hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 55 of 69 FirstFirst ... 5455253545556575865 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,100 of 1380

Thread: Cyberpunk 2077

  1. #1081
    Donor Spaztick's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    No Longer up High Sierra's Ass
    Posts
    10,686
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Overspark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by depili View Post
    retina screens are really nice for reading and coding.
    Please don't use that terrible marketing term to accurately describe something, it can mean a 960x640 display on a phone...
    Retina™ is applespeech for 9000ppi innit? 960x640 would be the size of a coin then.
    It varies with the machine. I think its 200-400 ppi depending on what device.

  2. #1082

    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    The Establishment
    Posts
    1,746
    It's generally applespeak for about 300 PPI, but it's slapped on stuff that has lower PPI than that. As such, the Apple Watches all have been branded as "Retina" even with a 1.3 inch screen and 272340 resolution for the first generation (it does have a PPI of 326 though).

  3. #1083
    Specially Pegged Donor Overspark's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    NL fuck yeah
    Posts
    3,831
    It's mostly the word "retina" that I take umbrage with, as it implies that the resolution of the display is somehow close to the maximum resolution your retina can perceive, which is absolute and utter hogwash.

    This leads to various people assuming all kinds of things about resolutions that you "aren't even able to see" while this is often false. Hell, the last page in this thread is an example of that, with the numbers thrown around making assumptions based on 20/20 vision while the source of those numbers claims you're better off using 20/15 vision as that is what the average healthy adult should score (according to the article).

    With lenses in I'm closer to 20/10 which means that these assumptions are wrong by almost a factor 2 (assuming the viewing distances are correct), and I'm not even that special. At the same time I'm perfectly happy with my 2560x1080 monitor and 1920x1080 TV, while I clearly would benefit from higher resolutions. In other words, all these assumptions are so unreliable and so subjective that they are almost meaningless.

    Also 300 ppi is shit for smartphones these days, good phones will be at about 400-500 ppi. Monitors are very different obviously (different viewing distance), which is another reason a term like "retina display" doesn't make sense for a wide variety of displays.

    OK, rant over, thank you for listening. Back to... monitors? consoles? Surely not Cyberpunk 2077!

  4. #1084

    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    The Establishment
    Posts
    1,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Overspark View Post
    It's mostly the word "retina" that I take umbrage with, as it implies that the resolution of the display is somehow close to the maximum resolution your retina can perceive, which is absolute and utter hogwash.

    This leads to various people assuming all kinds of things about resolutions that you "aren't even able to see" while this is often false. Hell, the last page in this thread is an example of that, with the numbers thrown around making assumptions based on 20/20 vision while the source of those numbers claims you're better off using 20/15 vision as that is what the average healthy adult should score (according to the article).

    With lenses in I'm closer to 20/10 which means that these assumptions are wrong by almost a factor 2 (assuming the viewing distances are correct), and I'm not even that special. At the same time I'm perfectly happy with my 2560x1080 monitor and 1920x1080 TV, while I clearly would benefit from higher resolutions. In other words, all these assumptions are so unreliable and so subjective that they are almost meaningless.

    Also 300 ppi is shit for smartphones these days, good phones will be at about 400-500 ppi. Monitors are very different obviously (different viewing distance), which is another reason a term like "retina display" doesn't make sense for a wide variety of displays.

    OK, rant over, thank you for listening. Back to... monitors? consoles? Surely not Cyberpunk 2077!
    It's hillarious that you make a statement about how facts about ideal screen size and viewing distances are "so subjective they are almost meaningless" and discard them because you are "perfectly happy with a 1440p monitor and a 1080p TV". The first is a mathmatical formula that can easily be changed to fit your 20/10 vision and preferred viewing distance. It's your acceptance of a 1440p monitor and a 1080p TV that is subjective. Numbers based on a 20/20 vision will not be accurate for all people, because guess what, eyesight differ from person to person.

    This applies to your "hogwash" statement as well. Is 300 PPI the maximum the human eye can see? Of course not, for someone with 20/10 vision it'll be closer to 700 DPI. 20/20 is used because that's the average eyesight. And for someone with 20/20 vision; 338 DPI is about max. You can still tell that the dots are there on higher resolutions, you just can't see the white space between the dots.

    So in conclusion; yes, ideal viewing distance comes down to personal preference and this, along with eyesight, will change the theoretical optimal screen size and resolution. People being people will mostly ignore this and buy whatever they can afford and/or want. This doesn't make the math and science behind it subjective. A personal preference for 1440p and 1080p is subjective, and that's ok. The posts on the previous page was made based on the 4k is only worth it on the big screens premise.

  5. #1085
    Jack Coutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 9, 2011
    Location
    marketjacker
    Posts
    1,497
    Wow, an argument about ppi and retina screens. covid-19 is truly hard on all of us.

  6. #1086
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    32,433
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheps View Post
    You can still tell that the dots are there on higher resolutions, you just can't see the white space between the dots.
    what

    Last edited by RazoR; May 22 2020 at 06:23:41 AM.

  7. #1087

    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    The Establishment
    Posts
    1,746
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheps View Post
    You can still tell that the dots are there on higher resolutions, you just can't see the white space between the dots.
    what
    An image resolution is often measured in the amount of line pairs (dark/light) lines you are able to visibly resolve. So at some point you are unable to resolve the lines from another, but you can still see the black lines.

  8. #1088

    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    The Establishment
    Posts
    1,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Coutu View Post
    Wow, an argument about ppi and retina screens. covid-19 is truly hard on all of us.
    I think being autistic neckbeards was a thing prior to Covid-19, but yeah, it hasn't helped either.

  9. #1089
    Specially Pegged Donor Overspark's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    NL fuck yeah
    Posts
    3,831
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheps View Post
    It's hillarious that you make a statement about how facts about ideal screen size and viewing distances are "so subjective they are almost meaningless" and discard them because you are "perfectly happy with a 1440p monitor and a 1080p TV". The first is a mathmatical formula that can easily be changed to fit your 20/10 vision and preferred viewing distance. It's your acceptance of a 1440p monitor and a 1080p TV that is subjective. Numbers based on a 20/20 vision will not be accurate for all people, because guess what, eyesight differ from person to person.
    Yes, things that differ from person to person are subjective, that's what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by morpheps View Post
    This applies to your "hogwash" statement as well. Is 300 PPI the maximum the human eye can see? Of course not, for someone with 20/10 vision it'll be closer to 700 DPI. 20/20 is used because that's the average eyesight. And for someone with 20/20 vision; 338 DPI is about max. You can still tell that the dots are there on higher resolutions, you just can't see the white space between the dots.
    This is hilarious. You're talking about a maximum PPI without specifying viewing distance. That's like saying "my car can do 7 seconds" without specifying the distance. And "white space between the dots"? That differs so much per display and display technology that it's probably not worth getting into.

    Quote Originally Posted by morpheps View Post
    So in conclusion; yes, ideal viewing distance comes down to personal preference and this, along with eyesight, will change the theoretical optimal screen size and resolution. People being people will mostly ignore this and buy whatever they can afford and/or want. This doesn't make the math and science behind it subjective. A personal preference for 1440p and 1080p is subjective, and that's ok. The posts on the previous page was made based on the 4k is only worth it on the big screens premise.
    My point is that the mathematical formula is often wrong by a factor of 2 or more, and that's only when you guessed the viewing distance correctly. If you didn't, it's not hard to construct an example where the average outcome of that formula is wrong by a factor of 10. That is what makes it almost meaningless. Can you adjust the formula for your specific situation? Sure, and then it does have value. But basing blanket statements on it is just silly.

    For the record: I do agree with you that "4K is only worth it on big screens" is false*, and I do agree with the plausibility of your examples. It's the "this number is more than this number so it's better" statements I have a problem with, those numbers are so soft that you shouldn't base hard conclusions on them.

    *: Although I'm assuming Razor meant that 4K on a small TV is useless, in which case he'd be right assuming a larger viewing distance.

    TL;DR: stop throwing around misleading numbers based on (potentially very wrong) assumptions and let people enjoy the displays they want.

  10. #1090

    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    The Establishment
    Posts
    1,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Overspark View Post

    Yes, things that differ from person to person are subjective, that's what I said.
    Lords above; the "that's what I said"-argument again. Subjetive doesn't mean that. Subjetive means that something is down to personal preference. A mathmatical model where both eyesight and viewing distance are variables that can be changed is not subjetive. What's subjective is saying "I like 1440p better than 4K". I don't argue with that; people can and should choose the monitor, tv and other display that suits their individual needs and wallets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Overspark View Post
    This is hilarious. You're talking about a maximum PPI without specifying viewing distance. That's like saying "my car can do 7 seconds" without specifying the distance. And "white space between the dots"? That differs so much per display and display technology that it's probably not worth getting into.
    Yes, that's a good point. Let's leave it. We agree that retina is a stupid concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Overspark View Post
    My point is that the mathematical formula is often wrong by a factor of 2 or more, and that's only when you guessed the viewing distance correctly.
    I wasn't guessing at anything; I replied to a specific condition ("at one meter") and then used an example of the average viewing distance. And the model isn't "wrong by a factor of 2 or more" - if you change the variables in the formula it will be correct according to the paramters set. You can't change the premises and not the parameters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Overspark View Post
    TL;DR: stop throwing around misleading numbers based on (potentially very wrong) assumptions and let people enjoy the displays they want.
    I'm not "throwing around misleading numbers based on potentially wrong assumptions". I was arguing that a very specific statement was wrong ("4K is only worth it on big TVs"), and I backed it up with facts that suited the argument that was being made.

    I'm out of this discussion though.

  11. #1091
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    7,805
    I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.

  12. #1092
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    22,044
    If my eyes can only see 24 frames per second why bother rendering anything higher? Checkmate monitor nerds.
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  13. #1093

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    13,729

  14. #1094
    Lady Spank's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Get Out Nasty Face
    Posts
    5,158
    Cock off elsewhere with your monitor wankery.

  15. #1095
    Specially Pegged Donor Overspark's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    NL fuck yeah
    Posts
    3,831
    Christ, this has turned into a cripple fight. I'm not engaging anymore, the natives are getting restless anyway.

  16. #1096
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    17,728
    I hear that CDPR are working on a game?
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    And btw, you're such a fucking asshole it genuinely amazes me on a regular basis how you manage to function.

  17. #1097
    Lady Spank's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Get Out Nasty Face
    Posts
    5,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    I hear that CDPR are working on a game?
    I wonder what the theme will be?

  18. #1098
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    6,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Spank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    I hear that CDPR are working on a game?
    I wonder what the theme will be?
    Pixels.

  19. #1099
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    17,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Spank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    I hear that CDPR are working on a game?
    I wonder what the theme will be?
    Pixels.
    get out
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    And btw, you're such a fucking asshole it genuinely amazes me on a regular basis how you manage to function.

  20. #1100
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    7,430
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Spank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    I hear that CDPR are working on a game?
    I wonder what the theme will be?
    Pixels.
    get out
    But seriously, what is the resolution of Cyber-eyes?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •