I always figured there was something fishy about this whole 720p and 1080p resolution business. Especially when people started claiming you'd need a (then expensive) HDMI cable because otherwise it couldn't keep up with that *amazing* resolution in good quality. Then why does the very same analog VGA cable we've been using since at least the 90s perform perfectly fine on computer monitors that often have even slightly higher resolutions?
This article does not answer that question. It does, however raise a whole bunch of others ;-)
TVs are all awful (http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/8705.html)
(BTW there's one advantage of a HDMI cable over a VGA cable when connecting your laptop to a huge TV, and that is that HDMI also carries the audio signal, so if it just works [and so far it has, for me, on Windows at least] it's less fiddling with cables. It's not so good if you prefer your sound coming from another system rather than the relatively crappy TV speakers, of course)
That's some serious first-world problem, right there!
Eventually my enormous archaic TV will break, and then I will happily buy a new flat one, and everything will be fine because frankly, I do not care about any of that stuff.
It was a funny article though.
Another reason: Watching TV actually puts you in a totally receptive state.
Ugh, If you don't have a gold plated HDMI cable, you couldn't possibly have the best possible polypixal picture ratio.
While we don't watch "tv" per se, we do like movies and video games, so for me that's a good enough reason to have one around.
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2012, 11:14:32 PM
While we don't watch "tv" per se, we do like movies and video games, so for me that's a good enough reason to have one around.
Same here. Also, my daughter MUST have her Metalocalypse on demand.
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2012, 10:50:55 PM
That's some serious first-world problem, right there!
Of course. Electronics marketing bullshit usually is.
QuoteEventually my enormous archaic TV will break, and then I will happily buy a new flat one, and everything will be fine because frankly, I do not care about any of that stuff.
It was a funny article though.
And that's fine too. I do care about that stuff and I'm happy my big flatscreen computer monitor
does show pixels just as they're sent over the cable. The problem starts when there's people that care (or believe they ought to care) but they don't actually understand shit and believe everything they're told. And then buy the more expensive model because it has a better "contrast ratio" (another story, "contrast ratios" don't mean
anything, they're not even standardized between models).
Oh speaking about first world problems, my ex was doing some volunteer work, helping an asylum seeker/refugee from Somalia find his way in our wonderfully socialist but incredibly bureaucratic maze of a society. When they leave the asylum centre to find an apartment they get an allowance to buy furniture and shit and to pay the upfront rent deposit with. First thing he bought was an enormous flatscreen TV. My ex was a bit flabbergasted as the allowance is not that much and otherwise the guy was a really nice and responsible fellow (illiterate and inexperienced reading city maps, but made friends quickly who helped him get by with all sorts of things), anyway, she was told not to worry because they all did that. Partially a status thing, partially a "I'm first world now!" thing.
Another fun story was trying to explain him healthcare insurance. I think "It's like a subscription monthly payment so you can see the doctor any time you want. It's also mandatory." pretty much summed it up as far as he needed to know for now.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2012, 10:58:23 PMAnother reason: Watching TV actually puts you in a totally receptive state.
Of course. Which is why I said "another" reason, right away ;-)
Hm, I guess since we don't need a receiver, a monitor is perfectly adequate. Is there any difference other than that one has a receiver and one doesn't?
I don't really care as long as we can hook the Wii to it and it's within my budget. Which right now is "zero" so it's all moot anyway.
By "receiver" I assume you mean the plug that receives TV signal? No there's no difference. Except that a TV also has audio speakers so you need to hook up your Wii to a sound system as well. Also monitor's often sharper image because of (among other things) the stuff mentioned in the article.
Lifespan can sometimes be an issue, depending on what you are using it for, consoles are hard on TVs
My new Toshiba Satellite doesn't even have HDMI output. So I've got a VGA cable going to TV, and Audio jack to my Sherwood Digital receiver. I still get perfect HD video, and 4:1 Surround. Job done.
Yeah, by "receiver" I mean the bit of junk that can pick up TV signals.