Understanding Moitors

[Waco]

Crappy, no

 

Plasma yes

Plasmas definitely have it more than LCDs.

[Waco]

I thought it was, or am i confusing it with something else. If you have a source image that is small it's up to the tv to scale to image to match it's own internal pixel ratio. cheap brands may have 1000 "pixels" in one direction and another company may have 4000, hence pixel density.

That's not how it works. 1920x1080 is 1920x1080 otherwise they'd be different resolutions.

[ir_cow]

the input resolution is the same yes not the display resolution (which companies tend not to tell you unless it's a computer monitor). what you are saying is that all tvs the same size looks the same because the resolution is the same? I think thats a bit off.

[Waco]

the input resolution is the same yes not the display resolution (which companies tend not to tell you unless it's a computer monitor). what you are saying is that all tvs the same size looks the same because the resolution is the same? I think thats a bit off.

Uhhh...what?

 

A 1920x1080 screen has 1920x1080 pixels. A large LCD TV is the same as a large format monitor...

 

 

That doesn't mean they'll all look the same but they all have the same resolution.

[Tjj226_Angel]

Uhhh...what?

 

A 1920x1080 screen has 1920x1080 pixels. A large LCD TV is the same as a large format monitor...

 

 

That doesn't mean they'll all look the same but they all have the same resolution.

 

Yeah I agree. If screens had any type of scaling the you would be able to take a small jpeg file and blow it up to your screen resolution and it wouldn't look like crap. SCREEN pixels are pixels are pixels are pixels. However I think you are talking about the pixel density of a source file like a picture or a video.

 

Now if you had a source file that had massive pixel density to begin with (like a video or a picture), and you had to downscale it to 1920 by 1080 in an editing program, then you could compact the individual pixels into smaller pixels in order to fit the screen, and then it would crop what ever pixels you would have that were over the 16:9 aspect ratio. There by getting you a better quality picture/video (depending on the program you are using) to view through a 1920x1080 screen, but the way that file would actually look like on your screen is determined by your screen resolution, size and quality.

 

Lastly @ waco: No, anything bigger than a 21.5 inch screen with 1920x1080 starts to look worse and worse. I would say that you can improve the way it looks by getting a good quality screen such as a VA or higher monitor, but you can only compensate for the lower pixel density, you can't overcome it completely. For gaming, web browsing, movie watching, and etc. you are right in that it doesn't make a huge difference if you aren't sitting any closer than 1.5 feet away from the screen, but for any type of visual editing where you are trying to mess with the image blur or luminescence, you definitely need something with super high quality and pixel density........unless you like wasting a bunch of printer ink

[Waco]

Lastly @ waco: No, anything bigger than a 21.5 inch screen with 1920x1080 starts to look worse and worse. I would say that you can improve the way it looks by getting a good quality screen such as a VA or higher monitor, but you can only compensate for the lower pixel density, you can't overcome it completely. For gaming, web browsing, movie watching, and etc. you are right in that it doesn't make a huge difference if you aren't sitting any closer than 1.5 feet away from the screen, but for any type of visual editing where you are trying to mess with the image blur or luminescence, you definitely need something with super high quality and pixel density........unless you like wasting a bunch of printer ink

In your opinion, sure.

 

Low pixel density is not automatically bad. Editing photos is insanely easier with a low-density display as well (provided it's not a POS)...so I'm not entirely sure why you'd say a high-density display is desirable.

 

This is my screen from a few inches away taken with my TERRIBLE camera. Do you see a screen door effect? It's blurry because of my crappy camera.

 

From a couple millimeters away:

 

So yeah...if you want to sit 1-2 inches away from your monitor larger monitors are bad. If you're not insane, they're freakin' awesome.

[Muchoman1]

Just out of curiosity, how close do you sit Waco? Cause my 3x portrait monitors are around 45 inches all together

[Waco]

I'd say roughly 2.5 feet or so.

[Muchoman1]

I'd say roughly 2.5 feet or so.

 

Ok, i sit a little closer, probably 1.5-2 feet

[Tjj226_Angel]

@waco:

 

Ehhhh I am not saying you are wrong, but when I am taking nature shots, low pixel density is a pain to work with. One picture I took a while ago (when my camera was still working) is a white orchid with water droplets (I take pictures of lots of things so don't judge me ) . I am still trying to get the picture right. I am trying to get the flower to have soft edges and sharp water droplets. Even with my samsung monitor I am still seeing individual monitor pixels, and it is making it a pain to get the edges juuuuuuust right. So with 1920x1200 I am having issues with seeing individual pixels sitting at 2 feet away from my screen.

 

Heck I even have issues with individual pixels on the newer 2560x1440 samsung PLS monitors, it is certainly VERY difficult for me to see it on the higher resolution monitors, but I can still see the pixels.

 

This leads into another element in screens. Your own eyes. To you, your 42 inch screen could be like looking into a whole other world and to me it looks like a board of RGB blinking LEDs. Same thing with the difference between 60 vs 120ghz and the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 and so many other things. So once again I am going to say that the most important thing in understanding the screen market is personal testing at a place like best buy, HHgreg, etc.

[BluePanda]

Waco has 20/15 vision with his contacts...so I'd say it's nothing to do with his eyes being crappy.

[Tjj226_Angel]

Waco has 20/15 vision with his contacts...so I'd say it's nothing to do with his eyes being crappy.

 

I hope you don't think that I am implying that waco has poor eye sight.

 

First off, not all of picture quality has to do with eye sight. Some of it has to do with the way out individual brains work. For instance some people have the ability to count hundreds of tiny black seeds on a blank piece of paper, but they might think that a slightly crooked picture is straight. Others might be the total opposite. In both instances you can SEE the seeds and the crooked picture, it is just that some people perceive each image differently. Seriously we all have our biological oddities and abilities that allow us to view the world in different ways.

 

You can super impose that onto screens. There used to be a cool little exhibit at the Smithsonian of Natural History back when I was in the 4th grade that was all about light and how we all perceive imagines in different ways. There were several that involved pixels. One experiment in particular was staring at a single dot on a white screen with a very small red and blue LED. Some people would merge these colors together and see purple, some would see the color flashing between red, blue, and purple, and finally some people would just see red and blue and nothing else. Everyone's eyes saw the light, and regardless of poor eyes, peoples experience with the experiment was their own.

 

That tells me that everyone has their own unique experience with different images. So the main point that I hope you won't deviate from again...is that everyone's experience with a screen will be slightly different.