VOGONS

Common searches


How important is screen resolution to you?

Topic actions

Reply 20 of 115, by Shagittarius

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
appiah4 wrote on 2024-05-07, 14:39:

Interesting. I'm the exact other way around, DVD resolution on a big screen is unwatchable for me, but I can tolerate 1080p on a 27" display at work..

I wonder if perhaps the quality of upscalers might be playing a role in that.

Reply 21 of 115, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I find upscalers pretty terrible at handdling anything fast moving. I tried watching a Disney cartoon on DVD with my daughter month ago and it was terrible. Switched to Disney+ and the 4K image was uncomparable..

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 22 of 115, by chinny22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

it isn't.
I'll still happily watch stuff on a standard def TV. Not that I watch much on the TV anymore. most my viewing is youtube videos, sometimes old TV shows that look like VHS quality and I'm fine with that.
Computer side of things I'll just go with whatever the native resolution is.

Aspect ratio is more important. I couldn't stand when TV broadcasted a show widescreen and I was still using a 4:3 tv
But even then, I'm flexible. 5:4 or 4:3 is fine by me, even for modern games (although wide screen is of course preferred)

Reply 23 of 115, by Dothan Burger

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

On my 17" & 19" CRT monitors I like 800x600 for Windows 98 desktop usage, it just looks so crisp. In games I really don't mind higher resolutions if the monitor can handle it. For LCD's I obviously like native.

The best DVD playback I've ever witnessed was rage theater equipped ATi Rage 128pro or early Radeon. I haven't yet been able to recreate that system even though I have all the parts, maybe it was rose tinted glasses, but I can remember The Fugite looking amazing on the shop CRTs at the little computer shop I worked at in the early 2000's

Reply 24 of 115, by rmay635703

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

It depends on what it is, period correct is best but oddly I use a 27” Trinitron as a secondary screen for my work laptop (and nes) and an old 17” CRT that handles the full 2048x1536 (my 19” screen burned up). I use that 17” screen for modern use at 1680x1050 with the text stretched so everything I need in the apps to fit in works. When I run retro the same crt works fine.

I’ve actually been looking for “small 4k” screens <24” to use as a combo monitor/skype/tv device but that size is pretty much only available used in 4k.
Why 99% of the screens are still FHD when that is ungodly obsolete is beyond me.

Little do people know but 4k LCDs even in tiny microscopic sizes are terrific not because you will be using the 4k resolution constantly but because you can actually have half a chance at properly scaling pretty much any resolution without a headache. (Even 1440p looks decent on the modern 4k)

I ended up buying an antique Samsung 22” FHD TV for $15 to make due (it fits my desk better than 24”) , what’s sort of sad is that if you want a tv tuner on the small sets with a low latency you pretty much need to buy 10 year old TVs because the smaller TVs are almost all 720
or 1080 with bad latency. The small high end TVs are pretty much dead or overpriced at this point getting rather rare which is sad.

Reply 25 of 115, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
rmay635703 wrote on 2024-05-08, 01:53:

Why 99% of the screens are still FHD when that is ungodly obsolete is beyond me.

Because GPUs that can render at 4K are still obscenely expensive (Fuck you Nvidia) .

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 26 of 115, by gerry

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
sndwv wrote on 2024-05-07, 08:13:

Same goes for phone screens: pushing extra pixels takes a faster gpu and goes at the cost of battery power. And battery reliability is the number one criterium for a mobile device to me.

Also don't like all the ridiculous ai upscaling of movies for 4k tvs, to produce an image that never existed, looks artificial and slurps up bandwidth when streaming. Have tv sets do this, optionally, for those who want it and don't ruin the source.

where there is a trade off in phone i will always prefer more duration and overall resilience to pixels too

and i agree on upscaling, for me it works in some games but not in 'real life' images like a movie, i prefer it to just be as it was meant to be shown

Reply 27 of 115, by gerry

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
chinny22 wrote on 2024-05-08, 00:07:
it isn't. I'll still happily watch stuff on a standard def TV. Not that I watch much on the TV anymore. most my viewing is youtu […]
Show full quote

it isn't.
I'll still happily watch stuff on a standard def TV. Not that I watch much on the TV anymore. most my viewing is youtube videos, sometimes old TV shows that look like VHS quality and I'm fine with that.
Computer side of things I'll just go with whatever the native resolution is.

Aspect ratio is more important. I couldn't stand when TV broadcasted a show widescreen and I was still using a 4:3 tv
But even then, I'm flexible. 5:4 or 4:3 is fine by me, even for modern games (although wide screen is of course preferred)

i agree on aspect ratio, i'm happy to have 'empty' space on a widescreen in order to accommodate 4:3 rather than any kind of stretching or other compromise

rmay635703 wrote on 2024-05-08, 01:53:

Little do people know but 4k LCDs even in tiny microscopic sizes are terrific not because you will be using the 4k resolution constantly but because you can actually have half a chance at properly scaling pretty much any resolution without a headache. (Even 1440p looks decent on the modern 4k)

that's true, it would help with scaling - in that sense i might consider it more of an advantage, it doesn't do much for me if something is in 4k - but if it scales well then i could put anything on screen without anything noticeable from the image not being native resolution, at least that's how i understand it

Reply 28 of 115, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I'm fine with FHD on a 14-15" laptop. The external monitors I most typically use are 24" WUXGA, 30" WQXGA and 32" UHD. My TV is a 65" UHD and I like it a lot, even though I don't think I ever watched any content over FHD on it.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys

Reply 29 of 115, by theelf

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
appiah4 wrote on 2024-05-07, 10:47:

For the longest time I thought 1080p was enough. Then I bought a 75" 4K MiniLED TV and I can tell you at this size 4K matters.

For desktop, I am OK with 1080p up until 24". Beyond that, I enjoy 1440p considerably more. I've never really been able to tell 1440p and 4K apart on a monitor.

I have a projector for movies, the screen is a little more than 200" and projector is 1024x768, one day i tried a 1080p projector but find no difference at all

Reply 30 of 115, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
theelf wrote on 2024-05-08, 07:45:
appiah4 wrote on 2024-05-07, 10:47:

For the longest time I thought 1080p was enough. Then I bought a 75" 4K MiniLED TV and I can tell you at this size 4K matters.

For desktop, I am OK with 1080p up until 24". Beyond that, I enjoy 1440p considerably more. I've never really been able to tell 1440p and 4K apart on a monitor.

I have a projector for movies, the screen is a little more than 200" and projector is 1024x768, one day i tried a 1080p projector but find no difference at all

That's because projectors suck in general 😁

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 31 of 115, by theelf

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
appiah4 wrote on 2024-05-08, 07:46:
theelf wrote on 2024-05-08, 07:45:
appiah4 wrote on 2024-05-07, 10:47:

For the longest time I thought 1080p was enough. Then I bought a 75" 4K MiniLED TV and I can tell you at this size 4K matters.

For desktop, I am OK with 1080p up until 24". Beyond that, I enjoy 1440p considerably more. I've never really been able to tell 1440p and 4K apart on a monitor.

I have a projector for movies, the screen is a little more than 200" and projector is 1024x768, one day i tried a 1080p projector but find no difference at all

That's because projectors suck in general 😁

Nooooo, opposite, watch movies in TV sucks. Exept projector is cheap has hell, low lumens etc destroy any tv whatever size and resolution

Exept one thing, old TV series i like in CRT TV

Reply 32 of 115, by johnvosh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I am personally okay with 1080p. I have a 50" TV from 10 years ago that is 1080p, but only use it when I have the family over. Normally I watch everything on my computer using a 24" 1080p monitor and my main display is a 27" 1080p monitor. I also game in 1080p as I find it perfectly fine. For my old computers I use a 1280x1024 LCD monitor and find it works good. I'm sure 1440p or 4k are nice, but I just don't have a need for it.

Reply 33 of 115, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Upscaled DVD can look quite decent on my 55-inch 4K TV if

a) it was properly mastered, not oversharpened and not overcompressed
b) a decent upscaler is used. I actually like the one in my Sony UBP-X700 UHD Blu-ray player when it's own sharpening is toned down a notch.
c) the DVD contains film-based (progressive) content that gets successfully reverse pulled down before upecaling. Natively interlaced content is more challenging. I have not tested this with DVD, AFAICR, but for VHS based natively interlaced content, QTGMC is the only thing that I find gives decent results.

Reply 34 of 115, by Standard Def Steve

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Projector user here, using a 4096x2160 native D-ILA on a 120" screen. I can only get my old DVD rips (852x480 2.5 mb/s 264) to look somewhat decent by sitting in the back row and just letting my poor vision fill in the gaps. The best upscaler I've seen is madVR running on an HTPC - it's actually better than the upscaler in my Oppo UHD BD player, which itself is pretty good. MadVR also does a phenomenal job of expanding BT.709 content to the native BT.2020 color space of the 12-bit LCoS imagers. However, not even madVR can work the absolute magic required to make 480p DVD rips look decent on such a big screen.*

Really, this setup needs at least 1080p to shine, and in the front row you can usually see the difference between 1080p and 4K video content. However, some older flicks just have that warm, soft look to them; other than the increased color space and bit rate provided by 4K discs/streaming, they don't really benefit from the increased resolution.

For modern computing, 3840x2160 @ 125% on a 32" screen is where it's at. For retro Win98-XP gaming, 1600x1200 on a 21" 4:3 CRT/LCD (or smack dab in the center of a 24" 16:10 LCD scaled to pixel perfection) is where it's at.
----

* I have been experimenting with AI upscaling, encoding the upscaled output as 10-bit HEVC at 1080p24 (or 1080p60 for NTSC-sourced DVDs). They do look appreciably better than my old 480p 264 rips--especially the 60p ones, which now retain the super smooth motion of the original DVDs. When I originally ripped these discs back in 2007, I made the mistake of encoding NTSC-sourced DVDs at 30fps. That said, I'm not sure it'd be worth the time to upscale all of my old DVDs. Actually, I know it wouldn't be worth the time - it's just kind of a fun experiment. Whenever I get the urge to watch an episode of Home Improvement, I'll just put the disc in my PS2 and watch it on the old CRT television. 480 over component still looks pretty decent to these standard def eyes.

94 MHz NEC VR4300 | SGI Reality CoPro | 8MB RDRAM | Each game gets its own SSD - nooice!

Reply 35 of 115, by theelf

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Standard Def Steve wrote on 2024-05-08, 17:43:
Projector user here, using a 4096x2160 native D-ILA on a 120" screen. I can only get my old DVD rips (852x480 2.5 mb/s 264) to l […]
Show full quote

Projector user here, using a 4096x2160 native D-ILA on a 120" screen. I can only get my old DVD rips (852x480 2.5 mb/s 264) to look somewhat decent by sitting in the back row and just letting my poor vision fill in the gaps. The best upscaler I've seen is madVR running on an HTPC - it's actually better than the upscaler in my Oppo UHD BD player, which itself is pretty good. MadVR also does a phenomenal job of expanding BT.709 content to the native BT.2020 color space of the 12-bit LCoS imagers. However, not even madVR can work the absolute magic required to make 480p DVD rips look decent on such a big screen.*

Really, this setup needs at least 1080p to shine, and in the front row you can usually see the difference between 1080p and 4K video content. However, some older flicks just have that warm, soft look to them; other than the increased color space and bit rate provided by 4K discs/streaming, they don't really benefit from the increased resolution.

For modern computing, 3840x2160 @ 125% on a 32" screen is where it's at. For retro Win98-XP gaming, 1600x1200 on a 21" 4:3 CRT/LCD (or smack dab in the center of a 24" 16:10 LCD scaled to pixel perfection) is where it's at.
----

* I have been experimenting with AI upscaling, encoding the upscaled output as 10-bit HEVC at 1080p24 (or 1080p60 for NTSC-sourced DVDs). They do look appreciably better than my old 480p 264 rips--especially the 60p ones, which now retain the super smooth motion of the original DVDs. When I originally ripped these discs back in 2007, I made the mistake of encoding NTSC-sourced DVDs at 30fps. That said, I'm not sure it'd be worth the time to upscale all of my old DVDs. Actually, I know it wouldn't be worth the time - it's just kind of a fun experiment. Whenever I get the urge to watch an episode of Home Improvement, I'll just put the disc in my PS2 and watch it on the old CRT television. 480 over component still looks pretty decent to these standard def eyes.

wow, a projector in only 120" screen? too small no? must be widescreen, i have more or less 210-220" not remember exactly, but 4:3, no idea in widescreen how can be 120"

Reply 36 of 115, by Standard Def Steve

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Yep, it's a 120" 17:9 AR screen, to match the somewhat unusual 4096x2160 resolution of the projector.

220 inches...at 4:3?! Yikes - that wouldn't even fit on my wall! 😀
Not to mention, at 220" my projector would likely have trouble hitting the brightness required for HDR and 3D movies.

94 MHz NEC VR4300 | SGI Reality CoPro | 8MB RDRAM | Each game gets its own SSD - nooice!

Reply 37 of 115, by theelf

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Standard Def Steve wrote on 2024-05-08, 18:22:

Yep, it's a 120" 17:9 AR screen, to match the somewhat unusual 4096x2160 resolution of the projector.

220 inches...at 4:3?! Yikes - that wouldn't even fit on my wall! 😀
Not to mention, at 220" my projector would likely have trouble hitting the brightness required for HDR and 3D movies.

Hi! i was checking and yes, look like 120" is a nice and common size for widescreen projectors, i did not know that, since always use 4:3 for this! my mistake is not small at all!

Reply 38 of 115, by Cyberdyne

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

768 lines for XP. 800x600 for 3.1. I never play games above 768 lines. I have collected all my favorite series in 360p from my good friend "threesixtyp". I watch them from my phone or feet of bed from a 32" TV. And my favorite movies are in max 1024p. All comedy drama none fx films in 720p. Never really cared or missed for anything higher. I got good 20/20 eyesight. Just do not care. And maybe it is because I grew up with pirated satelite TV and bootleg VHS tapes and Famiclone console that I watched from 21" CRT TV. And first own computer screen was amber 9". And in my living room there is a cheap 65" for fx action movie experience and to flex to my dates. Home cinema is cheaper and I do not like real cinema really. Even before covid. Lots of hassle. I am bit introvert plus really do not like large masses and strangers. Only if I am drunk.

PS. Really do not like to watch something over 60fps.

I am aroused about any X86 motherboard that has full functional ISA slot. I think i have problem. Not really into that original (Turbo) XT,286,386 and CGA/EGA stuff. So just a DOS nut.
PS. If I upload RAR, it is a 16-bit DOS RAR Version 2.50.

Reply 39 of 115, by DracoNihil

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I can't do multi monitor so the best option for me actually is 4K.

A single 3840x2160 monitor is literally 4 1920x1080 screens rolled into one. I have more than enough screen real-estate to keep a eye on my Twitch chat, OBS, the game I'm playing and whatever MIDI system I need to have in use.

There's some things I can play smoothly at 4K as well; as hilarious as that sounds coming from a Intel NUC user. UT2004 in particular is very amusing at 4K because the GUI scaling only works so far.

“I am the dragon without a name…”
― Κυνικός Δράκων