Screw MW2. Crash was the best map.
avee69's forum posts
[QUOTE="k2theswiss"]dude amount of storage don't make graphics... the amount of work omeone put's into an art makes graphicsDarkrush000
Yeah, I agree with you, but for example, let's take a multiplatform like Modern Warfare 2. The Xbox 360 uses dvd-9, which holds up 9GB of space, and the PS3 uses a blu-ray disc that holds up 25GB on a single layer disc. I mean, come on! That's one hell of a difference. If that game used, for example, 15GB, it would fit perfectly fine on a Blu-Ray disc. However, they would have to lower the graphics resolution in order to squeeze that into a dvd-9, isn't?
Maybe I'm completely wrong, but please, I need clear answers
Lots of different factors...but a couple things to consider... 1) Compression technology- It's gotten to the point where you can fit a huge game with high quality audio and video onto a DL DVD. 2) Multiplatform games generally don't utilize PS3's true power- Although the PS3 can hold more data, it is how the PS3 processes the data which gives us the graphics. The multi-plat games are generally 360 ports onto the PS3 and are not coded to use the PS3's cell processor. If you look at a first part game like Uncharted 2 and compare it to a multi-plat game you will see the true power of PS3. -Component cables can output 1080P only on select devices...in this case the Xbox 360. I had mine set to 1080P but only a handful of games are actually native 1080P. In any case, you can achieve the same picture quality with component cables then you can HDMI on the 360. The only benefit of having HDMI is that you replace 5 cables with 1 and if you are running your 360 through an HDMI reciever you will get digital surround sound audio.
No, I'm saying that most modern solid-state electronics will fail early in their life time if they are going to fail. This is common knowledge now-a-days. These warranties are sold to beef up profits, not to help the consumer.rastanThat's not entirely true. I've had a few cases at my job (I work in the Home Theatre department) where a customer bought a Sony 52'' TV and it failed after 14 months. So without one of our warranty's he was screwed. Yes people generally tend to associate failure of electronics happening within the first year...but sh*t happens and a warranty can save you some serious coin. Repair costs are retarded and 80% of the time TV's are replaced as opposed to fixed due to the high costs.
[QUOTE="avee69"][QUOTE="Shatilov"]If I buy it, I'll probably pay him 150$ every month . ... does it still matter ? ShatilovNope shouldn't matter man. Whatever works for you. so what do u say ? is it at good price if it was lowered to 800$ ? or should i go for 120 & 240 hz TVs ? & thank you for your response kind sir. Well this model retails for about $899 in Canada and the 120Hz model retails for $1099. If your getting that TV for $200 bucks cheaper then I'd say it's a pretty good buy. But if you shop around for a 120Hz TV, it will at least give you a price difference. I would say if you can get a 120Hz model for $200 more go for it.
32 inch at 720P is going to work. It is easier to reproduce a picture on a smaller screen. I've tested Blu Ray on a 32' 720P Samsung and it looks phenomenal. Super sharp and clear image, even though it's not running 1080P. The 1080P model of Samsung looked very comparable, a bit sharper but it's nothing your going to complain about. Just make sure if your watching a movie or gaming, that you run through HDMI.
If I buy it, I'll probably pay him 150$ every month . ... does it still matter ? ShatilovNope shouldn't matter man. Whatever works for you.
I sell TVs and this looks like the 60 Hz model because of the 65. I live in Canada and our 60Hz model is the 67 and the 120Hz model is the 77. Sharp is a popular seller, I would consider them up there with Samsung. This looks like an the entry level model, but I think the 120Hz model isn't a big price difference. In Canada anyways the jump from the 60hz to the 120hz is a difference of $199. You are doubling the amount of frames on the screen so If gaming it is a key spec to look for. Generally the people I sell the upgraded model to are people that are into there sports, movies (especially action movies with explosions, fast scenes) and video gaming. 60Hz will look fine, but think of 120Hz as adding a couple additional codes of paint to a room.
I find when watching normal television shows there isn't a HUGE difference, slightly sharper...but it definitely cleans up the lag/judder that I found when I was watching a hockey game in HD. 240Hz is the new thing on the block, so 120Hz is a good midrange TV at this point. I always say that your don't buy a TV every day, if your going to spend a lot of money you might as well spend a little bit more to get something better that you will enjoy in the end.
For this TV, the contrast is low on this model. When you get to the 120Hz the contrast will at least double. Contrast ratio is a nice tool when comparing the same manufacturer, but don't compare Sharp's contrast to another brand...say LG. There is no standard way to measure contrast ratio...so the only way to compare is through the same brand because they measure the stat their own way. Basically the higher the contrast ratio should deliver an overall improved picture. The stat is just measuring the darkest black on the screen to the whitest white on the screen.
You can look at the little specs all day but I find the main specs in Resolution (720p/1080p), Refresh Rate (60Hz/120Hz/240Hz), Response Time (Not listed here, but it should be somewhere between 6-8 miliseconds for 60hz) and then sometimes Native Contrast Ratio.
Anyways man hope this post helped. Good luck and I hope you enjoy whichever TV you end up with!
Log in to comment