Facts of Life ~ Technology
~ HD doesn't mean high quality
HD televisions enhance a visual aspect beyond what is natural, it doesn’t
make it better, and it can even make it worse.
To help you understand that High Definition isn't the
same as High Quality
, I'll start by explaining you some options to
modify a picture in photoshop:
Saturation, brightness, contrast and sharpen; to make you understand what
HD really is... and isn't.
High Definition is not the way reality is supposed to look like, not the
way the creators (and by that I mean visual artists) meant the special effects
to be. High Quality pictures should respect that above all. HD doesn't.
It only exaggerates settings, a too high definition makes you loose the
subtle smooth nuances, making the bad stand out more, creating aberrations
like big squares of pixels… lowering the quality in the process.
From desaturated, to natural, to saturated.
Now imagine a television called HS for High Saturation.
The people who like to watch documentaries about nature might be overjoyed.
Imagine surreal shining green fluo leaves, and the Northern Lights (aurora
borealis) would sparkle right out of their TV like radioactive waves.
A rainbow would be more impressive than nature could ever made them, but
you wouldn't be looking at reality anymore, and being amazed by what nature
can do is precisely what you were wishing for. Then when you'd see one
for real, with aberrant expectations, you'd actually feel let down at
the real magic of life.
But while there might be some positive among the bad for nature shows,
it gets way worse with people:
Now the actors, whom spend a true fortune and suffer to look beautiful,
would be devastated to end up looking like ridiculous tomato face.
The industry would then invent a grey make up to
try to compensate for how the TV exaggerates the
settings and disfigure them
, hoping for a more realistic look, by
spraying toxic chemicals all over their faces... until they get cancer.
I didn't actually expect the pixel effect
up in this example, of all effects, I expected color to avoid being messed
up like this, but messing up with that simple effect can mutilate
THAT badly. Look how it's not smooth anymore and full
of annoying squares. When you try to push an effect further than what it's
supposed to be, you don't only loose realism and the gentle natural look,
you loose quality too!
Yes, it's more colorful and the real deal looks bland by comparison, but
that's not what it's supposed to look like, it’s tricking and confusing
your brain. I don’t like that one bit! It’s already hard enough
to let go of romanticized fiction and being seen without make up as it
is! And you'll never get to see a beautiful real black
on TV again
! It just plains looks weird, in a bad way.
Does it sound ridiculous? That can't be the same as HD televisions. Well,
it shouldn't be but it is! It's EXACTLY the same principle. Even if the
modifications were on a different factor or at a lighter degree, it’s
still enhancing something more that it’s supposed to be. Exaggerating
features don’t improve them, it deforms them. But before I tell you
the actual story, to fully make you grasp it all, I'll tell you about more
You can already notice the truth. Using exaggerated color settings seems
to be a classic method to make you buy a more expensive model, but even
an old TV on the wrong settings would give a too colorful result.
Perhaps the first impression is impressive, but it becomes annoying
very soon. Appearances are deliberately
The deceit and treachery don’t end there, they're
just getting started.
Get back up ^
From a darker luminosity, to natural, to brighter.
Imagine a television called HB, for High Bright. It sounds intelligent
so it'd sell a lot. Even if it's stupid.
Now people like me who like a fair pale skin might be overjoyed. It would
also please the people who are into vampires, the Goths and those who
want the red spots on their face go away without painting their faces
But the people who pay a fortune to have a fancy tan would be distressed.
They'd ruin themselves even more to get a darker tan, in the hope to have
it seen on TV, instead to look like a ghost, raising the odds to get skin
cancer... and even dying.
The African community would probably feel like their human right have
been baffled with racism, for turning their dark chocolate skin into white
We'd loose quality because the already paler details would simply disappear!
Blacks would end up a dusty ugly grey
text would be too hard to read
. Modifying the
contrasts isn't going to make much difference when your screen is brighter
than the sun. It would make your eyes tired
more easily by stimulating them too much; giving head
(it can even trigger seizures
It would cause insomnia
, because melatonin is
a hormone (message) that is produced to induce sleep. It starts when the
eyes stop receiving the bright light of day. Artificial light can trick
and mess with your brain.
Does it sound absurd? Yes it is. But it's strangely familiar isn't it?
(The solution is simply to respect how your body functions. My computer
screen's luminosity is tuned down all the time, and I give myself some time
to fall asleep with a mask on.)
Get back up ^
From lower contrast, to natural, to crisper.
Imagine a television called HC for high contrast.
Everything would end up with both unnaturally saturated colors AND a thick
black line around everything. Like a cartoon or anime.
The people who are crazy about them will probably rejoice that all reality
ends up looking like it's drawn. The news people would end up looking
comical. (They might not like that as they try so hard to look serious,
respectable and professional; as they inform you that your daughter got
crushed by a fallen giant TV.)
But not everything should be enhanced and stand out with a thick black
line around it. If you see a sport show, the sweat should gently blend
discretely with the skin color... but with High Contrasts, it would shine
and stand out, and the thick line from exaggerated shadows would end up
making the athlete looks like insects are crawling all over his face.
There are things that I don't need to see.
Faint red spots would look like they're in fire. Pores would look like
freckles were drawn with a big permanent marker.
The actors and actresses would desperately resort to new make up techniques,
which have more to do with spraying paint on a car than enhance the natural
traits of a human face. Using so much foundation all over their skin,
clogging their pores necessary to hydrate the skin and excretes toxins
to preserve the youth of the skin. All that trying to overcompensate for
a screen that over exaggerate... trying to reach back the beauty of what's
natural... fighting against an extra feature that only makes things worse
Making things sharper would loose the complex variations of the edges,
ending up with ugly big squares of pixels. When getting more impact feels
like a punch in the eye, it's not worth it.
THIS is by far the most detestable of all effects... but I'm not even done
Get back up ^
That one is in the filter menu instead to be in the image adjustments
(unless they changed it). It's a bit different; perhaps it modifies many
settings at once.
From blur, to natural, to sharp.
Imagine a television called HS for High Sharp. That too would sell well,
for making it sound intelligent, even if it's stupid again. There's even
a company that uses the name. It sounds so fancy. It doesn't mean that
Yes, it looks like it's popping right out of the screen. The people who
love 3D might adore it, but it's not 3D and it's not natural either. It's
a pathetic attempt at giving depth, it ends up deformed.
Hollywood likes to use people with huge eyes and mouth so we'd have an
easier time reading their facial expressions. With television it's not
as useful as it was when we only had theater and the people in the back
rows couldn't see much. Making people's faces sharper might please people
with cataracts, because the black lines and higher contrasts might make
it easier to see through a fog.
But when you can see right, it enhances the ugly that
should be discrete, giving grainy exaggerated textures
. The good
and bad merely shifted; there are still advantages and inconveniences.
So we might as well choose the most realistic and appreciate what’s
natural and real, so you won’t feel confused and displeased whenever
you see a real person.
There's a tool in photoshop, a triangle that you can use like a brush
to sharpen some areas. But since there's not enough information to be
more detailed in the first place, all that it does is make a mess by making
pixels stand out with ugly squares. I never use it. It's better to have
low quality, the blur makes it discrete, than sharp
defects that are impossible to overlook
The line between real actors and decors versus the special
would sharpen, making them stand out
and completely unrealistic
. And people have complained of that
about old movies, even remastered ones. Try to make nerds watch Sex in
the city instead of Star Wars or Star Trek saying that newer is better...
Even the newer Star Wars are crappier than the old ones!
The actors and actresses would have to use thicker and more dangerous
products on their skin, trying to over compensate for a screen that over
exaggerate the ugly just as much as the good. But since there's a limit
to how people can appreciate the good (if they ever, and if they do they
soon get used to it, taking it for granted with a "meh~") so
it actually means that it makes the good uglier. So it's best to just
make the effort to enjoy what's natural more
It hurts my eyes. I can't even look at it
scrolled my image up because I protectively partially closed my eyes in
pain. HD immediatedly does the same to me. I'm not sure why, but I'm going
to trust my body on that for sure! There are too many details, too much
impact; it feels like having forks stabbing my eyes
and it's tiresome.
But the blurred tree gives my senses a break instead to overwhelm
with extra details. It's made with big pieces so it only
takes me a few seconds to understand and memorize the whole picture.
If I had to look at a moving version of the sharp one, 24 of those per
second, I wouldn't be able to stand it very long... I'd get head
, I'd probably be irritable and moody
without knowing why. But since I pay such caring attention to my body's
sensations... I know why.
Some people can smoke until their lungs are so damaged and poisoned that
they get lung cancer, thinking that it’s a badge of honnor to overcome
the survival cough reflex... It's just plain stupid. Going with the flow
mindlessly towards something that is just plain worse than what's natural
to follow a massive hysteria, provoked by people who just want an excuse
to take thousands of cash by lying to you about the quality of their products...
I'd rather be mindful. My mind is sharp enough to know that sharper images
don't improve my pleasure, it lowers it and even harms me. I'm going to
respect my needs.
Get back up ^
Which effect is High Definition?
I planned this tutorial expecting to say that Sharpen is in fact High
Definition, because the edges are more defined.
But I was appalled when I saw the contrast... and as much as I pushed
the effects to the max to make you understand them clearly and more easily...
HD televisions mess with all of them! ALL OF THEM!
There's really a new type of make up for actresses
and actors that spray paint, like cars, to compensate for the HD effect,
trying to kill it!
Just kill the trend.
HD televisions exaggerate what's already good, it doesn't make it high
quality, it messes it up!
HD does NOT mean High Quality!!!
Get back up ^
True HQ: what High Quality TV
would really be like
It would bring life to you as if you were there. With REAL
colors and contrasts. REAL blacks
. In a way that you'd recognize
not only when you see something that you know on display, but recognizing
it when you first see it for real after learning about it on TV.
If you like photography, you probably know how frustrating it can be when
the technology can't render the colors and subtle contrasts properly,
especially trying to immortalize a sunset... even if the colors are brighter,
the sun's all messed up and it's not as beautiful as
what it's supposed to be
The actresses and actors would be happy about it, they wouldn't need to
be spayed with a thick layer of car paint version make up! The TV wouldn't
make beautiful people ugly! We wouldn't need methods
to cancel out the High Definition
, the extra feature that's supposed
to make the TV better! When in fact it makes it worse!!!
The special effects wouldn't stand out in an unbelievable
Everything would look more real. But even reality doesn't
look real anymore.
The screen wouldn't have motion blur issues!!!
There's apparently an option to compensate that's on by default, but all
it does is exaggerate movement in an unnatural way, to the point that
people call it the "Soap opera" effect.
The screen wouldn't make people sick
Computer Vision Syndrome
(info at visionrx)
from the Glossy
(wikipedia). Which might look super fancy like jewelry
when the screen is closed in the store, but is over stimulating and give
people painful symptoms such as:
"headaches, eyestrain, itchy eyes, blurred vision, fatigue, and tense
muscles. Extreme CVS can even cause nausea, poor nutrition and loss of
appetite, migraines, and cluster headaches. In addition to a strain on
the muscles that control eye movement and focusing, prolonged computer
use can also cause a tightening of facial muscles around the cheeks, temples,
and nose. This facial tightening leads to reduced blood circulation, compounding
the effects of eye fatigue."
And seizures! I don't get all that from my beloved cheap Acer x233h with
a mate edge and a screen as mate as a piece of paper. I lowered the luminosity
a lot and I can enjoy it for 15h without pain instead to get dizzy after
1-2h, and even seconds in the store! Gaudy crap. Don't be fooled by appearances,
trust functionalities! The trend seems to be fading away lately.
Old movies wouldn't look uglier!
look better, or at least as good. But they don't and I'll explain why.
Get back up ^
Bigger doesn't mean better
Years ago I found a hilarious and insightful art. I couldn't find it again
so I made my own, poorly, but you can still get the point if you try. Rooms
that are very narrow but deep really exist.
Mindlessly paying way too much for a TV that is too big for your home, budget
and eyes does NOT make you cooler. Especially if you end up unable to buy
couch and food
It makes you a stupid shopper owned by companies, who successfully tricked
you with ads.
A more powerful TV that gives you instant laser surgery might not be good
for your brain, which is already less than optimal from lack of nutrition,
toxins, sleep deprivation, over work, already too much stimulation... and
the average IQ isn't much.
Be a wiser buyer.
If you don't have the space for it, you simply
don't need it!
There's apparently a science to calculate it: Is
your TV too big for your room?
at annporter.wordpress. Tips:
you're buying a new TV read this first
I found a couple of jokes:
My TV is too big; I can't see the whole screen.
I'm in so much pain; my TV is too big to see without turning my head back
My TV is too big; I have to turn my head to see who's talking.
Let's compare it to sex
It's used to convince people so much, by using your excitement for the pretty
body to mislead you into thinking your desire is for their garbage. If you
had 3 kids and got ripped from your V to your A in the process, maybe a
bigger dick would help you feel something.
But otherwise, who would want to feel like they're giving birth in reverse
every time they have sex, get ripped and stretched more than necessary,
having pain instead of pleasure. What would be more attractive to you, someone
who's athletic, or someone who's a couch potato and looks like a potato
AND a couch?... What kind of body would you rather have? There, bigger is
NOT better. Well, to be fair, some people have a fetish for fatter people.
But supersizing food was a horrible idea that caused obesity, diabetes,
metabolic syndrome and death...
You don't need to be anorexic, or get a tiny 12 inches TV; just find a reasonable
healthy middle. Balance your life choices, instead to
rush towards an extreme or another
, like a mindless zombie wearing
rocket boots. It sounds cool until it eats your brain. (Hmm... that was
random. Cool metaphor though.)
If you need a giant screen to match your ass, it's time to go get a walk
to the nearest farmer market and invest in vegetables instead! (Don't waste
your time and money bored in the gym, go walk in
nature and see what real Definition and colors are supposed to look like!!!
Supersize screens killed babies
You know that something's wrong when babies start dying. (I'm a misanthrope
but, even though that would improve the over populating problem, even me
find it appalling) Imagine the scene: "Come see
my new giant screen, I'm so better than you! Oh crap it killed my kid...
Apparently it happens every 3 weeks, even with older children. Whoa... Danger
alert: Don’t let the TV fall on your kid!
They hurt adults too! Tipping
televisions kill record number of U.S. kids, gov't warns
children are injured by a tip-over every hour, 71 children per day, and
one child is killed every two weeks." Ah~ technology, you make our
life so much better.
"Potential injuries include traumatic brain injuries, neck injuries
and abdominal trauma such as to the liver or spleen." Thankfully you
don't need your brain to watch TV... or do you~ "fractures, bruises
and cuts" now you have a good excuse to sit and watch more TV!
"They urge parents to anchor their TVs, furniture and appliances and
protect their children. It takes just a few minutes to do and it can save
lives." No way you'd waste precious minutes that you could use to watch
TV on THAT! Even though you can see your programs while you fix it, from
the other room, and even from the moon. No~ You have to stare at the TV
to make sure that you wouldn't miss a pixel!
Absence seizures can be triggered by flashes of bright lights and cause
temporary paralysis. It can explain why you can't get away from the TV to
do more important things.
Why don't kids use the remote and stay away from the damned TV!? "Other
recommendations from the CPSC include keeping remote controls, toys and
other items that might attract children off of television stands" Oh
you put the remote on top of the TV so your kids have to climb on it. How
clever! Thank you natural selection for removing stupid people out of the
I'm sick of the Super Size bullshit. If you're so rich, then get a smaller
screen, push the couch closer, and then put a pool table in the empty space
behind it! There! Your life becomes richer with DIVERSITY! Or get a swimming
pool. It's a way funnier way to entertain yourself... and kill your kids.
At least they have fun before they die.
Bigger isn't better. It's a hell load of problems that you don't need!!!
With a giant TV, you need a new stand, cables, player, adjust endless setting,
find the right channel and pay more for the HD ones, bigger electric bills,
a wider couch, a bigger house to make it fit, higher heat bills... your
child's funeral... it never ends.
Simplify your life and you'll simplify your problems.
It can even fall right off the wall too! And kids died from a little 27
inch TV! I stand corrected. They're all bad!
Here are some tips: Child
deaths from falling TVs are all too common. What can we do?
the best would be to screw its legs on the furniture. It's not meant for
it so I'd screw pieces of woods on top of it. But it might not be enough;
the stupidity factor is very strong. Wait kids actually tip furniture too!!!
Maybe we should anchor the kid to the wall.
Newer doesn't mean better. Unless you like late abortions... HD televisions
bad sides aren’t worth the good sides. Sure, you save space... when
your child is buried, but... it’s just not right. Don't be too quick
to envy the people who can afford them. A burial is very expensive.
Enjoy simpler things, like a child's laughter or smelling the roses.
Bigger is NOT necessary
I'm almost blind and I need a bigger computer screen. Even I don't need
a 42 inches, I'm perfectly happy with a 23. My aquarium is bigger. Endless
fun. Nobody got crushed or drown with it so far.
Language is fascinating. I checked for a synonym to avoid using the word
"exaggeration" so much… Synonym: scam. Antonym: Modesty.
Think about it before you buy a bigger screen than your walls.
Get back up ^
Bigger can be worse
It's not practical and the technical problems are endless too.
480p, 720p, 1080p... the p stands for pixel. An image is made of countless
If you stretch a 480p on a giant screen, there's not enough pixels (imagine
dots, but they're squares) so instead to look as fine as the end of needles,
the squares looks as big as fists. Awful. Surprisingly, it happens even
on a small screen if the setting of the screen is higher than the video.
And it also happened when everything was set in HD properly. You'd expect
to see squares in a old Nintendo game... but HD screens often have more
than an old Super Mario game where the goal is to smash squares!!! At least
you could smash them!
When you take something huge, 1080p wide for example, and make it smaller
into 480p (or any size with photoshop). It looks good, even though some
dots can be merged a weird way, because there is enough dots to make the
transfer smooth. (But my computer can’t handle something pointlessly
big, I don’t see the difference, but my motherboard can feel the
strain. Why pay more for nothing. My room is small and cozy and that's
how I like it!)
But if you try to take 480p and stretch it into a giant screen meant to
use 1080p... there's not enough dots, they have to duplicate... so you
end up with visible squares.
In photoshop it ends up blurred, but with the extra Sharpen of HD, it
ends up with squares. Actually even the 1080p ends up with squares because
you loose the delicate variations that need to be blurred... but when
the whole picture is stretched into a mess, it's uglier than if you had
a smaller screen.
The video must have been made for 1080p, the machine that reads the data
and send it to the screen too (Blue Ray players or something), and everything
needs to be on the right settings. Never trust the factory defaults. Those
are off the charts to impress you by exaggerating everything, but when
you try to use it long term at home, you soon feel that something's wrong,
that what you see is off and unpleasant... And it's to the point that
web sites give recommendations. I had to fix my computer screen for days
until the color seemed real enough and the luminosity stopped melting
The sad problem with HD is that you need to buy everything
in one shot, and then you can never look back on all the stuff that you
Because it's not compatible with a giant screen.
Not all TV channels support HD apparently, so all that money and effort
would all end up for nothing... only rewarding you with a lower quality.
If you're using a small laptop, watching animes while trying to make your
parents believe that you're valiantly doing your homework, 1080p HD isn't
going to make a single difference visually... But the 3gig for every 30
minute episodes (not the whole series, just ONE episode) would quickly
overcrowd the biggest hard drive... and would take forever to download...
and waste money on DVDs unnecessarily... and I hate switching them in
the middle of an anime. That's why I download even the DVDs that I buy.
It's way easier to handle smaller files, even the fast forward button
is more effective, and I don't feel like I loose anything visually.
1080p absolutely NEEDS to have huge files! I've seen people try to make
a 1080p episode only 170kb like a 480p and it looked like shit! Because
more pixels need more information, so that will take more space. If you
compress it too much you'll loose data and the display will look deformed.
1080p need to be that way from the start when you create the video! If
you take a picture in photoshop and stretch it bigger than it was meant
to be, it will become blurred. If you give it back it's natural size,
it will STILL BE BLURR, because information was distorted when you stretched
it, and again when you crushed it... so it's a mess.
That's why buying a giant screen limits you to only new movies, which
are still very limited, and everything else will look WORSE.
It may be good for new games, because they stupidly like to make the text
absurdly small... But since we now put too much emphasis on the visual and
end up with unlikable characters, boring story and no side features... I'd
much rather play old games and spare myself the over stimulation into seizures,
and be able to play longer without pain.
Get back up ^
Newer doesn't mean better
Let's compare it to videogames:
You won't make me believe that Final Fantasy X and X-2 is better than 6,7,
tactics... and yes I cried when I saw the demo of Yuna dance on the river
and I spent years trying to make 3D animation my career before I turned
to web design... But it's frankly the most boring game I've ever played
and I stopped playing for years after that. FF Tactics' plots moved my heart
in every directions, it was amazing. I'm currently playing Zelda Twilight
Princess, which I missed because I switched to Playstation instead to go
for the cube, and I'm in heaven! Bayonetta's hairs and combos were fantastic...
but I ended up sick from mental exhaustion. It wasn't even on a giant screen.
Get back up ^
So this is why HD doesn't mean High quality and newer, bigger, doesn't
make it better.
You may think that I'm missing out or am just plain retarded. But I don't
feel that way, just like many others. I'm simply waiting for a truly better
technology, based on actual results and not gaudy first impression that
rapidly turns to pain.
I can assure you that I enjoy more my 480p than your 1080p. Because a
bad movie will be just as bad on a giant screen. And a good movie won't
be unless you choose to appreciate it. When you take for granted that
a unnaturally high standard should be the norm, you miss out on natural
beauty. It’s true for people without industrial make up, and it’s
also true for old movies.
Have you seen the remakes of Total Recall? Horrifying. Nothing happens
except explosions that probably look very good on a screen as big as a
patio door, but they took almost every characters away, didn't display
any of their complex interactions and emotions... there's no humanity
left. I've seen more of it in the old Terminator movies. The effects in
the movie “The dark crystal” were made with sculpted puppets
and they were way more impressive than a boring explosion
after another, to slap you in the face so you won't fall asleep from the
boring plot and bad acting!!!
The TV series Knight Rider (1982)
had a talking car with a red light on the front moving from left to right.
I was utterly amazed at every car cascade, rolling on 2 wheels and all,
took skill and talent. It was way more impressive than the exaggeratedly
animated transformation, in the 2008 movie version, which bored me out
of my mind when they did it twice.
In the pursuit of special effects... we forgot the
most important things that make us connect and love a movie... acting,
emotions... and even special effects!
HD is spitting in the face of old movies, and new ones too by mutilating
what it's supposed to look like. We don't need
even more emphasis on the superficial, we need to renew with DEPTH!
Subtle details and the richness of its variety~ Not freaking jpeggies
squares of visible pixels!!! That kind of sparkles doesn't enhance the
magic, it takes it away!
If you want high quality, don't deform it by stretching it.
SD is the real HD.
Get back up ^
More older text that I forgot to add in. The comparison
with sugar is nice.
There are websites that have setting adjustments recommendations. Those
by default are so exaggerated to impress you and make you buy it, but
then you notice that it's just not functional or pleasant long term. Probably
because, as much as it can seem extraordinary, the brain will be more
pleased to see what's familiar and see the world the way it's supposed
to be, the way your brain was prepared for... without frying it.
More isn't better.
Take added sugar for example.
Once you get used to that you can't even notice that it's way too sweet
(or even much sweet), anymore. The natural sugar in vegetables and even
fruits become bland, even though sugar is supposed to tell your brain
that you'll get nutrition if you eat them. So you turn towards high calories
zero nutrient foods, tricked by artificial flavors. It makes your body
starve for proper materials that are needed to repair you, send hormonal
message and make neurotransmitters... You end up obese trying to satisfy
a hunger for nutrition with foods that don't have any, constantly hungry,
until your pancreas and other vital organs shut down with a metabolic
syndrome. You’re paying more for a process that
takes what's vital and real from you.
You end up hurting yourself,
wondering how it can be, it's supposed to be better than real... Well,
The brain needs a realistic point of comparison in life. Just like somebody
who's always happy won't notice how lucky he is, if he never knew what
tragedy feels like, he won't be able to appreciate it fully. Thankfully,
someone who felt nothing but hardship can manage to be happy anyway by
appreciating every little lucks, compared to sheer agony, the simplest
things in life can feel like treasures when you don't take them for granted.
That's in part why I'm reluctant to upgrade and follow trends. New doesn't
mean improved! I'm using Widow XP with the quicker and less spacious visuals
of window 2000, fully customized. Just look at Window Vista. I'm not in
a hurry to get Window 8 either!
Putting every visual settings up won't make the movie better, it will
still be as good or bad as it was, and as enjoyable and boring as you'll
choose to feel about it.
But there are more issues than the settings.
I got dizzy trying to shop for a new screen.
I bought a HD computer screen but instead of smooth lines there was a
big ugly mess of squares. The same thing happened with my friend's TV
even though a PS3 was plugged on it. I got a refund and got the cheapest
ugliest screen I could find: Acer x233h. Because it was the ONLY company
that made a screen that didn't have a glossy mirror effect on the glass
and border. It reflects everything that's behind me in different angles,
superposing them, and sending sudden shines of light that moves on the
edges as I move. It may look fancy at the shop when the screen is off.
Like jewelry. But when it's on, trying to concentrate, focus and understand
one image as so many were superposed all at once, from the mirror effect,
gave me such eye and brain fatigue, I think I even had seizures. I'm able
to work 15h in a row on my screen, because the texture is not reflective,
like paper, and I turned the luminosity way down. But I literally felt
sick with the fancier, more expensive, gaudy shiny screens.
Don't be fooled by appearances, trends, massive hysterias and publicity.
They just want an excuse to make you cough up more cash. And HD is a pathetic
excuse to upgrade.
Make sure to tune down all those unnatural settings before you get brain
cancer or depression for life ending up looking
so grey and undefined by comparison
Enjoy~ I sure treasure my old loyal junk passionately.
Get back up ^
the best that technology has to offer,
and it might not be the biggest most expensive screen that money can buy~
If you made that stupid mindless mistake, make sure to enjoy
If you can't afford it, or are too deeply in love with how much happiness
it gave you to let go, enjoy
the good old
How much you enjoy
and treasure something will
define its worth and value. Not the price, not HD, and not even the quality.
That's how powerful emotions can be, and that can't be replaced by technology.
More jokes: Humor
~ Demotivational ~ All funny pictures
Get back up ^
More people hate HD than you think
You're never alone, and being the majority doesn't make you better! But
it can make you a mindless sheep.
Here's some websites I found while trying to see if my crazy self was
the last sane person on Earth, they're my inspiration and refferences:
bought a tv and its HD, and I HATE it. Can it be switched off?
at Yahoo Answers. How to turn off the soap opera effect: This is
a software trick that tries to make small details 'pop' out and be visible.
But the side effect is that it makes everything look like an over-lit
soap-opera. You have to do 2 things:
1) In the video setup menu are some options like "Motion Flow"
or some advanced video options. Turn these OFF. 2) Your TV is set
to "TORCH MODE" at the factory to be eye-catching if used
for a showroom demo. Pop a Pixar movie into your disk player and go
to the Disk setup menu. You will find 3 test patterns and instructions
on how to use each to properly set the brightness, contrast and color.
This makes a huge difference. Oh - and you DO have HD TV service -
right? Make sure of this.
I hate hdtv what can i get to watch dvds on?
think I hate HDTV at bleepingcomputer.
I the only one who hates HDTV? at fluther.
you find your HDTV is "too real" at boards.straightdope.
hate HDTV! at tv.com
anyone else dislike HDTV? at Yahoo Answers.
official I hate HDTVs thread! at forums.digitalspy.co.uk
My favorite reply: "My parents recently got a 42 LCD phillips TV,
CRT still looks better. With LCD you get blurring, smudgey look, ntsc
like, orange fleshtones, it looks almost like vhs!!! Stick with CRTs
- that is, if you can find one for 20 quid somewhere! No blurring, less
pixels noticeable, sharper, more life like images - basically HD is
trying to make LCDs look like CRT images. I think LCDs are great for
gaming though. I think by the time HD is available everywhere (when
freeview is full hd-all dvbt2) then things may have improved."
Lisa Of Shades
25 Mars 2014
It took me 7h to write,
including the TV art.