Support NeoGAF

[BlazeHedgehog]

Don't worry next gen if they leave you in dark lets see how that line feels. Either way I'm not affected by your backwards thinking on displays and how they effect the end uers.

Leave me in the dark how? Wagging a finger with the threat of totally undefined possibly negative consequences does nothing.

"Don't do that man, or it's somewhat possible you might vaguely get left behind one day maybe, I guess!"

I just said that games that are supposedly "built for HD" look beautiful on an SDTV with component cables. The small text in Dead Rising and Lost Planet can be read clear as day. Unless the next generations of hardware go HD exclusive, I think I'm going to manage just fine with the set up I currently have.

As for the possibility of the next generation going HD exclusive - not bloody likely. Maybe the generation after next (we're talking the year 2018, here), but certainly not the generation after the 360/PS3. Not after what the Wii has proven. If HD is in enough proliferation for them to be confident enough to go HD exclusive, chances are I'll already have an HDTV by then anyway. Which is why I'm not likely to give a shit for at least another four years.

But please, don't go all tinfoil hat about how I'll be left behind because I'm still using component cables on an SDTV. It makes you look silly. :lol

 

[Kosma]

But please, don't go all tinfoil hat about how I'll be left behind because I'm still using component cables on an SDTV. It makes you look silly. :lol

But you are left behind. No ifs buts or maybe's about that.

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

But you are left behind. No ifs buts or maybe's about that.

I'm left behind by being perfectly happy with my current set up and in no way disadvantaged by it?

Yeah, okay. You do that.

 

[Davidion]

But you are left behind. No ifs buts or maybe's about that.

He really isn't. If anything, his position is typical of the average media consumer more than anything else.

 

[dark10x]

It still won't look like the blurry shit from page 2 on most peoples CRT TV's. DVD's still look pretty impressive on a good SDTV, and yes, I've seen plenty of footage in 1080p (also, PC (true) HD-era since the late 90's).

Yes, but on an HDTV, that is how a DVD will look.

The fact that DVDs are not blurry on an SDTV simply demonstrates that such displays lack the resolution to show its faults.

You may say "Well, if it doesn't show its faults on an SDTV...what's the problem?". The problem is lack of detail. Again, this is obviously a matter of opinion (as demonstrated in this thread), but there is only so much detail present in a 720x480 image. On an SDTV, it may not appear blurry, but that doesn't mean its displaying any additional detail either. You're presented with an interlaced, low resolution image rather than a progressive blurry one. The amount of detail present in the scene remains the same.

For many of us, this low resolution simply isn't enough. The largest problems stem from display size. A DVD looks quite reasonable on a small display (even a high resolution one), but when you're talking 50" or higher, DVD resolution simply won't cut it. The lack of detail becomes rather obvious at that point. HD movies were made for such displays.

Buying into HD movies doesn't require you to re-buy your DVD library either. I mean, unlike VHS to DVD, you can still use DVDs on your new Blu-ray player and they will probably look a tad better than they did using an older player. You can simply begin buying movies in HD while hanging onto your DVDs as well.

Still, I think HD is far more important for games than films. DVDs at least produce a smooth image when displayed on a large display. It may not be all that sharp, but at least you won't slice your retinas on it. 640x480 gaming, however, is awful (especially when stretched to fill a widescreen display). Older consoles along with the Wii simply look terrible on a large HDTV.

He really isn't. If anything, his position is typical of the average media consumer more than anything else.

Sometimes it's difficult to tell if people truly believe what they are saying OR if they've simply convinced themselves that it doesn't matter due to the lack of funds.

 

[Durante]

I think the argument shouldn't be about display size, but about display size relative to watching distance. I use a relatively paltry 24" display for all my media and gaming needs, and I can easily tell the difference between 480p, 720p and even 1080p.

Then again, I also see a difference between 2xAA and 4xAA at 1920*1200.

 

[gkryhewy]

Well, most people say that you can only see a big difference, not only on a bigger set, but with 1080p through HDMI..

In my case, I don't care..as long as it plays on the TV and there's sound..

No one ever says this.

 

[Davidion]

Sometimes it's difficult to tell if people truly believe what they are saying OR if they've simply convinced themselves that it doesn't matter due to the lack of funds.

Honestly, cost has everything to do with a consumer's value priorities. This is even considering that a decent HD setup can be had at a price point under $1.5k for the budget conscious.

The fact is, even with all the industry and retail push towards the HD continuum, all this specs talk and resolution babble is really relevant mostly within the realm of the videophile/gadget nerd types. All the HD nuances is still often lost on general consumers and in most cases comes a distant second to the actual content. It's rather silly to think otherwise.

 

[AstroLad]

I think the argument shouldn't be about display size, but about display size relative to watching distance.

Yep, they are both absolutely important. I think the point dark was making was that display sizes are getting bigger and bigger--what used to be outrageous "big screen" is now becoming the norm, thanks in large parts to improvements in flat panels and correspondingly smaller footprints, weight, etc. and that video tech is keeping pace with that. Maybe in 1990 it was cool to have a huge screen where the picture looked like shit (as it invariably did), but now people don't want to make that compromise--even many average consumers are starting to demand a decent-sized screen and good picture quality.

The fact is, even with all the industry and retail push towards the HD continuum, all this specs talk and resolution babble is really relevant mostly within the realm of the videophile/gadget nerd types.

It's very true that the mass market has not yet fully grasped the idea of HD content even if they have HD sets, but things are improving. As to perceived benefit, it's one thing to not know that the 360 has an HD "switch," but once someone shows you and that switch is flipped, the reaction is usually "wow." As people get their heads around the tech, we are seeing more and more of that Wow Effect every day. And that's good for us gamers imo.

 

[dark10x]

It's very true that the mass market has not yet fully grasped the idea of HD content even if they have HD sets, but things are improving. As to perceived benefit, it's one thing to not know that the 360 has an HD "switch," but once someone shows you and that switch is flipped, the reaction is usually "wow." As people get their heads around the tech, we are seeing more and more of that Wow Effect every day. And that's good for us gamers imo.

Exactly. People may not be in tune with setting up HD equipment, but a lot of them are greatly impressed when they experience it. If you show a football fan a game broadcast in HD, for instance, they ARE going to see the difference and likely be rather impressed. They may not have a clue how it all works, but they'll know it looks much better.

 

[Davidion]

It's very true that the mass market has not yet fully grasped the idea of HD content even if they have HD sets, but things are improving. As to perceived benefit, it's one thing to not know that the 360 has an HD "switch," but once someone shows you and that switch is flipped, the reaction is usually "wow." As people get their heads around the tech, we are seeing more and more of that Wow Effect every day. And that's good for us gamers imo.

Exactly. People may not be in tune with setting up HD equipment, but a lot of them are greatly impressed when they experience it. If you show a football fan a game broadcast in HD, for instance, they ARE going to see the difference and likely be rather impressed. They may not have a clue how it all works, but they'll know it looks much better.

Ahh but see, now you're looking at a situation where people have to see the comparisons side-by-side in order to perceive a difference. This is contingent on them either seeking out such a comparison or happening upon one, which again isn't so typical. Once this happens, now you're looking at the consumer having to enter the value proposition phase, which is where the cost prohibitions have to be taken into consideration. Sure you have an HDTV, but how much additional resources are you going to invest into getting that "real HD" picture? Time and time again we've seen that people are more than willing to watch SD content on HD TV, and that many people go HD for convenience and the lack of other available other options and that sales may not directly translate into a necessary demand for actual HD content.

Anecdotally, I can tell you that for my gf, she's a huge TV fan and will go as far as recording the HD over SD contents for a show with such a choice, but seeking out exclusive HD content or look into getting a Blu-ray/HD-DVD player? Not really a big issue for her. Again, it's a situation where the video quality, while noted and preferences are had, is tremendously overshadowed by the actual content and the costs it takes to procure such content in HD.

Regardless, I think we're getting into the debate over whether or not a difference between HD and SD exists when I was just trying to comment on the general state of the market. I agree with the majority here in that the difference exists, definitely. The transition from SD to HD, is certainly inevitable. However, as I hinted above, I think that the impression that said difference has on the consumer market, at least for the time being and imo for the immediate future, is terribly exaggerated by video/techno-philes. Based on some of the sales reports and research that I've perused from work and elsewhere, I don't think that the market reality strays too far from my views.

As for HD being good for gamers, I don't disagree at all. However, shit like that is more fodder for console wars around here more than anything else. :lol I will say that personally, as much as I enjoyed Crysis with all of its graphical prowess displayed in full glory, I had just as much fun, if not more, playing No More Heroes.

 

[Ranger X]

Because SDTV needs to die. Like now. And this is coming from someone who hasn't gotten a HDTV yet. SDTV's death would dramatically drop prices on HDTVs.

Why not buy one when the prices are in line with what you're ready to invest? Right now you totally chose to stay in the SD era for now and that's fine. Why would i convince you that you're wrong? Your stance and the stance of millions and millions of other people is totally valid and respectable. SDTV will die in time. Meanwhile, i don't see why HD people should try to convince SD people are wrong. When they see the benefits they will upgrade and that's all.

 

[AstroLad]

Looking back through some of these earlier posts it makes me wonder if as many Cheap Ass Gaffers were kicking and screaming about the death of the "RF Era." :lol

NEVER FORGET!

 

[dark10x]

Fortunately, studios can and are making money on Blu-ray right now even with DVD on the market. I believe studios will generally be happy to support DVD, Blu-ray, and digital distribution. Regardless of which format you choose, you are still buying their film. DVD and Blu-ray can exist to together and Blu-ray is only going to continue to grow (while DVD is likely to remain pretty constant).

I will say that personally, as much as I enjoyed Crysis with all of its graphical prowess displayed in full glory, I had just as much fun, if not more, playing No More Heroes.

That doesn't really have anything to do with HD vs SD (although I can't for the life of me understand your point of view, but hey ).

 

[Rolf NB]

It's a fucking shame that there exists no standard for what can and what cannot be labeled as an "HDTV" in the USA. Threads like this demonstrate why it's a shame.

 

[Davidion]

Fortunately, studios can and are making money on Blu-ray right now even with DVD on the market. I believe studios will generally be happy to support DVD, Blu-ray, and digital distribution. Regardless of which format you choose, you are still buying their film. DVD and Blu-ray can exist to together and Blu-ray is only going to continue to grow (while DVD is likely to remain pretty constant).

Oh that's true, but it's the rate at which it will grow that people always tend to exaggerate.

As for the big "DECLINE OF THE DVD" that people always seem to wear on their lips, they conveniently don't seem to note that said decline have been miniscule and the market is still just a few billion dollars too big to be overtaken or even remotely matched by any contenders.

That doesn't really have anything to do with HD vs SD (although I can't for the life of me understand your point of view, but hey ).

From a gamer's perspective, you're talking about a comparison of two games that both play well but are on the completely opposite sides of the graphics spectrum, one being very low quality graphics and the other being the most graphically advanced game out on the market in any format.

Oh, and don't try to start that shit. :lol

 

[LRB1983]

Blade Runner DVD vs Blu Ray

 

[dark10x]

From a gamer's perspective, you're talking about a comparison of two games that both play well but are on the completely opposite sides of the graphics spectrum, one being very low quality graphics and the other being the most graphically advanced game out on the market in any format.

See, I didn't think NMH really played well. That was my problem with it. I loved the concepts, the art direction, and the general presentation...but the gameplay. I really really wanted to like it, but in the end, I actually enjoyed the gameplay in Killer 7 a lot more (despite the fact that it was much more simplistic). Man, I really wanted to love NMH...

 

[Dr von plutt]

Its not really sdtvs inability to display good images that is the problem. I mean xbox360, dvds, ps2 and blu-ray all look fabulous on an good sdtv with rgb or component. ( or atleast on a pal set).

Its when you try to play dvds, ps2 on a modern hidef fixed resolution display the problems show their ugly head.

 

[Davidion]

See, I didn't think NMH really played well. That was my problem with it. I loved the concepts, the art direction, and the general presentation...but the gameplay. I really really wanted to like it, but in the end, I actually enjoyed the gameplay in Killer 7 a lot more (despite the fact that it was much more simplistic). Man, I really wanted to love NMH...

I thought combat was fantastic (and pretty simple, in fact), and the rest of the game was pretty thematically cohesive. I won't get into this more here, we're digressing enough as it is. :lol

Never did get around to play Killer7. Still looking to pick that up...

 

[No Means Nomad]

Stop it. Resolution matters for games and SDTVs are pretty much garbage for anything next-gen and even old gen stuff. Bragging that your games look better when you can't see anything is just silly.

 

[VAIL]

Pshaw.

This is how I roll.

 

[Dr von plutt]

Stop it. Resolution matters for games and SDTVs are pretty much garbage for anything next-gen and even old gen stuff. Bragging that your games look better when you can't see anything is just silly.

]

There are two things here. One in which resolution the game is rendered in and 2. in which resolution the game is displayed in.

Regardless what tv you use. most 360 games are rendered in the same resolution and then scaled up or down.

and with that said. No matter what resolution you display that game you posted in.. it will still look like a 5 year old pc game, same with the wii.

 

[LCGeek]

Leave me in the dark how? Wagging a finger with the threat of totally undefined possibly negative consequences does nothing.

"Don't do that man, or it's somewhat possible you might vaguely get left behind one day maybe, I guess!"

I just said that games that are supposedly "built for HD" look beautiful on an SDTV with component cables. The small text in Dead Rising and Lost Planet can be read clear as day. Unless the next generations of hardware go HD exclusive, I think I'm going to manage just fine with the set up I currently have.

As for the possibility of the next generation going HD exclusive - not bloody likely. Maybe the generation after next (we're talking the year 2018, here), but certainly not the generation after the 360/PS3. Not after what the Wii has proven. If HD is in enough proliferation for them to be confident enough to go HD exclusive, chances are I'll already have an HDTV by then anyway. Which is why I'm not likely to give a shit for at least another four years.

But please, don't go all tinfoil hat about how I'll be left behind because I'm still using component cables on an SDTV. It makes you look silly. :lol

Actually that wasn't my point you said you couldn't give a shit, I was just saying if they go all progressive or force what will happen in the hdtv realm you needing a conversion box you will be needing to give a shit if you want to play games. I can easily see all three next gen in some form forcing this on users in some way. Nor do I make threats as they usually are devoid of any real reason or substance. SD on rgb monitor is fine on a TV it's shit works for you fine but most are moving off and for good reason. The companies don't need to go hd they can just go pscan only which is at least edtv that will be enough to most people switch who haven't by then.

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

Stop it. Resolution matters for games and SDTVs are pretty much garbage for anything next-gen and even old gen stuff. Bragging that your games look better when you can't see anything is just silly.

[IMG]http://i29.tinypic.com/2vmvvh2.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i29.tinypic.com/dw5pqw.png[/IMG]

Maybe it's because I have eyes, but I can read everything just fine on the "SD" image. Sure, the "HD" image looks better, but not it's not "DROP EVERYTHING YOU ARE DOING AND BUY IT NOW" better.

If my current TV spontaneously combusts or something I'll probably push to get an HDTV, but no sooner. Quit being a stupid videophile and get off your high horse and realize not everybody gives a shit about this stuff quite as much as you do. Seriously; when people go "OMG, YOU HAVE TO GET HD YOU REALLY DO" I picture it being spoken by one of those high-class assholes who practically have a heart attack because you spent $0.75 on a can of Pepsi instead of some high priced "premium" beverage.

Fuck you, I like Pepsi.

 

[MoxManiac]

I hope the PS4 and 720 are component/HDMI only and don't support 480i. Actually, It could display a "PLEASE UPGRADE YOUR TV TO USE THIS MACHINE" when plugged into a SDTV.

 

[dark10x]

Maybe it's because I have eyes, but I can read everything just fine on the "SD" image. Sure, the "HD" image looks better, but not it's not "DROP EVERYTHING YOU ARE DOING AND BUY IT NOW" better.

If my current TV spontaneously combusts or something I'll probably push to get an HDTV, but no sooner. Quit being a stupid videophile and get off your high horse and realize not everybody gives a shit about this stuff quite as much as you do. Seriously; when people go "OMG, YOU HAVE TO GET HD YOU REALLY DO" I picture it being spoken by one of those high-class assholes who practically have a heart attack because you spent $0.75 on a can of Pepsi instead of some high priced "premium" beverage.

Fuck you, I like Pepsi.

Let's not get confused here. While he may have been trying to make a strong point, that is an AWFUL comparison.

Nobody is suggesting that HD is for everyone right now, but to suggest that there is only a very minor difference between high resolution and low resolution material is just crazy.

Have you ever tried connecting a PC to your TV, by the way? Even resolutions as low as 800x600 are incredibly difficult to read on an SDTV and look absolutely awful. That demonstrates the difference right there.

 

[Pein]

Well I can't really tell the difference between 1080p and 720p games

 

[dark10x]

Well I can't really tell the difference between 1080p and 720p games

Which games are you speaking of (I'm curious)?

 

[LCGeek]

Well I can't really tell the difference between 1080p and 720p games

There really isn't outside of resolution.

Problem with that is most hd games this gen are built for 720p in terms of the asset and content quality level. In a sense to me no game has really been built for a 1080p resolution despite the fact some render at in the slim instances they do.

 

[Pein]

Which games are you speaking of (I'm curious)?

ninja gaiden sigma and the darkness

 

[dark10x]

ninja gaiden sigma and the darkness

Ninja Gaiden Sigma is not 1080p. It upscales to 1080p, but it is not a native 1080p game. The Darkness (on PS3) isn't even 720p, though (it's like 600p upscaled).

A true 1080p game would be something like Ridge Racer 7. Ninja Gaiden supports true 720p as well, so that might be a good comparison (both are 60 fps).

 

[just tray]

then you must play games with beer goggles on

 

[jett]

Its not really sdtvs inability to display good images that is the problem. I mean xbox360, dvds, ps2 and blu-ray all look fabulous on an good sdtv with rgb or component. ( or atleast on a pal set).

Its when you try to play dvds, ps2 on a modern hidef fixed resolution display the problems show their ugly head.

Eh I dunno, at least in the case of the PS3, it downscales the games in the most horrible way on SDTVs(it looks like they're running on a Ridge Racer 5 filter), when they're not proroperly designed to run in SD, at least.

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

Let's not get confused here. While he may have been trying to make a strong point, that is an AWFUL comparison.

Nobody is suggesting that HD is for everyone right now, but to suggest that there is only a very minor difference between high resolution and low resolution material is just crazy.

Have you ever tried connecting a PC to your TV, by the way? Even resolutions as low as 800x600 are incredibly difficult to read on an SDTV and look absolutely awful. That demonstrates the difference right there.

Yeah, but that difference applies to plugging your PC into your TV. It wasn't designed for that, unless you're talking about a media center PC with a specific interface designed to display well on TVs. It's kind of amusing actually; Watching TV on my PC looks kind of blurry and using my PC on my TV looks kind of blurry.

But I don't see what the problem is in that. Would it be nice to use my PC on my TV? I guess, but again, it's not "HOLY SHIT DROP EVERYTHING AND GO BUY THIS RIGHT NOW" important, contrary to way some people seem to act about it.

The people who try and force HD on me drive me away from the format a lot more than the actual format itself does. I'd love HD, eventually. I will make sure I try and get an HD enabled TV when I next need purchase one. But to have some hoity-toity assholes constantly screaming in my ear about how what I'm using is "garbage" and how I'm "holding them back" and generally not being very friendly towards a TV I still love very much (and loves me back very much), I just want to be as far away from whatever nonsense sounds like they're trying to peddle; regardless of the products actual usefulness in my life.

 

[Ranger X]

Eh I dunno, at least in the case of the PS3, it downscales the games in the most horrible way on SDTVs(it looks like they're running on a Ridge Racer 5 filter), when they're not proroperly designed to run in SD, at least.

I find it to be great personally. Only thing that is extremely cheap is that the PS3 doesn't seem to have some comb filter feature for low res. This makes the SD games looking shaky, kinda like the pixels oscillating.

 

[dark10x]

But I don't see what the problem is in that. Would it be nice to use my PC on my TV? I guess, but again, it's not "HOLY SHIT DROP EVERYTHING AND GO BUY THIS RIGHT NOW" important, contrary to way some people seem to act about it.

You missed my point. It isn't about using your PC on your TV, I simply intended it to serve as a demonstration of the fact that your SDTV is unable to resolve high resolution imagery well. The text becomes unreadable simply because your TV is unable to resolve it. The same applies to movies and games. You will end up missing a lot of detail that would be present on an HD display.

DVDs look fine on an SDTV, but they are still missing a lot of picture detail.

 

[evilromero]

I stayed in a hotel with a huge HDTV running an HD signal. It was beautiful and both my dad and myself could tell the difference. But to be honest I never once thought, "I want this". Rather, it was just a novelty that didn't hold any importance.

 

[dark10x]

I stayed in a hotel with a huge HDTV running an HD signal. It was beautiful and both my dad and myself could tell the difference. But to be honest I never once thought, "I want this". Rather, it was just a novelty that didn't hold any importance.

Really, you can't expect EVERYONE to adopt something. My Grandma was perfectly fine with VHS, for instance, but that doesn't mean millions of others hungered for more. If people are fine with old technology, they can stick with it and be happy.

It's like framerates for me. I can't stand dips in framerate, but a lot of folks never notice or care when it drops.

 

[Spasm]

I did a comparison a while back, cause I thought that bilinear or bicubic up-sampling of DVDs to 1080p to compare with their 1080p native counterparts on AVS was showing DVD in an unfairly positive light.

These are both frame captures, unfiltered, save for contrast on the SD side, which was washed out.

Hay Guyz!

Click for full size, or you miss the point!


Edit: For thumbnail, and for props to Xylon on AVS for the BD captures.

 

[dark10x]

I did a comparison a while back, cause I thought that bilinear or bicubic up-sampling of DVDs to 1080p to compare with their 1080p native counterparts on AVS was showing DVD in an unfairly positive light.

These are both frame captures, unfiltered, save for contrast on the SD side, which was washed out.

Hay Guyz!

Full size Jack, mirrored.

Ohhh, beautiful. That's the best comparison I've seen yet as it truly demonstrates the raw difference between the frames without any filtering. Do you have any more shots like that?

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

You missed my point. It isn't about using your PC on your TV, I simply intended it to serve as a demonstration of the fact that your SDTV is unable to resolve high resolution imagery well. The text becomes unreadable simply because your TV is unable to resolve it. The same applies to movies and games. You will end up missing a lot of detail that would be present on an HD display.

DVDs look fine on an SDTV, but they are still missing a lot of picture detail.

Yeah, but so what? I'm not surprised my TV can't handle 8pt font in 800x600. It's a tiny font. Having bigger, clearly readable text in console games never really seemed to be that much of a detriment before. That's my main issue with it; outside of being able to see every strand of hair on Gandalf's beard, exactly what benefits are there?

It's not like you stop enjoying Dead Rising just because the subtitles are rendered at twice their original size, and I don't want to be overloaded with a complicated HUD just because a game has screen space to waste. I love the simplicity of game like Phantasy Star Online's interface versus the almost always cluttered screenshots I see of World of Warcraft's HUD. And while I know WoW has a very customizable HUD, apparently you still need a lot of that stuff turned on to know where you're going and what your team is doing.

HD is a little bit clearer. A little bit crisper. That does not exactly spell out "necessity for survival on planet earth". The situation feels very much like I am holding a delicious apple and somebody comes up to me and says "For $5 more you could have an even better apple grown by the most critically acclaimed apple orchard in all the world." No, that's okay, this apple looks pretty tasty as it is. Thanks for the offer, though.

 

[Spasm]

Ohhh, beautiful. That's the best comparison I've seen yet as it truly demonstrates the raw difference between the frames without any filtering. Do you have any more shots like that?

Nope, just those two. And for everyone complaining that the DVD shots on page 2 look like a blurry mess.... Well... How else do you expect a low-resolution image to look when blown up to 3 times its size. It's either blurry, or the examples I gave.

 

[LCGeek]

Yeah, but so what? I'm not surprised my TV can't handle 8pt font in 800x600. It's a tiny font. Having bigger, clearly readable text in console games never really seemed to be that much of a detriment before. That's my main issue with it; outside of being able to see every strand of hair on Gandalf's beard, exactly what benefits are there?

It's not like you stop enjoying Dead Rising just because the subtitles are rendered at twice their original size, and I don't want to be overloaded with a complicated HUD just because a game has screen space to waste. I love the simplicity of game like Phantasy Star Online's interface versus the almost always cluttered screenshots I see of World of Warcraft's HUD. And while I know WoW has a very customizable HUD, apparently you still need a lot of that stuff turned on to know where you're going and what your team is doing.

HD is a little bit clearer. A little bit crisper. That does not exactly spell out "necessity for survival on planet earth". The situation feels very much like I am holding a delicious apple and somebody comes up to me and says "For $5 more you could have an even better apple grown by the most critically acclaimed apple orchard in all the world." No, that's okay, this apple looks pretty tasty as it is. Thanks for the offer, though.

Bigger fonts require more space and in the end limit how much can be done same for huds. Granted wow is cluttered doing something like that in vga would suck hardcore and require even more of a messy HUD.

HD has nothing to do with clarity that's actually dot pitch which tvs in general suck at.

 

[dark10x]

HD is a little bit clearer. A little bit crisper. That does not exactly spell out "necessity for survival on planet earth".

You're blowing things WAYYYYY out of proportion here.

It's simply a means to entertainment. Settle down.

My only point is this: everyone has a different opinion on whether or not HD is worth it, but there is no denying that HD offers a significant increase in quality.

The method in which you present your opinion makes it seem as if you are informing us that there is virtually no difference between a low resolution DVD and a 1080p Blu-ray disc rather than simply stating that "it isn't for you".

Why are you taking such a negative stance against it? That's what I don't get. You act as if HD is destroying your life or something. Nobody is demanding that YOU personally purchase an HD product, we are simply noting the drastic differences between them. Whether or not those differences matter to an individual determines whether or not one will purchase it...but that doesn't mean those differences do not exist. The fact that you are satisfied with SDTV does not change any factual information on what HD offers.

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

Bigger fonts require more space and in the end limit how much can be done same for huds. Granted wow is cluttered doing something like that in vga would suck hardcore and require even more of a messy HUD.

HD has nothing to do with clarity that's actually dot pitch which tvs in general suck at.

...HD has everything to do with clarity, in my opinion. Displaying a higher resolution image in the same space as a lower resolution image means the higher resolution image is probably going to look clearer, especially if the lower resolution image is being stretched to compensate for the space it is being displayed on.

Sort of like the comparison shots in this thread where people take a DVD image and blow it up to HD resolution and put it next to a real HD image and go "See! HD is clearer."

I get that bigger fonts require more screen space, but again, that never really seemed to be a detriment to games previously. Rather than sticking everything on screen all at once, learn to organize your shit better so you don't HAVE to have it all on screen at once. That's what I was getting at with the PSO comparison.

 

[dark10x]

I get that bigger fonts require more screen space, but again, that never really seemed to be a detriment to games previously. Rather than sticking everything on screen all at once, learn to organize your shit better so you don't HAVE to have it all on screen at once. That's what I was getting at with the PSO comparison.

From this angle, I should note that PSO is a very simplistic game. PC gamers have always enjoyed significantly more complex games than what you might find on a console and resolution played a huge role in that. Believe it or not, there are people who do not wish to see everything simplified. :O

In addition, some of us simply like small fonts. I love using high resolutions on my PC just as I love small HUDs in games. It's a matter of preference.

 

[Shockgamer]

I envy those who are happily enjoying the world of HD, for I have tried multiple times and come away unsatisfied each time.

First, I tried a Samsung Slimfit HDTV in 2005, as a christmas present to take to the dorm. The picture was garbage, blurry, bad geometry, double images, the works. I eventually pawned it off on a relative who wasn't infected with enough knowledge on the subject to care.

In 2006, I bought an Acer 24 inch monitor that reports 6ms response. It's fine for the web and it's fine for 2d side scrollers and slow games, but it's a mess for FPS and Racing games. I still have it, but don't PC game on it (save for Game Tap).

Last Christmas, I tried an LG LCD and got turned off by the smearing and lag. I found an old Sony WEGA 34 inch set. The HD was great, but the SD quality, not so much. It also weighs a friggin ton and there was no way I could accomdate such a deep set.

So here I am with a monitor I use for surfing and retro games and a peasant-vision SDTV. It's likely going to stay that way until Nintendo stops supporting the Wii or OLED becomes buyable. Whatever comes first. It blows, because despite everything I have seen that my 360 can look much better, but there's nothing I can do about it. *Sigh*

 

[LCGeek]

...HD has everything to do with clarity, in my opinion. Displaying a higher resolution image in the same space as a lower resolution image means the higher resolution image is probably going to look clearer, especially if the lower resolution image is being stretched to compensate for the space it is being displayed on.

Sort of like the comparison shots in this thread where people take a DVD image and blow it up to HD resolution and put it next to a real HD image and go "See! HD is clearer."

I get that bigger fonts require more screen space, but again, that never really seemed to be a detriment to games previously. Rather than sticking everything on screen all at once, learn to organize your shit better so you don't HAVE to have it all on screen at once. That's what I was getting at with the PSO comparison.

This is exactly why I got into displays once I started getting into transcoding and vga boxes.

Clarity isn't controlled by the amount of detail allowed. If that hdtv didn't have a better dot pitch the content displayed on them would look like shit. This is the same reason why as you jack the resolution on a crt things become harder to read.

Look it up you'd be surprised what you find out.

 

[dark10x]

The HD was great, but the SD quality, not so much. It also weight a friggin ton and there was no way I could accomdate such a deep set.

So here I am with a monitor I use for surfing and retro games and a peasant-vision SDTV. It's likely going to stay that way until Nintendo stops supporting the Wii or OLED becomes buyable. Whatever comes first. It blows, because despite everything I have seen that my 360 can look much better, but there's nothing I can do about it. *Sigh*

Err, the SD quality on that CRT should have been pretty good. If you were not satisfied with it, no TV will satisfy you (especially not something like OLED).

If you can live with the SD, however, a good plasma would be a great fit for you right now.