Jesus Christ. Games Media is a fucking joke, now more than ever.
And the saddest part is that the 'games media' is in on the joke.
Jesus Christ. Games Media is a fucking joke, now more than ever.
Alright, fine, let's do some optics calculations.
- A 50" screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio is about 43.579 inches (1.112m) wide by 24.513 (0.623m) tall.
- At 1920x1080, the pixels would be 0.0227 inches (0.579mm) wide and tall. At 1280x720, they're 0.034 inches. (0.864mm)
- The typical resolution for a human eye with 20/20 vision is about 2 arcminutes per line pair.
- This means a feature is no longer resolvable when it's 10,801 times further away from the eye than it is tall/wide. (2 arcminutes / 360 degrees = 10801.08)
- On a 50" display with a 1080p resolution, individual pixels can no longer be resolved if the viewer is 20.432 feet (6.228m) away from the screen. For the same display at 720p, it's 30.603 feet (9.328m).
I'm sorry, IGN, but you'll need to retake this class. I'll be giving the lectures, and I'm requiring you to sit an additional 10.171 feet away from the whiteboard.
I haven't been following this thread, but I guess that the press got something grossly wrong, refuse to admit their mistake, talked down to their readers, and are now patting each other on the back on Twitter?
Good management. Game "journalists" have those "friend in the industry" characters that manage them. They take them out to dinner and put the ideas inteo their heads that they can write about.This. A thousand times this. I really don't get why the games journalism folk seem to have such animosity to the people they make content for. Yes there are some fuckwits out there who give you constant shit (deservedly at times) but don't paint us all with the same bloody brush!
Alright, fine, let's do some optics calculations.
I'm sorry, IGN, but you'll need to retake this class. I'll be giving the lectures, and I'm requiring you to sit an additional 10.171 feet away from the whiteboard.
- A 50" screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio is about 43.579 inches (1.112m) wide by 24.513 (0.623m) tall.
- At 1920x1080, the pixels would be 0.0227 inches (0.579mm) wide and tall. At 1280x720, they're 0.034 inches. (0.864mm)
- The typical resolution for a human eye with 20/20 vision is about 2 arcminutes per line pair.
- This means a feature is no longer resolvable when it's 10,801 times further away from the eye than it is tall/wide. (2 arcminutes / 360 degrees = 10801.08)
- On a 50" display with a 1080p resolution, individual pixels can no longer be resolved if the viewer is 20.432 feet (6.228m) away from the screen. For the same display at 720p, it's 30.603 feet (9.328m).
OMG this can't be real and if so how the hell is this guy still employed as a journalist.
This is Microsofts killer app. You will buy an Xbox One for Titanfall, and you should. Sure, youd have a good time with it on PC if youve got a capable rig, but your couch and the Xbox Live community will be the ecosystem its best enjoyed in.
Based IGN giving us a new meme.I can see the difference.
But I really don't care.
"I was told a thing. Relax"
Seriously? Its like this guy never heard of this thing called google so that he could check and see if the "thing" was correct or not. SMH
I haven't been following this thread, but I guess that the press got something grossly wrong, refuse to admit their mistake, talked down to their readers, and are now patting each other on the back on Twitter?
Alright, fine, let's do some optics calculations.
I'm sorry, IGN, but you'll need to retake this class. I'll be giving the lectures, and I'm requiring you to sit an additional 10.171 feet away from the whiteboard.
- A 50" screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio is about 43.579 inches (1.112m) wide by 24.513 (0.623m) tall.
- At 1920x1080, the pixels would be 0.0227 inches (0.579mm) wide and tall. At 1280x720, they're 0.034 inches. (0.864mm)
- The typical resolution for a human eye with 20/20 vision is about 2 arcminutes per line pair.
- This means a feature is no longer resolvable when it's 10,801 times further away from the eye than it is tall/wide. (2 arcminutes / 360 degrees = 10801.08)
- On a 50" display with a 1080p resolution, individual pixels can no longer be resolved if the viewer is 20.432 feet (6.228m) away from the screen. For the same display at 720p, it's 30.603 feet (9.328m).
I haven't been following this thread, but I guess that the press got something grossly wrong, refuse to admit their mistake, talked down to their readers, and are now patting each other on the back on Twitter?
You're talking about the same guy that put this in a preview
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/22/i-played-titanfall-and
But if it really doesn't matter to them, are they supposed to feign outrage and create an issue where they don't really see one?
It doesn't matter to me either, and that will likely never change. If that makes you mad, its your problem, not mine. *shrug
You're talking about the same guy that put this in a preview
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/22/i-played-titanfall-and
thank you for doing their job for them.Alright, fine, let's do some optics calculations.
I'm sorry, IGN, but you'll need to retake this class. I'll be giving the lectures, and I'm requiring you to sit an additional 10.171 feet away from the whiteboard.
- A 50" screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio is about 43.579 inches (1.112m) wide by 24.513 (0.623m) tall.
- At 1920x1080, the pixels would be 0.0227 inches (0.579mm) wide and tall. At 1280x720, they're 0.034 inches. (0.864mm)
- The typical resolution for a human eye with 20/20 vision is about 2 arcminutes per line pair.
- This means a feature is no longer resolvable when it's 10,801 times further away from the eye than it is tall/wide. (2 arcminutes / 360 degrees = 10801.08)
- On a 50" display with a 1080p resolution, individual pixels can no longer be resolved if the viewer is 20.432 feet (6.228m) away from the screen. For the same display at 720p, it's 30.603 feet (9.328m).
That's exactly right.
Pretty much, though this time the person who made the mistake simply said that they don't care. Progress I guess.
I cant think of too many other hobbies that have a media that is this antagonistic of its reader base in public. Some of these angsty people should step out of their little bubble and get new jobs, they clearly aren't happy being a corporations puppet. I am of 2 minds on seeing these posts here. One one side I think GAF should set up some rules about posting their diatribe here. If half of those twitter posts were actual posts on GAF that whole crew from polygon would probably be banned. On the other side I would never see these posts because these clowns mean nothing to me and I wrote them off a long time ago. I dont usually seek out incompetence on the internet. It is nice drum up awareness of how incompetent these guys are and why you shouldn't pay them any mind, not everyone knows this sadly. At this point I think they have been given so much rope there isn't a structure high enough to hang themselves with.
Exactly. Also, how else would Ryan score a gig with MS on the big show??![]()
You're talking about the same guy that put this in a preview
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/22/i-played-titanfall-and
You're talking about the same guy that put this in a preview
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/22/i-played-titanfall-and
Real-time graphics isn't quite the same thing as blu-ray movies though. Sharper, crisper graphics with less aliasing would be noticeable from further away than resolution differences in movies. The typical problems you have with real-time graphics aren't really present in movies.
To get the most benefit from that resolution, the general viewing distances relative to screen size are still probably relevant though. The benefit of having higher resolution movies is that more detail is present. In that sense, whether it be movies or real-time graphics, more subtle detail will be less visible from further away. More subtle detail would probably be harder to pick up than the overall sharpness of the game's graphics.
Then they'd never learn and would continue to do it. Or they still will, I don't know...Seriously, IGN is one of the biggest video game media websites and they write for the general crowd.
The fact that GAF even cares is really quite silly. It's like the video gaming community just sits around waiting for part of the gaming press to say something slightly wrong on a technical level so that they can spam twitter and create 20 page threads freaking out about it.
Someone should have just tweeted the guy "Hey you should clarify that the 50" thing is only true at certain viewing distances and might not be accurate for everyone" and that could have been the end of it.
Oh wow. How can that come off as anything OTHER than extremely biased?
I get what you're saying and I get that feeling. In fact, I got that feeling watching this video when he said that too but man, talk about blowing it out of proportion. How do you know he was just saying it to defend his crappy machine? Maybe he legit thought it was true. Doesn't make him a shill and doesn't make IGN a bad site. If he put this thing up in an article then all this would certainly be called for but this is just a podcast. Say your point of view sure. Prove him wrong, hell yeah. But talk shit like he just killed your mother, that's just crazy.
Oh, he's that guy?
My God, you couldn't be more thirsty for a position at Microsoft even if you tried.
"Like all of Neogaf" How rude..
Then they'd never learn and would continue to do it. Or they still will, I don't know...
Can't spell ignorance without "IGN".
Exactly. Also, how else would Ryan score a gig with MS on the big show??![]()