Should there be a capture resolution limit?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 May 2006, 11:46

Can we add one rule to this idea and that being captures fit nicely on a 1024x768 resoution. So I guess 800x600 is good. Having to scroll left to right is really annoying.

Tom2681 wrote:No, no and no (unless a strong majority vote says Yes ). Anything under 1024x576 leads to a loss of detail for anamorphic PAL DVDs.

Anything under 1024x576 leads to a loss of detail for anamorphic PAL DVDs. MY comparisons will always be fair.

How so? Surely the NTSC DVD would lose detail so making it equal.

Every other comparison I've ever seen uses captures that fit but agreed some are far to tiny.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 May 2006, 11:48

When voting please also state why?

gasteropod wrote:It is indeed really annoying having to scroll sideways to read all of the writing, though.

Exactly and to click QUOTE :shock:

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 08 May 2006, 11:51

Anamorphic PAL DVD = 1024x576.
Anamorphic NTSC DVD = 852x480.

If both caps are resized to 852x480 = Loss of detail for the PAL DVD.
If both caps are resized to 720x406 = Loss of detail for both DVDs (but there's a bigger loss for the PAL DVD).
Ideal resolution = 1024x576 (the only resolution that doesn't result in loss of detail).

That's all I can say.
Now, let's let the people decide.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 May 2006, 11:54

But you'd therefore be scaling up NTSC DVDs effecting how they look. At the end of the day it's incredibely annoying having to scroll left to right to the point many won't bother.

I'll soon get bored which is a shame as the comparisons are otherwise very good. Like I said ALL other comparison captures resize their captures for this reason.

Besides just because you're making a capture smaller it doesn't mean you're losing detail.

Tom2681 wrote:Ideal resolution = 1024x576 (the only resolution that doesn't result in loss of detail).

Nope far from ideal, until the day comes we all use 1600x1200.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 08 May 2006, 12:20

Well ultimately, there's nothing to stop you saving the images on your harddrive and resizing it yourself. XP is smart as you can easily check images side by side.

I agree with the French feline and voted no.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 08 May 2006, 12:23

Its annoying having to scroll left to right!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 May 2006, 12:34

Well click Yes then as otherwise it's not a fair poll.

BiscLimpkit wrote:Well ultimately, there's nothing to stop you saving the images on your harddrive and resizing it yourself. XP is smart as you can easily check images side by side.

Well of course but that's like saying you can buy cheaper beer in Tescos than you can in the pub.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 08 May 2006, 12:43

Hmmm... you know, I have encountered people who in these days are still on an 800x600 screen resolution. I won't vote, because personally, I never had to scroll due to a picture comparison so far. I'm on 1280x1024 and am satisfied with what Tom has posted in his comparison threads so far. As long as the shots aren't as small as Markgway's guess-the-Shaw-flick-caps were, I'm fine. I had no problems in the DVD Mystere thread either.

But I also won't vote against the idea, as I feel for those who actually have to scroll.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 May 2006, 13:10

I know it's madness. 800x600 is exactly the reason DVD Active have gone for that god awful look.

They said in their poll more voted for 800x600 than 1024x768. On a 17" monitor I find even 1024x768 far to big.

Most people and I'm confident of this only use 800x600 because it's what they're used to. If you force someone (because they don't know how to change it) to a higher resolution for a day they'll forgot all about why they were moaning.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 08 May 2006, 17:30

bradavon wrote: Well of course but that's like saying you can buy cheaper beer in Tescos than you can in the pub.

Yes but sometimes it's good to have a few Tesco beers and get sloshed early, saving some cash on a night out, which you can later spend on a kebab and taxi fairs.

On a similar note, I think resizing will influence the image quality and don't we want accurate comparisons? Just save it on your PC and it'll be a-ok. I'm fine with my current resolution and the way the images look.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 08 May 2006, 17:34

I voted yes

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 08 May 2006, 17:48

thelostdragon wrote: But I also won't vote against the idea, as I feel for those who actually have to scroll.

That's a pretty lame reason to not vote. Having to scroll is hardly that irritating... Judging by what you said, you sound like you should be voting no.

How about a compromise - using thumbnails (make them 640*480 or whatever) and link them to the main full size image?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 08 May 2006, 17:58

Why not just do them as high as they go, and thumnail them for people to click on them!

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 08 May 2006, 17:59

Dammit romero, that was my idea. Now everyone's gonna credit you cos you came out with a funny example. :x

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 May 2006, 18:01

No offence it's not irrating for you but is immensely for me and others.

Great idea Bisc. It's Even Stevens right now. This site is wicked for this and a doddle to use:

http://www.imageshack.us/

Or we could just link to the photos? But that does kinda defeat the purpose in a way.

BiscLimpkit wrote:Yes but sometimes it's good to have a few Tesco beers and get sloshed early, saving some cash on a night out, which you can later spend on a kebab and taxi fairs.

BiscLimpkit wrote:On a similar note, I think resizing will influence the image quality and don't we want accurate comparisons? Just save it on your PC and it'll be a-ok. I'm fine with my current resolution and the way the images look.

Of course but we're talking screen captures here not artist of the month.

Personally I don't really buy Tom's argument sorry. The detail loss will be minute (if it's noticeable at all) and make it much easier to tell which is better as you won't constantly be scrolling left and right.

At the end of the day for me at least I ultimately want to know which is better/I should buy.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 08 May 2006, 20:59

How do you find out out what resolution you're on?

I have a 17" flat monitor.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 08 May 2006, 21:19

right click on your desktop background/wallpaper, click on properties then settings.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 May 2006, 00:17

When you say Flat Screen I presume you mean LCD/TFT (TFT is a type of LCD monitor)? It's a really stupid name as I've seen plenty of Flat Screen CRTs.

As Bisc. says on the Settings tab from the Properties window it will say Screen Resolution, you can also see what your colour depth is set to (it should be set to 24-Bit or 32-Bit regardless of your monitor/graphics card). As far as PC's go:

640x480 - Still used in computer games but otherwise very much dead. Very old, no detail or sharpness and massive icons.
800x600 - A bit better but not by much.
1024x768 - Pretty much the standard but slowly dying as Monitors get larger and TFTs get sharper.
1152x864 - Where sharpness starts to become acceptable.
1280x1024 - I lie this is what my monitor is set to. TFTs don't go much higher than this at the 17" level.
1600x1200 - Commonly available on CRTs but I've yet to find anyone who uses it. Tiny icons but very sharp.

There are also lots of other non-standard resolutions which change from monitor to monitor and graphics card to graphics card but they usually don't give you a 4:3 ratio.

You really don't want to go lower than 1024x768. If your monitor is less I really recommend going higher, putting up with the smaller icons for a day (it will bug you at first) and you'll quickly get used to it.

Try setting the resolution higher to get an idea of how much sharper things can get (Windows XP won't let you choose by default an option your monitor doesn't support and even if it goes wrong after 10 seconds if you don't click on OK it reverts back).

FYI the icons will get smaller as the dots have to get smaller to accommodate the extra dots which give you the shaper image.

BiscLimpkit wrote:right click on your desktop background/wallpaper, click on properties then settings.

The amount of people who call this the Screen Saver is staggering. Oddly I've yet to find someone who calls their Screen Saver the Desktop.

FYI it's the Desktop, the actual picture is your Wallpaper.

Just like technically it's the picture that is the icon, the icon as most people know it is a shortcut. I gave up ages ago calling it by the proper name and use icon now too.

People who call their PC the Hard Drive cracks me up too. Why I don't know as you won't ever find IT Guys calling a PC the Hard Drive or rarely even hear them use the word period around end-users.

BiscLimpkit wrote:Dammit romero, that was my idea. Now everyone's gonna credit you cos you came out with a funny example. :x

I saw you said it first

The thing is that defeats the point of a Comparison forum in some ways. Links would work too at the end of the day.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 09 May 2006, 00:43

I'm using 1152x864 too on my 19" flat CRT.

People who call their PC the Hard Drive cracks me up too

I just call it "the box".

I also call my mouse "the rodent" because that's how Jacques Chirac calls it.

Back on topic:
I'll use 852x480 from now on (like in the NPS comparison). How's that ?

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 09 May 2006, 01:31

Hey, what's worse is when people call the monitor the computer! My sister and mum do/did.

I'm on 1024/768 by the way.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 09 May 2006, 01:59

1024 x 768

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 09 May 2006, 08:06

Mine is 1024 X 768 too

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 09 May 2006, 11:30

bradavon wrote: FYI it's the Desktop, the actual picture is your Wallpaper.

Thanks but nobody can be assed calling anything by their proper names anymore.

Looks like the no's have it. 8)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 May 2006, 11:45

Tom2681 wrote:I'm using 1152x864 too on my 19" flat CRT.

My god your icons must be huge. Why use such a low resolution on a 19" monitor? You're losing out on so much sharpness.

I know people who use 1600x1200 on a 17", that can't be good for their eyes but on that size monitor I wouldn't go lower than 1280x1024.

A CRT too - WTF??? You spent all your money on a projector but still use a CRT monitor???

What will you do if you go over to LCD? There's no way that resolution will be Native on a LCD which is really important as they only display one resolution properly. You'll have to get used to a decent resolution at some point.

Man you run your PC in a really weird way

Tom2681 wrote:I just call it "the box".
I also call my mouse "the rodent" because that's how Jacques Chirac calls it.

I didn't know you hade so much attention to him

Tom2681 wrote:Back on topic:
I'll use 852x480 from now on (like in the NPS comparison). How's that ?

Good idea but do you know why scroll bars still appear? Meaning you still have to scroll left to right. I don't know why as the captures easily fit on the screen.

gasteropod wrote:Hey, what's worse is when people call the monitor the computer! My sister and mum do/did.

True but then the Apple Mac monitor also used to be the computer.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 09 May 2006, 12:17

Don't forget refresh rate comes into this too.

I have a 17" Samsung Xiod CRT monitor which is capable of 1280x1024 but I use it at 1024x768. You might ask "Why?".

Simple - at 1280x1024 it can only manage 60Hz refresh rate which gives me a headache after about 10 minutes use, but at 1024x768 I can have a refresh rate of 85Hz which is perfect.