BF2S Forums Tech: Open thread

Kmarion wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Finray wrote:

Either you didn't pick up on it, or you didn't bite. Out of interest, which was it?

Also I don't really know, I've only ever had experience of small LCDs and big Plasmas, none of the other way round. My brother has a 42" Plasma in his room. Heats his room better than a radiator, and screenburns like a mofo. Nice picture from it though.

My next "TV" will probably be a projector or big PC monitor... you can't argue with >100" / >2048 x 1152

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09 … k.monitor/

4k could be the next big thing. .. that is once the 3d buzz dies down.

inb4max

Woah, lots of edits there Kmar :S  I thought I was going crazy for a minute

I still hope 3D does catch on (and is properly done).  It would be really cool to have 3D movies in your own home.

Kmarion wrote:

WC I was quoted before I could fix the link..lol. So I improvised.

It may catch on but I don't think it will like the TV industry wants it to. They are making tvs now that will convert all content into 3d. I heard it's pretty awsm to watch sports in it though. I think wearing the glasses is going to be a problem. .. at least for non geeky tech like people. Can you imagine going to a superbowl party and having to pass out 3d glasses to 20+ people (lolz).

Heh, yeah that would be funny looking.  Its obviously going to be a niche product, even if it does catch on.  It costs more to produce and is likely less feasible for broadcasting (since people might not want 3D -> less viewers -> less advertising $$), etc.  Still, I think for movies and possibly sports it would be fantastic.  Someone watching a movie likely wouldnt care as much about the glasses since they're just sitting down on their couch in relative privacy for the entire time, unlike a Superbowl party.

Will that increase in resolution really make a significant difference?  Lots of people dont see the difference between 720p and 1080p at a distance, I dont know if they'd see the difference in that kind of resolution.  Its quite possible I could be wrong, but it almost seems like the difference between listening to music at 320CBR and FLAC.  You're really not going to notice a difference unless you're studying its exact wave forms

Kmarion wrote:

no it wont make a big difference on TV's under 100".. it just seems nearly everyone in this thread thinks bigger and higher rez = ultimate . Some theaters here in the States have 4k projectors and you can definitely note the difference. I prefer watching Avatar on a 4k screen than 3d. 3D doesn't really work that well with me, personally. Some people have trouble with it.  It will be interesting when oled tv's start being produced at a descent price/size.

So like 0.01% of the market? lol... useful

Yeah, you can definitely notice the difference in some theatres over others.  I found Avatar to be great in 3D, I honestly dont know if it was 4K res or not.  I saw it in IMAX 3D as well though, that must be 4K+.  That was almost overwhelming, but thats because I was too close to the front.

Agreed, OLED is what I'm next looking forward to in TVs.  What do you think will become good in terms of price/size first, OLED or SSDs?   And we're talking 50" TVs vs 1TB drives.  I'd guess OLED atm.

CammRobb wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

no it wont make a big difference on TV's under 100".. it just seems nearly everyone in this thread thinks bigger and higher rez = ultimate . Some theaters here in the States have 4k projectors and you can definitely note the difference. I prefer watching Avatar on a 4k screen than 3d. 3D doesn't really work that well with me, personally. Some people have trouble with it.  It will be interesting when oled tv's start being produced at a descent price/size.

So like 0.01% of the market? lol... useful

Yeah, you can definitely notice the difference in some theatres over others.  I found Avatar to be great in 3D, I honestly dont know if it was 4K res or not.  I saw it in IMAX 3D as well though, that must be 4K+.  That was almost overwhelming, but thats because I was too close to the front.

Agreed, OLED is what I'm next looking forward to in TVs.  What do you think will become good in terms of price/size first, OLED or SSDs?   And we're talking 50" TVs vs 1TB drives.  I'd guess OLED atm.

I reckon it'll be SSDs first. SSDs are mainstream already, OLED isn't (to my knowledge). They just gotta figure out a way of making SSDS huge and do it so that it's financially viable

SSDs are hardly mainstream.  When it costs 5x the price for a similarly sized spinning drive it really doesnt make them mainstream, I'd still consider them enthusiast.  OLED is in Zune HDs, would you consider that mainstream enough?

oled is also showing up in phones.. N1 for example.

no

I have an EEE PC with a 160GB hard drive.

CammRobb wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

Don't all netbooks use SSD? Slow-ass procs but fast-ass hd's.

They should tbh. The EEE 701 had a solid state drive.

Most netbooks use the slow-ass SSD's.

wondering if you guys could help me with something

installed W7 on my new 500gb Hdd, but it's still booting into vista on my dad's 250gb hdd. how do I change it so it boots into mine first? too drunk to dual boot

edit: changed boot priorities to default in Bios, sorted now

Last edited by CammRobb (2010-02-09 17:29:54)

Dauntless wrote:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2hf53f4.png

Nice, I allways hated that a Vista + XP dualboot defaulted to Vista

Just took delivery of the hardware complement to my emulated networking lab. The 881W drives my home network.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asus-VH242H-Gam … ce_title_3



Just saw this and thought it's a pretty good deal, so I thought I'd share with my much loved forum.

Last edited by CammRobb (2010-02-11 05:40:43)