Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Apr 19, 2011.
Is this dell's idea of social advertisement?
Unfortunately its a bad case of fanboyism then
most movies are not 2:4:1, though some big name dramas are, for the most part you see them released on 16:9 widescreen or fullscreen.
1200px does not do everything 1080p does, because it is not 1080p. Game consoles and dvd players are much more likely to have problems outputting to a 1200p monitor than a 1080. maybe that's not a common use, but it's what i use it for very often.
You mention price but fail to consider it. I didn't even mention it as I assumed it was OBVIOUS, but OBVIOUSLY not. look at newegg or your choice of site. if there ARE any 1200px monitors they are at least $150-$200 USD more. they are more expensive to make and more expensive to replace. price is a large factor for most people. and when $150 nets you a 23" 1080p monitor, you need at least $300 to do the same with 1200p...
and then you fail still to recognize personal preference. some people simply don't want a 1200p monitor. so your stance is they are wrong, and they are choosing a lesser product.
why is the determination yours? I not only disagree with your premise, but I like my 1080p monitors and will keep at that rather than going to 1200p. regardless of what you may think of me at this point, that doesn't make me wrong. it's a personal preference.
you prefer 1200p, fine. that doesn't make 1200p objectively better. and note: I never said 1080p was superior. I never said 1200 was inferior. I am trying to stay away from that argument as it is simply juvenile and fails to grasp the point - neither is better.
I think this is kinda cool actually, and 32GB RAM in a laptop is totally sweet. Yes, they will be hot and have a 10 minute battery life but ... duh. No shit. That's why laptop coolers exists, and you don't buy these things for watching movies on the bus.
And I totally agree with WileE on the 1080 vs 1200 thing.
If neither is better, why not use the cheapest option? After all, TV screens are made with the 1080p in mind, why not share production with monitors? Surely its cheaper? As much as I don't like widescreen format, I do appreciate their price/perf due to economies of scale. Of course, there are people who prefer 1200, but on the other hand, its a standard which is dying due to low usage. Reminds me of imperial vs metric system, any scientist worth their salt will tell you metric is the way to go, but the dumb public still insist on using imperial due to its convenience. But in this case, the 1200 does not have a saving grace.
if i were to choose, and i have, i choose 1080. for the reason of price alone. but i don't think that makes it a "better" monitor. cheapness isn't necessarily a positive, so let's go with in-expensiveness. i like the metric/imperial comparison - but to be honest , though im a dumb american, i recognize metric as being easier to use and more accurate, so i see it as objectively better. as you said though, i see no saving grace for either ratio - but price. so go with the least expensive quality made option, that fits your needs.
again , not all. higher budget, big name ones I see as 2:4:1 , but more often than not most are 16:9 on disc. maybe not the original, but on the released discs.
as many people can agree as want to - and i will leave it at this as I have things i should be spending my time on vs this.
but simply try to recognize that just because you like something MORE, that does not mean it is inherently better.
all i am trying to say is that neither is inherently better. better suited to different tasks, for different people - sure. but OBJECTIVELY, BETTER - no.
I'm being very specific in regards to the language, because i am portraying an idea most people fail to recognize clearly. your subjective opinions are not the best base to determine objective fact. It can be better for you , but that does not make it OBJECTIVELY BETTER.
Movies ARE 2.4:1(some are 1.85:1), only cheap made-for-tv movies are 16:9. Ever noticed how blu-rays have black bars encoded in the video so the final resolution is 1920x1080?
Never came across that before, except for poorly made BluRays. 2.4:1 is good for cinema, and when people get lazy they just keep the same format and just code it straight to BR, rather than do some changes to get rid of the black bars they know will happen. 1.85:1 is more or less 16:9, in case your maths failed you. I don't watch much films nowadays anyway (since that most of them suck), so I should not be the one to seek any guidance from.
1920/1.85=1037. like watching 16:9 on 16:10 eh?
It's not being lazy it's an artistic choice. When you expect a certain aspect ratio you compose/frame the picture for that aspect ratio. Pan&scan(cropping) destroys this. Even in open matte(shooting at a less-wide AR, crop later) ones the director would be framing for theaters not home video.
Perhaps you are right, but having 16:10 will exacerbate the problem, not improve it.
i totally agree with you, different people have different specification that suits them better than one another.
even the m17x can handle a 266 minutes duration for watching a DVD
No shit Sherlock. It has a big 9-cell, 90 Wh battery pack.
There are no issues outputting 1080p to a 1200p monitor. It just shows the 1080p image, pixel perfect 1:1 on the screen.
And all movies shot on film are wider than 16:9. The vast majority of my 60+ BD's are wider than 16:9.
The only way 1080p is better is in price. They are still inferior in capabilities.
Personal preference may have you buying a panasonic or samsung (or insert other budget setup here) surround setup instead of something like a Polk setup, and that's your right, but they are still inferior in capabilities, regardless of your opinion of them.
i think you may have an inferiority complex.
price then, is not a characteristic worth considering? I wish I had your cash flow. yet you still skip right over my point.
you obviously have a lot invested in this debate, and take it very seriously - neither of which i can claim for myself.
so i'll just leave you with your superior screen, to go play with yourself.
Alien ware... the surefire way to buy something that underperforms and outcosts anything else in the universe..
I don't have an inferiority complex, but I think you may have a comprehension problem.
The fact of the matter is, the first comment on this topic was that 1920x1200 is the better resolution (which it is), not that it's necessarily better for everyone to buy a 1920x1200 monitor.
As for me personally, price is only considered after the item I am buying meets all of my performance criteria. If nothing exists in the price range I can afford that meets my criteria, I just save longer to get what I want. It took me a year to save enough for my monitor, and I'm very happy I did. I made no compromises on my picture quality. I can't afford to just go out and drop $600 on something on a whim. I have to save up.
What res are you running that monitor at?
Of course it is going to have a 9-cell, 90 wh battery pack. If you want to choose to just browse the internet then buy a lappy that consumes less power, but if you want to buy a good gaming laptop then what else would you expect than a lappy that will suck some juice
it's a samsung 46" 3DTV and i use 3DTV Play software to stream 3D contents to the 3DTV via HDMI 1.4 connector. this 3DTV does not support 3D gaming @ 1920x1080 from the notebook so i use 1280x720 instead. Crysis 2 setting is the low one because when enabling 3D mode the framerate will be cut in half
It's still a Dell enough said.. Alienware is pointless like many have stated cheaper lappy's that will do the same.
I have a Dell XPS lappy and love it!!!
But then again I wouldn't know anything about hardware
Separate names with a comma.