Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links to help keep the forum online: LEGO.com Amazon

Resolving resolution or revolving dissolution?

rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,288
This discussion was created from comments split from: The redesigned Brickset site.

Comments

  • LegoboyLegoboy 100km furtherMember Posts: 8,702

    As it stands, my primary desktop uses a trio of 30" monitors running 2560x1600, which is an improvement, but still grainy IMHO.

    A pair of glasses would have been cheaper.
    plasmodium
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    Legoboy said:

    A pair of glasses would have been cheaper.

    Sorry if I wasn't clear. It isn't grainy because I can't see, it is grainy because I can still see the pixels and aliasing from lines that aren't straight up-down or left-right.

    My eyes can see the dot pitch, until they can't, it is too course. As it stands, these 30" monitors are only 100 dpi. We'd never accept that with printing, which was at 600 dpi years ago, why we accept it with our screens is beyond me.

    My Samsung Galaxy S4 has a resolution of 1920x1080 on a 5" screen which gives it a 440 dpi resolution. I have to work pretty hard to see the pixels on that and only when holding it up close.

    At 440 dpi, my 30" monitors should have a resolution of 11,200 x 7,000, which we would call 12K... Even 4K is going to be way behind the times, 8K can't get here soon enough.

    Given the viewing distance, 8K on the desktop is probably going to be "enough", but we're probably 15 years from that happening.
  • binaryeyebinaryeye USMember Posts: 1,734

    Sorry if I wasn't clear. It isn't grainy because I can't see, it is grainy because I can still see the pixels and aliasing from lines that aren't straight up-down or left-right.

    What OS are you using? I'm viewing this in OS X on a 27" Cinema Display (2560 x 1440, ~110 ppi) from about two feet away and literally can't see any pixels. I can discern where pixels are because I know they're at the edges of cursors, windows, etc., but I can't actually see them from a reasonable viewing distance.

    As it stands, these 30" monitors are only 100 dpi. We'd never accept that with printing, which was at 600 dpi years ago, why we accept it with our screens is beyond me.

    You're confusing ppi (pixels) and dpi (dots). Pixels are relevant to LCD displays and digital imagery; dots are relevant to CRT displays and printing with ink.

    A laser printer with a resolution of 600 dpi has a linear resolution of about 100 lpi (lines), which means there are 100 columns or rows of halftone dots per inch. So, in terms of being able to see dots or pixels, a halftone print at 600 dpi is similar in resolution to an LCD display at 100 ppi. Standard resolution in halftone printing is about 150 lpi, and Retina displays on MacBooks, for example, are well beyond that at about 220 ppi.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    ^ Windows 7

    As for the pixels, there is a difference between picking out specific pixels and being able to see that curves aren't curved.

    Looking at the curves in the "C", it is clear that the "C" isn't round, it is roughly round.

    If I print this out, the C is perfectly round, to my eyes at least, there is no clear "Stair-stepping". On the screen, there is. And I don't have to squint to see it.

    You think your screen is nice because you have yet to see nicer. When you finally get a screen with 4 times that resolution, you'll wonder how you ever put up with such crap.

    1080P has about 2 million pixels, what you have has 3.6 million, mine has 4 million, 4K has 8 million. Professional photographers take pictures in the 30 to 40 million pixel range for a reason. Their pictures are often printed in an 8.5"x11" magazine.

    Screens have a LONG way to go before they are "reality". 8K will be close, at 16 million pixels, but even that depends on screen size and viewing distance.
  • binaryeyebinaryeye USMember Posts: 1,734

    ^ Windows 7

    In all seriousness, if aliased text bothers you as much as it seems to, you owe it to yourself to try a Mac. The anti-aliasing of text is significantly better than in Windows (and yes, I use both OS X and Windows daily).

    You think your screen is nice because you have yet to see nicer. When you finally get a screen with 4 times that resolution, you'll wonder how you ever put up with such crap.

    I didn't say my screen was nice, I simply said I couldn't see pixels at a normal viewing distance. And I have seen better resolutions, specifically on MBPs with Retina displays (i.e. twice the resolution).

    Professional photographers take pictures in the 30 to 40 million pixel range for a reason. Their pictures are often printed in an 8.5"x11" magazine.

    I work in photography, and it depends on the application. For high-end advertising and fashion clients, photographers often use 40 to 80 megapixel backs or cameras, which cost more than the average car. But professional photographers you see shooting portraits, sporting events, or weddings are normally using a pro-level Canon or Nikon, which are 35mm format and generally less than 20 megapixels (consumer models have more because big numbers sell). We shoot mostly sports-oriented subjects where I work, and we get by fine using 12 megapixel cameras, which go up to about 9" x 14" at 300 ppi.

    And I'll stop there before this thread gets further off-topic. :)
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    binaryeye said:

    In all seriousness, if aliased text bothers you as much as it seems to, you owe it to yourself to try a Mac.

    Macs are nice computers, my very first computer was an Apple IIe and I still own my Apple IIgs, love that thing...

    That being said, Macs are way, way too expensive. When they feel like building something that isn't so badly overpriced, I'll buy.

    An iMac wouldn't do it for me, I would need a Mac Pro, and those are beyond stupid in price.
    binaryeye said:

    I didn't say my screen was nice, I simply said I couldn't see pixels at a normal viewing distance. And I have seen better resolutions, specifically on MBPs with Retina displays (i.e. twice the resolution).

    The MBP w/Retina is nice. :) That is getting there, the DPI of that screen is a vast improvement over what I have now. I'd love a 30" screen at that DPI.
    binaryeye said:

    We shoot mostly sports-oriented subjects where I work, and we get by fine using 12 megapixel cameras, which go up to about 9" x 14" at 300 ppi.

    And I'll stop there before this thread gets further off-topic. :)

    :) And like I said, a 12 million pixel screen is where I'll probably be satisfied. Can I also get that at 120hz with a sub 5ms response time please? :)

    No, I don't want much! :)
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    Wouldn't any upscaling to those frankly ridiculous resolutions make them look worse than if you noticed a little anti aliasing. Couldn't play games, probably couldn't even watch films. Nothing web-based, can't even imagine how bad you tube etc would look. Might be useful if your a graphic designer or touch up artist but other wise would seem utterly redundant.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    ^ No, because 2560x1600 would have been "ridiculous" 15 years ago back when 800x600 was the norm.

    Give it time and the world will move along.

    35mm film doesn't translate perfectly to digital, since it is an analog format, but it rougly translates to 4K resolution, which is why the recent HD restorations of old movies were done in 4K resolution, to enable them to be done once and be done for good. They scanned each 35mm negative in at 4K resolution for just that reason.

    Most modern films are also shot in 4K, which does limit the future with those since upscaling is just marketing hype for the most part.

    As for playing games, why couldn't you play games at 8K resolution? You just need a really good graphics card, but that will come with time as well.

    Keep in mind that the iPad today has about the graphics power (if not a bit more) than the PS3 did, performance continues to improve at an impressive rate.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    No, the iPad doesnt have the graphics power of a ps3 or Xbox and that's what 8 year old tech? In fact perhaps more as iirc it wasn't equal to the top pc cards at the time. Some nunbers are better on iPad but the overall package is still considerably worse. Not to mention that more time bring spent on tablet development will mean improvements in high end graphics processing will if anything slow down.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    The PS3's G70 GPU can do 192 GFLOPS

    The iPad Air's Power VR G6430 can do 115.2 GFLOPS

    Not quite equal, but pretty darn close. When you take into account the power budget of the PS3 vs. the iPad Air, it becomes truly amazing.

    The first PS3 drew up to 380 watts of power. The iPad Air consumes about 7 watts of power. On a performance per watt basis, the iPad just embarrasses the PS3, by several orders of magnitude.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    Just to go back off topic - so not quite equal, actually closer to half as good (and thats just one number) and its inability to handle lighting just makes your original claim that the 'iPad today has about the graphics power (if not a bit more) than the PS3 did' laughable. Yes for the power its impressive but like I say, its 8 years on and the ipad costs more than the ps3 did even at release.

    To put it all in to perspective, the PS4 can theoretically manage over 1.8TFLOPS and yet wont be able to render games above 1080p. So 8 years on from PS3, massively more powerful and the achievable screen resolution has barely improved.
  • BooTheMightyHamsterBooTheMightyHamster Northern edge of London, just before the dragons...Member Posts: 1,293
    /gets SNES vs Megadrive flashbacks

    Let it go, guys!

    :o)
    LostInTranslationbrickedinplasmodiumLegoFanTexas
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409

    /gets SNES vs Megadrive flashbacks

    Let it go, guys!

    :o)

    Clearly the SNES was better, it had Mode 7! :)
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409

    Just to go back off topic - so not quite equal, actually closer to half as good (and thats just one number) and its inability to handle lighting just makes your original claim that the 'iPad today has about the graphics power (if not a bit more) than the PS3 did' laughable.

    Have you actually played games on both? I have, frankly the iPad produces graphics that appear to me more detailed and more beautiful than the PS3 does. Real Racing 3 has to be seen to be believed, the racing games on the PS3 don't look as good to me.

    Yes for the power its impressive but like I say, its 8 years on and the ipad costs more than the ps3 did even at release.

    Not in the US. The PS3 was $600 at launch, the iPad Air is $500 today. Taking inflation into account, the difference is even greater.

    To put it all in to perspective, the PS4 can theoretically manage over 1.8TFLOPS and yet wont be able to render games above 1080p. So 8 years on from PS3, massively more powerful and the achievable screen resolution has barely improved.

    There is more to graphics quality than just resolution. There is what you can do with those pixels. The PS4 has 10 times the graphics performance of the PS3, but with the detail in modern games, it still struggles to even reach 1080p.

    The PS3 may have 10 explosions on screen, the PS4 might handle 30, it may also put 2 to 3 times as many light sources with high-dynamic-range lighting, transparency, and other effects the PS3 can't pull off.

    All resolution does is enable finer detail to be possible, but the graphics card still has to be able to use that resolution.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links to help keep the forum online: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy