pimperjones' forum posts

Avatar image for pimperjones
pimperjones

3116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 pimperjones
Member since 2006 • 3116 Posts

[QUOTE="pimperjones"]


[QUOTE="shawty1984"]


[QUOTE="pimperjones"]For a guy with only 162 posts you are cocky, I give you that.shawty1984



Oh, not another one.

Ive had this argument with a poster who had the same views as resolution as you have and he also stated my post count.

WHAT HAS MY POST COUNT GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING. Yes, Im shouting.


LMAOL I think I've touched on a sour note my boy. Touchy, touchy, don't start crying yet it's almost Chistmas it's a time of festivities, not tears. You just picked the wrong Pimp to mess with. It's not my fault that you're a noob who gets his info from google, while I get mine from actual working experience. No need to start CAPITALIZING ALL YOUR POSTS NOW. This was the rise that I was trying to get from you from the start. Mission accomplished. Another cocky noob in tears.




If your sole purpose is to post false information on the internet and then try and get people angry, all the while giving yourself the name the pimp, while trying to get yourself out of a hole you have dug by mentioning my low post count,I would look in the mirror before you post any more, because that my friend is one sad situation.


The hole I dug???? I'm not the one crying here.
You lost the debate the moment you neglected to mention viewing distance in your stupid reply. In your sad attempt to sound condescending you forgot to mention the one thing that would have made your argument valid.
I think I've proven beyond a shadow of doubt as who won the debate. You fcked up kid, now just face it and quit pretending to be some guru. Google geniuses like you are dime a dozen, being able to google that 1080p = 1920 x 1080, don't make you some kinda Tzar of the topic. And trying to teach someone who actually works in media, about media with your googled knowledgeis sadly laughable.
I only did what someone should have done a long time ago, which to expose you for the noob that you are.
It was your arrogance and ego, that got you into this mess. So, your tears is justified.
And don't give me that sht about how you mentioned viewing distance in your other posts, I don't read posts by noobs unless they are directed at me. And for the sake of our argument, you mentioned jack squat, and for that you failed epically. Don't make me bring up the fact that I had to correct you with 3 mentions of viewing distance, before you realized your epic failure.

End of schooling. Noob 0 The Pimp 3.
Bring on the tears

Avatar image for pimperjones
pimperjones

3116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 pimperjones
Member since 2006 • 3116 Posts
LOL The argument is over. It's just a flame fest now. "We're going to the mattresses."
Avatar image for pimperjones
pimperjones

3116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 pimperjones
Member since 2006 • 3116 Posts

Unfortunately for you, between you and him he was the first one to bring up distance from the TV in the discussion between you two. :P In the post of yours he quoted, you were talking about 1080p in relation to television size without mentioning the distance from the TV at all. If you like I can quote the original post and you can highlight where you mentioned distance, because you didn't. He mentioned that what you said is incomplete, distance matters too. If you agreed with his simple single sentence, you probably shouldn't have launched into a debate about it. Something like 'yeah, I left that part out' would suffice.Makari
Wrong in our debate, I mentioned distance first. I will prove it. This was his original argument. Take a close look, you will see no mention of DISTANCE.

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".

This was my reply.

That's a false assumption, 1080p makes no difference on a PSP or a DSi. So size does matter, because resolution perception is directly related to viewing distance and image size. A 23", 15", 13" 1080p display would have to be used as a PC monitor for any real benefit. While a 42" 1080p can be viewed from a distance and still be effective. To judge image resolution without taking into account size and viewing distance is ignorance. That's why PSP and DSi don't come in 1080p. As I said before as a TV set, 42" is the beginning of 1080p glory.

Notice that I mentioned distance not once but THREE TIMES. When he realized that he had made a mistake. This became his reply.

No, your wrong. 1080p is 1080p. This does not change due to screen size. 1080p will look the same at 22" as it does at 60" if both are viewed from the correct distance. The bigger screen you get does not mean 1080p gets better. 1080p can never get better, resolution is fixed. Like I said, 1080p is 1080p, its the same amount of pixels on the screen, it WILL look the same.

Now, who brought up distance first in our debate? I think my point has been proven. I don't give a flying hoot what he wrote before our debate. I'm NOT gonna go and read every single post this dude has ever made. I'm only interested in our debate. In our debate, I clearly mentioned distance first, and he clearly realized that he fcked up and decided to change his tune later. It's obvious that he thought I was some two bit fool, but realized he was dealing with the PIMP. No pun intended. Nobody messes with the pimp on his own turf. LOL

Avatar image for pimperjones
pimperjones

3116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 pimperjones
Member since 2006 • 3116 Posts
For a guy with only 162 posts you are cocky, I give you that.
Avatar image for pimperjones
pimperjones

3116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 pimperjones
Member since 2006 • 3116 Posts

The following statements are based on logic and common sense. Which you apparently lack, but what you lack you make up for in ego. Congrats.

1) Most people don't live in Donald Trumps house.
So 42" is the perfect for most households who sit between 5-7 feet away. - Hence SWEETSPOT.

2) It only gets better as you go up.
The bigger the pixel the more likely you are to see each minute detail, such as film's grain particles.
Hence it gets better as if goes up. That's why bigger TVs cost more. By your logic a 60" is no better than a 22". Your logic is flawed.

3) I think 32" 1080p TV is an overkill. Reason you need to sit closer than3 feet to actually see the details. So unless you're using it as an PC monitor it is a overkill.

Sorry but I'm destined to bust up your Ego today.

The ego on you is astounding. If I have no clue of image resolution I gotta get a new job, as I work in the media sector. Unlike you I get my facts from the source and not google. I've worked on 2K displays running DaVinci Suites thank you very much.

Avatar image for pimperjones
pimperjones

3116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 pimperjones
Member since 2006 • 3116 Posts

Thanks for pointing out the exact same point that I was making before you decided to get on your high horse to lecture me about TV resolution. Maybe you should have read my post before declaring yourself the Tzar of display technology. I said from the the gekko that it's all dependent on size, and distance. Why you started the argument outside of satisfying your own ego is beyond me.

Avatar image for pimperjones
pimperjones

3116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 pimperjones
Member since 2006 • 3116 Posts
That's was my point from the start, that detail is subjective to distance in accordance to pixel size. 22" needs be used as a PC monitor not a TV. And TVs sweet spot is around 42" as most people sit roughly 5feet or more. And that the details become more apparent as the size increases, and the details become less apparent as the size decreases. The reason they don't have 1080p on handheld is cause 2millions pixels is not visible to naked eye at such small sizes, which by the way defeats your whole argument. I'm glad you decided to add viewing distance as key factor to image detail after I pointed that out to you. Here's your original argument, NOTE no mention of viewing distance what so ever.

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".

I'm glad that you found out viewing distance is a key factor after I mentioned it to you.

To judge image resolution without taking into account size and viewing distance is ignorance

I'm also glad that you started using my argument as if it were your own after you found out that you were wrong.

IF BOTH ARE VIEWED FROM THE CORRECT DISTANCE (did you get that bit?)

Yeah I got it, maybe because I was the one that brought it to your attention.
Avatar image for pimperjones
pimperjones

3116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 pimperjones
Member since 2006 • 3116 Posts
And buddy stop with your 1080p is 1920x1080, even my grandmother knows that. I assure you my knowledge of the display mediums far exceeds my grandmothers. So, stop fronting. It's really annoying. What you're saying is that the 2,073,600 pixels looks the same regardless of size. I'm telling you it doesn't. 2,073,600 pixels at 100" and above looks horrible, because the pixels are too big and you start to see the flaws in the signal.