I know that DVI is a limitation in getting 120Hz LCDs out on the market, but freaking Displayport has been out for a while, my 2008 monitor has a DP port on it. The new ATI cards have DP ports.
Anyone heard anything about 1920x1200+ 120Hz LCDs coming soon?
Are HDTV's that claim 120hz capable of taking 1080P(120hz not 60hz?) or is it something where the TV is fed a 1080P60 signal and it does it's own magic to double the hz?
Film is 24 frames per second.
...
The problem is, most TVs run at 30 frames per second... You can't divide 24 by 30 without filling in the gaps with some junk. That junk causes stuttering in the video. This is a jerky-looking phenomenon that's particularly noticeable when the camera pans across a scene. The conversion is better known by film and TV wonks as 2:3 pulldown.
...
How does this relate to an 120Hz HDTV showing frames at 120 frames per second?
...
These new HDTVs avoid this awkward 3:2 pulldown process altogether by changing their frame rate to something that's a multiple of 24 by using either frame doubling or interpolation (also called "tweening").
Thanks Zap.
For those waiting for 1920x1200@120hz, why not just got with 16x9 solutions that provide almost as much real estate?
Given the trend with 16:9 monitors, I don't expect that we'll ever see a 1920x1200 120Hz monitor.
Quite sad. 1080 is great for those coming from smaller res screens, but coming from 1680x1050, its such disappointment. But cheapness, low cost sells. Thats the main reason for 1080. If 1920x1200 completely disappears from the market, I will fork out the cash for a 2560 x1600 rather go for a 1080.Everyone knows that 1920x1200 is dying because everyone is moving or has moved on to 1080. It's just the way it is.
Quite sad. 1080 is great for those coming from smaller res screens, but coming from 1680x1050, its such disappointment. But cheapness, low cost sells. Thats the main reason for 1080. If 1920x1200 completely disappears from the market, I will fork out the cash for a 2560 x1600 rather go for a 1080.
Quite sad. 1080 is great for those coming from smaller res screens, but coming from 1680x1050, its such disappointment. But cheapness, low cost sells. Thats the main reason for 1080. If 1920x1200 completely disappears from the market, I will fork out the cash for a 2560 x1600 rather go for a 1080.
I went from 1024x768 19", to 1680x1050 21" (16:10) and finally to 1920x1080 24" (16:9). Honestly, I don't notice the difference in aspect ratio at all except when playing a game.
Yet this is exactly the opposite of what the general consensus here seems to be, anyone that went to 1680x1050 doesn't seem to like 1080p at all...
Because you haven't used a 1920x1200 or 1600x1200 monitor. You really start to miss those 120 pixels once you have them.Again, this still baffles me. I made a post about it several days ago:
1600x1200 FTW!!!
If they insist on 16:9 bullshit I demand 4:3 options
Im gonna keep rocking my 24" 1920x1440 72Hz CRT untill they stop fucking people in the ass with crappy LCDs. My monitor keeps getting older and older and LCDs keep getting worse and worse. Even the most batshit insane expensive LCDs are crap in comparison, color banding, quality issues, screen blotching, backlight problems, and all manner of stupid crap. I dont think my CRT will hold out untill I can print my own OLED screen...
How is it that I got a heavy duty super high quality accurate beast of a glass screen monitor 10 years ago for less than a modern platic peice of junk? I am more than willing to drop a grand if only someone would make something NOT garbage...GAH!
Fast response 4:3 FTW!!!