Who here has the LARGEST DISPLAY for their computer rig? Go BIG or go home! ;)

[zCee]

Pixel wise I will win even against those with a larger net display.

(snip)

But 3x24 and a 37 is a pretty good amount of real estate pixel count not withstanding.

This setup wins for me!

[Syndrome]

Nice Speakers!

Wharfedale Evo2-10

Yeah they sound very very nice, Picked them up for 460USD shipped, had to pay extra 60 for the rosewood color. Never regretted spending the extra on the color. I'm going to get some of the same brand but a lower line-up for my rear speakers in my new 4.1 system.

No one mentioned the apparent drinking problem though

Wat problem?

the only problem i see is that it's running low

lol, yeah pretty much took the words right out of my mouth.



I'm thinking of modding my desk a little more. Going to 'inset' my laptop into the top of the desk(on an angle, the fans will still blow up and out of the 'inset'

This will make it so only the screen from the notebook is sticking up out of the desk and I will have to use an external monitor, will solve the issue of the ports being on the side of the laptop, cable management FTW!

[TigerWolfe]

Pixel wise I will win even against those with a larger net display.

(snip)

But 3x24 and a 37 is a pretty good amount of real estate pixel count not withstanding.

This is pretty much the same setup I have for my desktop.

3 x 23in and a 36in Sharp Aquos mounted above them.

[Datamonger]

Not a constant setup, but I occasionally hook my MBP up to the 65" DLP TV in my living room.

[masterchef341]

100" 1080p DLP projector.

victory?

[Kuroi-Tsubasa]

100" 1080p DLP projector.

victory?

You has it.

(Until a challenger arrives)

[ViciousXUSMC]

You has it.

(Until a challenger arrives)

I think the screen cast by the projector is 100" not the projector itself.

Now humor me in this theory that projectors screen size changes depending on how far you cast the image. But the resolution never changes.

In effect the image never changes only your perception of the image and its size.

We can do the same with a monitor, its called move closer or father from the screen.

To that effect somebody with a 1920x1200 monitor has more pixel count and if you so feel like getting 6" away from your screen it would be percieved larger than said 100" screen and still have higher quality

Thus size really has no bearing, it should be more abut pixel count, or if you are going to go with size projectors really cant count since you can vary the size easily.

[pengy_666]

Thus size really has no bearing, it should be more abut pixel count, or if you are going to go with size projectors really cant count since you can vary the size easily.

Seconded! crappy 10 char so stoopid!

[ntrain96]

100" 1080p DLP projector.

victory?

Still short by 6" and 21" inches compared to both of mine. But gotta post pics regardless to lay a legitimate claim.

[masterchef341]

I think the screen cast by the projector is 100" not the projector itself.

Now humor me in this theory that projectors screen size changes depending on how far you cast the image. But the resolution never changes.

In effect the image never changes only your perception of the image and its size.

We can do the same with a monitor, its called move closer or father from the screen.

To that effect somebody with a 1920x1200 monitor has more pixel count and if you so feel like getting 6" away from your screen it would be percieved larger than said 100" screen and still have higher quality

Thus size really has no bearing, it should be more abut pixel count, or if you are going to go with size projectors really cant count since you can vary the size easily.

A few thoughts:

1. Yes, obviously, the image cast by the projector is 100", not the projector itself. The reverse makes no sense.

2. You're also correct in that a 1080p projection screen changes in size, but not resolution, as you move the projector and change the size of the projected image. Obviously, this happens because the pixels themselves change size. That's just how projectors work.

3. Resolution is one important part of image quality, among many. An audio/videophile like yourself should be well aware of this.

4. Concerning your theory, it needs considerable work and revision. In a completely dark room with only the screen visible and your head completely still, you could still tell the difference between a large screen far away and a small screen close to your face. Your eyes go through a very different physiological process when viewing in these in these different setups, and it's naive to presume that they are equivalent. The classic double blind ABX preference test should resolve this, but it's also a big part of the reason people drop thousands of dollars on larger format displays (generally LCD or plasma, or maybe DLP rear projection... DLP front projection isn't quite as popular at the moment).

5. You did have sort of the right idea though, at least in part. The digital representation of a large 1920*1080 image is not necessarily any different than the digital representation of a small 1920*1080 image. The only difference is indeed our perception of it. That said we also don't have any interaction at all with the digital representation of an image. We interact with light which comes from an analog light emitting device. The functional differences begin on that level, before the perceptual level.

6. For a variety of reasons (before we even start talking about impracticality), your small-screen-close-to-face idea would not work (but it's not a bad idea- it just doesn't work)

7. Disregarding perception of an image as unimportant is a huge mistake. Our only experience of an image is our perception of it. That's just a definition of perception. Now, if we go through two equivalent experiences, we should have a very similar (average) perception of those events. Again, you could use ABX double blind preference testing to show this. But the situation above is not equivalent. There are major functional differences between the described setups.

8. This gets back to point number (4) - but when you view an image on a screen, your eyes have to focus on that image. If it's a 3D image on a 2D screen, it doesn't matter- your eyes focus at the screen distance, and your brain fills in the depth information from context and partially ignores the eyes. To focus on something up close, your eyes have to go through considerable physical change to accommodate that level of focus. It's not comfortable to view something six inches in front of your face for two hours. When viewing at an infinity distance, your eyes can relax and view naturally.

The eyes and the rest of the visual perception system are way more complex than you are giving them credit for... projectors which can vary in size certainly should count. One thing which you have to keep in mind with projectors is that they have a certain brightness which is finite and constant, regardless of screen size. As you increase the screen size, that brightness is distributed over a larger area, and so the image becomes exponentially darker as size increases. You can't take a cheap projector and get a good looking 200" image. It just won't work.

The main thing to take away from this is that resolution is NOT everything. It's important, but it's only one thing. In fact, it's not even the single most important thing. I would argue contrast, color saturation, and color accuracy are each more important (higher impact on what we perceive) than resolution, in terms of perceived image quality. Of note, all of those have a lot to do with the analog display of a digital image (what you see), and little to do with the digital image (how a computer models an image, we don't see this).