This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

This "FULL HD" crap isnt ever going to stop is it?

#51GreenMage7Posted 8/30/2013 4:49:08 PM
Judgmenl posted...
You know what this topic is? 16:9 vs 16:10.

You know what's better? 16:9.


Well that is your opinion but you are allowed to have it. Meanwhile everyone with 16:10 will enjoy a superior experience while easily switching to 16:9 whenever they want.

Interestingly my monitor also has an actual 4:3 mode. It is pretty awesome. =)
#52gastamanPosted 8/30/2013 5:59:52 PM
GreenMage7 posted...
Fade2black001 posted...
Killah Priest posted...
standards > stupid resolutions like 1920X1200


Why is that resolution stupid? They should of made that the standard instead of 1080.


I agree, and you can see why it's better in anything with a vertical FOV. The Harry Potter movies are a great example. People who had the "fullscreen" versions of the movies actually saw way more because the standard widescreen version actually cut off the top and bottom instead of the reverse standard where they cut off the edges for fullscreen. Pretty cool stuff, I think it may have actually been an optimization for IMAX.


http://plum.cream.org/HP/
---
//Intel// Core i7 2600k @ 4.2 //Gigabyte// Z68X-UD7-B3 //MSI// 3x GTX 580 Lightning SLi
//Corsair// 650D / H100 / 120 GB Force 3 / 12 GB Dominator / AX1200
#53NicodimusPosted 8/30/2013 6:57:00 PM
GreenMage7 posted...
Fade2black001 posted...
Killah Priest posted...
standards > stupid resolutions like 1920X1200


Why is that resolution stupid? They should of made that the standard instead of 1080.


I agree, and you can see why it's better in anything with a vertical FOV. The Harry Potter movies are a great example. People who had the "fullscreen" versions of the movies actually saw way more because the standard widescreen version actually cut off the top and bottom instead of the reverse standard where they cut off the edges for fullscreen. Pretty cool stuff, I think it may have actually been an optimization for IMAX.


That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of movies these days are filmed at a 1.85:1 (16:9) or higher aspect ratio. It's an exception to an overwhelming rule.
---
My movie and gaming room: http://imgur.com/a/IjWr1
My pets: http://imgur.com/a/P9VGU
#54TimePharaohPosted 8/30/2013 9:22:28 PM(edited)
Fade2black001 posted...
I know its only 120 pixel difference but still its 120 pixels you don't have anymore.


lolwut


Oh wait F2B post, now the ignorance makes sense
---
"HE are genius, firstly." - ASlaveObeys
http://i.imgur.com/SQAc17B.png
#55DarkZV2BetaPosted 8/30/2013 9:32:19 PM
Panopictonguy posted...
Turns out nothing can do 4k 60fps except Dual Link HDMI and Display Port MST mode splitting your display down the middle @ 1920x2160 per section.


Just like old Dual Link DVI for 1440p.
Actually, IIRC, nVidia drivers have supported 3840x2160/60hz via displayport for a while now.
---
Want that Shield!
Ball and Cup on ps mobile has framerate issues. -stargazer64
#56Son Of SpamPosted 8/30/2013 9:59:45 PM
I think the naming for 4k happened because it originated in the digital filming industry. The standard resolution of theater 4k projectors is 4096x2160.

I really wish that Seiki company would release that 39" 4k TV as a monitor with a Displayport on it. Selling for less than $700, that thing would sell like crazy.
#57PanopictonguyPosted 8/31/2013 12:57:52 AM
Apparently HDMI 2.0 is scheduled to release next month. It will be the only cable at this time that can support a single 4k image at 60Hz. A minimum of 580Mhz is required to run 4k at 60Hz abs the cable well be able to do 600Mhz.

The mature issue is there is currently nothing that supports hdmi 2.0. Don't however is rumored to be releasing a consumer upgrade kit for their 4k TV's to support 4k 60Hz.

So true 4k at 60Hz will most likely require a 8xx/9xx or 9xxx series card because I sure none of the current cards support hdmi 2.0

HDMI 1.4 & Display Port 1.2 cannot display that resolution @ 60hz without splitting the display.
---
Oh, you thought they made this game for you? You clearly bought the wrong game.
#58gastamanPosted 8/31/2013 7:05:04 AM(edited)
Panopictonguy posted...
Display Port 1.2 cannot display that resolution [4K] @ 60hz without splitting the display.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort
17.28 Gbit/s of effective video bandwidth, enough for four simultaneous 1080p60 displays (CEA-861 timings), stereoscopic 2,560 1,600 30 bit @120 Hz (CVT-R timings), or 4K UHDTV @60 Hz


http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/ASUS-PQ321Q-315-4K-Tiled-Monitor-Review/DisplayPort-12-MST-and-STMicro-Athena-Contr
And the truth is that while DisplayPort 1.2 has the bandwidth to support 4K resolutions at 60 Hz with a single stream, the necessary controllers for that option are not yet available.

---
//Intel// Core i7 2600k @ 4.2 //Gigabyte// Z68X-UD7-B3 //MSI// 3x GTX 580 Lightning SLi
//Corsair// 650D / H100 / 120 GB Force 3 / 12 GB Dominator / AX1200