| sieanr said: You my friend are sorely mistaken. It does cause detrimental effects to the picture most of the time, even if you fail to realize it. It has nothing to do with the game that is in use and I honestly can't see why this is hard to grasp. Most sets handle brightness a certain way, and Full RGB is meant for computer monitors or TVs that can handle signals differently than a tv - and that is the only reason Full RGB was added. You can debate this till the cows come home, but thats a fact. Hell, for shits and giggles try adjusting the saturation and brightness settings and you're tv when the PS3 outputs limited - you'll be able to get a picture that is the exact same as full rgb. Read this and you might learn something; http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6518336&postcount=1417 funny, didnt you mention video capture cards? What I meant was their PS3 games look fine when they play them on a tv. Why would they think it'd be any different on a capture card? Remember that if you have things on the TV set correctly it wont look washed out. just to make it clear i am going by John Lucas' definition of "customers", consumers would not know the difference but customers will. ever heard his line "always a customer never a consumer"? And this changes who the videos are targeted at how? Oh right, it doesn't. they dont show tearing, pop in or framerate issues in comparison videos like these... Those three things show up in comparison vids all the time. Then again, they don't exactly point it out for you. funny how you resort to name calling that quick. pretty good indirect try though, first you call fanboys arguing in GT "console warriors" a paragraph later you try to lump me as one of them... why dont you read the whole thread again and see where i stand in this matter. the only reason i mentioned GT and AC was because endimion would not believe that GT gave an inaccurate comparison before. Where did I resort to name calling? The fact of the matter is you don't understand what the RGB full setting actually changes, yet you think that explains why the colors look different. Furthermore you argue that its an unfair comparison when all they're doing is capturing the default output. |
I enjoyed reading the link you provided,
and yes from andrewfee's tests i found out my set does support full RGB.
So for what its worth, thanks, you gave me piece of mind about that issue.
Andrewfee:
"Here's a test for people to see whether or not their display supports the new full range option or not.First, save this image, and put it on a memory card or something so that you can view it on the PS3:http://sr-388.net/images/patterns/Brightness.jpg
With the option set to limited, adjust the brightness control on your TV until you can see most/all of the boxes. There are 12 boxes there, but you might not be able to see them all. You should hopefully be able to see at least 9/10 of them.
Now switch it over to Full range. Can you still see all the boxes? It's very likely that you will only see a full black screen now if you're using a HDTV rather than a DVI monitor.
If you can turn up the brightness control and see the same number of boxes again, then it seems your display does support the full range. If it stays black, or you can't see as many boxes as before, your TV does not support the full range option and you should be using limited.
Most HDTVs should have it set to limited."
yes, my set passed that test.
"If your display has the option to choose between "PC" levels (full range) and "Video" levels, then you would want 0-255 for both. If you're using full range on a display that does not expect full range over HDMI, you then completely lose shadow details, as pictured above.
You're best using full if you can see all the boxes on it. It should, in theory at least, give you slightly smoother gradients."
So Full is better, so how is it detrimental again?
"Good to know. Full range is always best to use if you have the option of displaying it properly though."
uh huh
those are all quoted from Andrewfee, the guy you linked me too.
now quotes from you:
"What I meant was their PS3 games look fine when they play them on a tv. Why would they think it'd be any different on a capture card?
so my ps3 game looked fine on my tv yet it looks washed out on their capture card?
"Remember that if you have things on the TV set correctly it wont look washed out.""
i agree, so why is it washed out on their video capture card?
About the customer thing, you declared customers wouldnt notice a difference, i just corrected you
by stating what definition of customer i meant when i said they would know the difference.
i for one would consider myself a customer from JL's definition not a consumer.
I research before i buy.
"Those three things show up in comparison vids all the time. Then again, they don't exactly point it out for you."
why arent we mister high and mighty, oh im sorry i didnt see the pop-ins and the tearings or the jumpy framerate, maybe if you pointed it out for me i would know... -_-
"Where did I resort to name calling? "
i just explained it in my other post, first you call the fanboys arguing at GT "console warriors"
calling the comparison video ammo for their little battle.
and then you try to lump me along with them...
yeah indirect name calling is no different than name calling...
"The fact of the matter is you don't understand what the RGB full setting actually changes, yet you think that explains why the colors look different. "
from what i have read, it gives deeper colors but not deeper blacks.
i think youre also very confused with RGB yourself.
saying you lose shadows, and it crushes blacks, which basically only happens when your set doesnt support full RGB.
seriously bud, you need to lighten up, It a friendly discussion...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iclim4 - "The Friends Thread changed my life!" (Pervert Alert!) Tags? 
