect ratio resolution stretched to a 16:9 screen. Why? because I don't think most people understand it.
05-16-2005, 06:51 PM
#210
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ATL
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SiGGy
I just wanted to add, the problem ISN'T the resolution here. It's aspect ratio.
1024x768 and 1024x1024 should only be used on a SQUARE 4:3 TV. PERIOD.
Both are NOT widescreen resolutions. THIS is where the problem comes in...
Do you see what I'm getting at?
1024x768 and 1024x1024 should only be used on a SQUARE 4:3 TV. PERIOD.
Both are NOT widescreen resolutions. THIS is where the problem comes in...
Do you see what I'm getting at?
ALiS - ALiS (alternate lighting of surfaces) technology developed by Fujitsu/Hitachi for plasma panel displays. On a conventional plasma TV, all pixels are illuminated at all times. With an ALiS plasma panel, alternate rows of pixels are illuminated so that half the panel's pixels are illuminated at any moment, somewhat similarly to interlaced scanning on a CRT-type TV. This allows higher native resolution than designs with discrete pixels (typically 1,024x1,024 versus 1,024x768 for 42-inch plasmas).
05-16-2005, 06:53 PM
#211
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ATL
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SiGGy
No it doesn't... it's a weak reply to a technical question asked.
It's a cop out to my aspect ratio resolution argument which I noted in a post above. I'm hoping you respond too.
What that statement means is; enjoy what you have. And I'll agree with that. However there is still a clear winner. And it's not the 4:3 resolution plasmas stretched to 16:9 screens. That concept is inherritantly wrong, for many reasons.
I'm going to call a spade a spade here..
You basically don't know how to argue this... which is why you posted that.
8-9 pages in, NO ONE has address the issues of a 4:3 aspect ratio resolution stretched to a 16:9 screen. Why? because I don't think most people understand it.
It's a cop out to my aspect ratio resolution argument which I noted in a post above. I'm hoping you respond too.
What that statement means is; enjoy what you have. And I'll agree with that. However there is still a clear winner. And it's not the 4:3 resolution plasmas stretched to 16:9 screens. That concept is inherritantly wrong, for many reasons.
I'm going to call a spade a spade here..
You basically don't know how to argue this... which is why you posted that.
8-9 pages in, NO ONE has address the issues of a 4:3 aspect ratio resolution stretched to a 16:9 screen. Why? because I don't think most people understand it.
05-16-2005, 06:54 PM
#212
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by PHUNBALL
Here is the technology my display is based on. Some people state that the resolution is more like 1024x512 pixels which would give you roughly a 16:9 display therefore aspect ration would not really be an issue.
ALiS - ALiS (alternate lighting of surfaces) technology developed by Fujitsu/Hitachi for plasma panel displays. On a conventional plasma TV, all pixels are illuminated at all times. With an ALiS plasma panel, alternate rows of pixels are illuminated so that half the panel's pixels are illuminated at any moment, somewhat similarly to interlaced scanning on a CRT-type TV. This allows higher native resolution than designs with discrete pixels (typically 1,024x1,024 versus 1,024x768 for 42-inch plasmas).
ALiS - ALiS (alternate lighting of surfaces) technology developed by Fujitsu/Hitachi for plasma panel displays. On a conventional plasma TV, all pixels are illuminated at all times. With an ALiS plasma panel, alternate rows of pixels are illuminated so that half the panel's pixels are illuminated at any moment, somewhat similarly to interlaced scanning on a CRT-type TV. This allows higher native resolution than designs with discrete pixels (typically 1,024x1,024 versus 1,024x768 for 42-inch plasmas).
Your still running around the aspect ratio problem.
1024x512= 2:1
16:9 as I have said probably 8 or 9 times now is 1.78:1
To makeup for the difference that 1024x512 will be cut down even further.
05-16-2005, 06:56 PM
#214
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by PHUNBALL
See above, this only applies to my particular display...
again, your not addressing the aspect ratio problem. And how your display has to sacrifice pixels to display a 16:9 program. Lowering your actual resolution.
05-16-2005, 07:03 PM
#215
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ATL
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SiGGy
Your still running around the aspect ratio problem.
1024x512= 2:1
16:9 as I have said probably 8 or 9 times now is 1.78:1
To makeup for the difference that 1024x512 will be cut down even further.
1024x512= 2:1
16:9 as I have said probably 8 or 9 times now is 1.78:1
To makeup for the difference that 1024x512 will be cut down even further.
Last edited by PHUNBALL; 05-16-2005 at 07:05 PM.
05-16-2005, 07:10 PM
#216
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by PHUNBALL
Not bad, but you are forgetting that Plasma displays do not have square pixels, they are rectangular strectched along the horizontal.. This will make the pixel edges a bit softer, but it will display a 16:9 image with some scaling being performed. But, a lot of what we are arguing is still relatively subjective because the quality of scalers, etc. vary greatly so all displays are going to be different...
I'm not forgetting anything...
Agreed if the plasma had a 16:9 resoltion to start with. but it doesn't so it has to do bad things to the image to make it display correctly.
Here since you can't get it. I went and did the corrections manually in photoshop.
orignal 1080i picture
What it would look like displayed on your 1024x1024 with NO image translation, just scaled down.
What it looks like with proper scaling/resoltion changes. look the time loss...
what it looks like translated to 1024x768
05-16-2005, 07:10 PM
#217
Go Giants
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JarodL
This thread should be renamed "2005 Convention for Fucking Retards Who Like to Make Themselves Look Like Idiots" and then close it. 
05-16-2005, 07:11 PM
#218
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ATL
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SiGGy
I'm not forgetting anything...
Agreed if the plasma had a 16:9 resoltion to start with. but it doesn't so it has to do bad things to the image to make it display correctly.
Here since you can't get it. I went and did the corrections manually in photoshop.
orignal 1080i picture
What it would look like displayed on your 1024x1024 with NO image translation, just scaled down.
What it looks like with proper scaling/resoltion changes. look the time loss...
what it looks like translated to 1024x768
Agreed if the plasma had a 16:9 resoltion to start with. but it doesn't so it has to do bad things to the image to make it display correctly.
Here since you can't get it. I went and did the corrections manually in photoshop.
orignal 1080i picture
What it would look like displayed on your 1024x1024 with NO image translation, just scaled down.
What it looks like with proper scaling/resoltion changes. look the time loss...
what it looks like translated to 1024x768
05-16-2005, 07:12 PM
#219
Go Giants
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by PHUNBALL
Pictures???
05-16-2005, 07:14 PM
#221
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ATL
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand exactly what you are saying. What you don't understand is that I am saying even with the scaling and processing that is taking place you still end up with a damn good looking image, that's it. I'm not trying to argue the technical aspects of any of this. Have you seen a Plasma displaying an HD source? Do you honestly think it looks bad, maybe not as good as it could be, but it still looks very impressive don't you think???
EDIT: I took out the quote, pics are too big...
EDIT: I took out the quote, pics are too big...
Last edited by PHUNBALL; 05-16-2005 at 07:17 PM.
05-16-2005, 07:16 PM
#222
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by PHUNBALL
I understand exactly what you are saying. What you don't understand is that I am saying even with the scaling and processing that is taking place you still end up with a damn good looking image, that's it. I'm not trying to argue the technical aspects of any of this. Have you seen a Plasma displaying an HD source? Do you honestly think it looks bad, maybe not as good as it could be, but it still looks very impressive???
I have seen both 4:3 wierd ass aspect ratio ones like you guys have and 16:9 ones. The 16:9 ones clearly have a better picture.
Does it look bad? YES, depending on what I'm comparing it too...
if i didn't know any better, probably not. but I do...
05-16-2005, 07:18 PM
#223
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wsklar
Fine, but you still need to post a new topic stating that everyone who purchased a 1024x768 Plasma TV is an idiot. And don't wimp out by posting something gay like "Are you an fucking moron like wsklar?" Be a man and just put it out there.
Check the forum big shot. Anything else I can't afford/do? Do you care to make a fool of yourself anymore? Let me guess, Siggy doesnt know shit about electronics and he wishes he could be as smart as you?
05-16-2005, 07:19 PM
#224
Go Giants
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by SiGGy
I have seen both 4:3 wierd ass aspect ratio ones like you guys have and 16:9 ones. The 16:9 ones clearly have a better picture.
Does it look bad? YES, depending on what I'm comparing it too...
if i didn't know any better, probably not. but I do...
Does it look bad? YES, depending on what I'm comparing it too...
if i didn't know any better, probably not. but I do...
I barely watch TV that much to notice
05-16-2005, 07:20 PM
#225
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by wsklar
Its been said on this post, ignorance is bliss. The pics look fine to me.
I barely watch TV that much to notice
I barely watch TV that much to notice
I figured as much, which is why I stopped talking about the TV to you
problem is, I don't have a way to display them in 16:9 when I translated them. Both of your TV's break my dots pet inch rule. I need to modify that to show you what the final would look like.
05-16-2005, 07:20 PM
#226
Go Giants
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JarodL
Check the forum big shot. Anything else I can't afford/do? Do you care to make a fool of yourself anymore? Let me guess, Siggy doesnt know shit about electronics and he wishes he could be as smart as you?
What about SiGGy?
05-16-2005, 07:21 PM
#227
Go Giants
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by SiGGy
I figured as much, which is why I stopped talking about the TV to you
Lets drink to that.
05-16-2005, 07:23 PM
#229
Go Giants
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JarodL
You called the guy an asshole, now your trying to be friends with him.
05-16-2005, 07:25 PM
#230
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wsklar
Most of the asshole reference was towards you. You should read the posts.
Most? You still called him an asshole. You are an idiot. We have proved that many times over in this thread. You got owned when you said I couldn't afford 9k in A/V equipment and you still have yet to answer that.
05-16-2005, 07:25 PM
#232
Go Giants
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JarodL
You called the guy an asshole, now your trying to be friends with him.
I thought you had the balls to do it.
This was posted as a joke. Another one of the genius's that posts here.
05-16-2005, 07:27 PM
#233
Go Giants
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JarodL
Most? You still called him an asshole. You are an idiot. We have proved that many times over in this thread. You got owned when you said I couldn't afford 9k in A/V equipment and you still have yet to answer that.
Dude, stop sucking your dick. I don't know you, I don't know who saw what you say you have and I don't actually care. If you can afford 9L in AV stuff, congrats! You the man
irix