You're such a sore loser. Looks better does not mean the resolution is higher Einstein. Bigger pixels does not mean higher resolution. Are you slow or something? I think 100ft theaters looks better than 50ft theaters. Doesn't mean I think 100ft theaters have higher resolution. I know for a fact that both theaters are running the same 35mm print. But you know what I think 100ft theaters look better. Debates are won with proof not childish rants. I have already proven my point by quoting our original replies. What's wrong, can't handle it. Prove me wrong.
shawty1984
Your really strange at debating.
Lets take a comment from one of your earlier posts.
"Thus a 23" 1080p set looks different from a 42" 1080p set. For the simple reason that each individual pixel is bigger as the TVs get bigger."
Thats nonsesne and you know it. Pixel size does not relate to the screen looking better or not. All it means is that the larger the TV the TV the bigger the pixel size the further back you need to be, you wont see any extra detail in a 100" 1080p TV over a 22" 1080p TV if both are viewed from the correct distance. Listen boy don't you ever put words in my mouth again. I said looks different not higher resolution, just like how 100ft movie theater looks different from a 50ft theater. If you can find me ever mentioning that a bigger 1080p TV has higher resolution, that a smaller 1080p TV. I will call you the pimp. Until then, don't assume what I mean. Read what I say. I suggest you read what Soyt has said. You may learn something. Did you not pass grade school?
You're such a sore loser. Looks better does not mean the resolution is higher Einstein. Bigger pixels does not mean higher resolution. Are you slow or something? I think 100ft theaters looks better than 50ft theaters. Doesn't mean I think 100ft theaters have higher resolution. I know for a fact that both theaters are running the same 35mm print. But you know what I think 100ft theaters look better. Debates are won with proof not childish rants. I have already proven my point by quoting our original replies. What's wrong, can't handle it. Prove me wrong.
Your changing the argument yet again because your losing a battle you can never win.
No,teaching you how to read, so that you understand what the original debate was about. If you need lessons in English or reading comprehension, I know someone who can help. Now that you've read our original posts, don't you just feel like a fool. Poor boy, you still have not figured out how to refute my 35mm analogy. LOL
The irony. Before calling someone else childish, you need to ask yourself who started writing only in CAPITALS? Real, men don't get upset, they get technical. And honestly who here beside you would benefit from crying to the mods? Rastan? Me? No, Occams Razor would suggest that only you would go to the mods, as no one else stands to benefit. Back to topic. From the very start It would seem to me, that you simply stumbled upon a wiki that states that 1080p = 1920x1080 and thus decided to crown yourself the Tzar of image resolution. I've tested you many times, with slight pointers just to see if you actualy understand the technical aspects of what you claim to understand so vividly. Yet, you failed in every test, with that aside I will start from scratch. My original post
It's all subjective. If you have really poor vision 480p and 1080p won't even make a difference. As far as 42" goes, YES 100% 42" is the sweet spot for 1080p. It only gets better as you go up. I think 32" 1080p TVs are a overkill. But 42" 1080p. You'd be blind not to see the difference. At 1080p is when you begin to actually see the fine grains of the film. At 720p it looks sharp, but at 1080p it looks grainy sharp. Very hard to explain. At 1080p is when you start to actually see the very grain like particles that actually compose the image. It's like getting really close up to an oil painting and you start seeing the texture of the canvas.
Where in my post did I ever mention 1080p increases in resolution as you go up? Nowhere. My first sentence was it's all subjective. Your reply.
There is no sweet spot for 1080p. 1080p is 1080p which is 1920 x 1080. Resolution does not change due to screen size, it will be the same amount of pixels on the screen. 1080p does not get better with bigger screen size. 1080p at 22" is the same as 1080p at 60".
Where in my post did I ever say that resolution changes as you go up in size??? You need to read and not assume or dream. Does it say anywhere in my post that 1080p becomes 2K when it the TV gets bigger? No. Right away you lost. Because you were essentially arguing against something that only exists in your imagination. You state that I suggested that 1080p becomes higher resolution as the TV gets bigger? Where do you see this? Are you iliterate? The rest of the argument pretty much has me explaining that viewing experience changes as the size of the format changes,even if the resolution stays the same. Which you have yet to refute. My simple analogy which you have yet to be able to counter. Is that 35mm/70mm never changes in it's resolution threshhold. Thus according you your logic, projected film viewing experience is the same no matter what size the projection is. Which would negate the value of IMAX, thus rendering you mute point of 60" being the same as 22" if the resolutions match. The reason why nobody agrees with your opinions on this matter is not because others lose the debate. Judging by 162 posts you haven't won many debates anyways. The reason is cause you make no sense half the time. And you have no means of articulating your views. Honestly you debate like a 13 year old. Reading your sentences is like reading the rambling of a child, sometimes you don't even make any sense.
Stop changing the topic. Do you think there is a difference between 60" tv and 22" tv in one's viewing experience? 1080p, 2k, 8K, 35mm, 70mm, is irrelevant here. All of these are fixed resolution threshholds some analog, others digital, they all look different depending on what medium they are viewed at. Contrast, screen size, color gamut, all change the viewing experience. The question is simple, 60" and 22" = Difference? If not, then I will never agree with you. Simple as that.
I never said thatresolution becomes higher, I said viewing experience. 1080p resolution does not change. Neither does 35mm resolution. Both formats retain their own resolution threshhold regardless of display size. But the bigger the display, the more emmersive the experience, the more the resolution becomes more apparent. The resolution is always there, but it's about seeing it and experiencing it. Very simple, bigger theater screens = better movie going experience. The resolution never changes whether you watch your movie in a small 50ft theater or a large 100ft theater. But the viewing experience changes. Otherwise there would be no point of having IMAX and huge multiplexes. The viewing experience changes, not the resolution. One can never get the same viewing experience form 22" compared to 100". That was my point.
Stop using distance as a means to force your opinion. From Mars everything on Earth looks the same. Does that mean it's all the same? Scientifically speaking you move far enough everything even the grand canyon will look like nothing more than a spec. Does that make everything the same? Distance changes everything, but one cannot use distance as a means to equalize all subjects of different sizes. From where we stand, the sun looks no bigger than an orange, I assure you the sun is much bigger than the orange.
My lack of knowledge???? The kettle is calling the pot black. Since our debate I have demonstrated that my knowledge of both analog and digital resolution far exceeds what little you learned on google. Every time I got technical, you stumbled. And you have the audacity to scrutinize my knowledge? LOL
Face it you lost the argument 1080p is just a digital interpretation of a film's native analog resolution. Thus my analogy still stands. A 35mm film print projected in 100ft theater will look better than 50ft theater As a 1080p digital BluRay film will look better in 100" TV than a 22" TV. The resolution doesn't change in either the 35mm print or the 1080p source, but by changing the size of the projection, the viewing experience changes.
Why, because resolution is not everything. This was my orginal point. SIZE MATTERS.
You obviously have not got a clue of what your talking about. Waffle on all you like, 1080p does not look better on larger screens, its that simple.
LMAOL You just got schooled my friend. I happen to be expert on both digital and analog resolution threshholds. I've worked on 16mm/35mm/70mm and have done various digital Intermediate work on all analog formats from 2K-4K. The only thing I haven't seen is 8K. I've proved again, that you're just a google noob. As soon as I bring on the film analogy and you lost your mojo. Where's all your spunk, where's the snazzy comeback? What you refuse to believe is that resolution is not the only factor in viewing experience. Nobody is arguing that 1080p is not 1080p at smaller scales. What you are trying to argue is that 1080p at any scale looks the same. Which is sadly an amateur mistake. Example: 35mm film yields a much higher resolution threshhold than 1080p, even higher than 2K or 4K. Yet everyone knows that your viewing experience changes according to the size and type of screen the 35mm film is projected on. Thus a resolution is not the only factor in viewing experience.
Log in to comment