'Butterman' said:UHDV...
More interesting, is the 22.2 surround that's bundled with it. 22 motherfucking speakers. Count it, 22.
Actually, I think that's 24 speakers.
Perhaps you could mod your Pandora to use your TV?'foft' said:What I love about the Pandora res is that its exactly the same as my 42" TV! Nice diagram.
'Sphinxter' said:Have to point out there is no scrollwheel to click or function.'kin' said:Lol funny comparison chart.
uhu.. i would like to map the dpad to be the same function as the scrollwheel click function so you can navigate leftright updown when browsing in 800x480
What he meant was to map the scrollwheel click function of an ordinary mouse (that brings up the scroll feature) to the d-pad, that is tho scroll web content with the d-pad. The last keyboard layout image I've seen had this feature mapped to the right analogue nub, with 3 mouse keys on the thumb buttons and a mouse cursor move on the left nub. Who knows if this is final, but you should be able to map them as you want one way or another.
'Butterman' said:'WizardStan' said:What I meant, was that most decent 42" TVs run 1080p (1920×1080). I know mine does.'Butterman' said:You brought some shitty TV eh?
800x480 is actually better than SD. All tube TVs (and possibly some early LCD (though at 42 inches, I don't imagine it being all that early)) would have a lower res than what the Pandora has.
People seem to forget that 1080p was unheard of just a few years ago. The first 42" TV's I remember only had 640x480 and cost many times that of todays LCDs. The quality was probably crap as it was 1st gen, compared to like 7th gen or whatever we are at now. The only way normal people could afford one was through a lottery.
If you put a screen @ 96 DPI at 2 meters away from you, you won't distingue a pattern of 1-pixel wide white line and a 1-pixel black line because you reached your max eye's acuity. This means that those TV screens (correct me if wrong) would make sense only if their size was (3840/96)inches x (2160/96)inches = 40 inches x 22.5 inches... total of 45-diagonal inches TV. Let's say that 42' are fine... Everything beyond this (EG: 3840x2160 on a 30' TV) would just be a waste of resources (provided that you see your TV from a 2 meters distance...)'craigix' said:The next generation of HD TV is 3840×2160, and the BBC already have cameras which can record in some crazy res, 12000x7000 or so and they have done test broadcasts at these resolutions.
The future is pretty clear.
This is very much appreciated!'Elwing' said:here's an actual version to print out...
CODE
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1096/63012248.jpg
make sure you use a software that actually use the image dpi/size value... it should print a 20cm wide image...
Xmoon said:I browse web at 800*600 and I often need fit-to-witdh from opera.
Has firefox similar feature?
'chole' said:Firefox's "Web Developer Toolbar" extension is a little like that. In the "Miscellaneous" menu there are options such as "Linearize Page" and "Small Screen Rendering". The former will solve many of the width issues but will not autoshrink images and applets, while the latter makes things PalmOS width, which is kinda blah. Both sort of mess up some advanced positioning elements, like the formatting toolbar on this very page (if you use either, remember that "Options -> Persist Features" is your friend here).'Xmoon' said:I browse web at 800*600 and I often need fit-to-witdh from opera.
Has firefox similar feature?
Also, there appears to be an extension called "Default FullZoom Level". It seems to have an option called "Fit To Window". YMMV, as I haven't tried it out myself.
My suspicion, though, is that Opera rules and Firefox drools, at least in this particular area of usability.
Thanks for your well explained answer.