Samsung T7 Shield Portable 1TB USB SSD review
DeepCool LS720 (LCS) review
Fractal Design Pop Air RGB Black TG review
Palit GeForce GTX 1630 4GB Dual review
FSP Dagger Pro (850W PSU) review
Razer Leviathan V2 gaming soundbar review
Guru3D NVMe Thermal Test - the heatsink vs. performance
EnGenius ECW220S 2x2 Cloud Access Point review
Alphacool Eisbaer Aurora HPE 360 LCS cooler review
Noctua NH-D12L CPU Cooler Review
Asus ROG Strix XG27UQ review
Posted by: on: 08/07/2020 02:12 PM [
87 comment(s) ]
In this review, we look at the ROG Strix XG27UQ, and what a fantastic product we test today. In specifications and quality I mean, as the ROG Strix XG27UQ is a 27" Ultra HD slash HDR rated monitor. This 3840x2160 pixels monitor can handle 144Hz combined with GSYNC and is a DCS monitor, and that means no chroma subsampling issues.
Read article
Advertisement
pages « < 15 16 17 18
Loobyluggs
Senior Member
Posts: 4769
Senior Member
Posts: 4769
Posted on: 08/17/2020 12:46 PM
bit perfect...I do not disagree, once it has been decompressed.
I would agree with you because it is common sense, but researchers and engineers insist, when they say loseless, it is "bit perfect" to the original with size being an irrelevant parameter to the equation. It isn't my domain of science, I cannot further talk about something I do not know. 
bit perfect...I do not disagree, once it has been decompressed.
yasamoka
Senior Member
Posts: 4867
Senior Member
Posts: 4867
Posted on: 08/17/2020 04:42 PM
And I'm talking about you. This moving the goalposts shit needs to stop. You're just wasting everyone's time here.
I try not to engage with him/her, but it's hard not to when they are so rude and dismissive of what someone else has tried to explain over two pages - because of...reasons.
And I'm talking about you. This moving the goalposts shit needs to stop. You're just wasting everyone's time here.
Reardan
Senior Member
Posts: 472
Senior Member
Posts: 472
Posted on: 08/17/2020 08:27 PM
I think "moving the goalposts" is giving too much credit. The entire position is nonsensical viewed through that lens. "Oh I was talking about it not being lossless while it's compressed" Why would that even be a thought someone holds? It's a tautology, there would be no way to store the exact same thing in the exact same state, but smaller. Obviously. No one would ever make that claim or argue for that claim because its literally just restating the premise.
No, what happened here is sometime in the past couple days someone figured out that lossless compression actually does exist and that data can be perfectly recreated and everyone else who speaks english calls that "lossless compression" and this is the "save face" attempt.
It's less "You didn't understand what I was talking about" and more "If I just obfuscate hard enough I don't have to admit I was wrong and what I said was stupid"
I'd, personally, be way more embarrassed to admit that I've been arguing for two days that data, while compressed, is stored in a different state than uncompressed, even if it's lossless. I'd so much rather just admit I didn't understand what everyone was saying.
And I'm talking about you. This moving the goalposts crap needs to stop. You're just wasting everyone's time here.
I think "moving the goalposts" is giving too much credit. The entire position is nonsensical viewed through that lens. "Oh I was talking about it not being lossless while it's compressed" Why would that even be a thought someone holds? It's a tautology, there would be no way to store the exact same thing in the exact same state, but smaller. Obviously. No one would ever make that claim or argue for that claim because its literally just restating the premise.
No, what happened here is sometime in the past couple days someone figured out that lossless compression actually does exist and that data can be perfectly recreated and everyone else who speaks english calls that "lossless compression" and this is the "save face" attempt.
It's less "You didn't understand what I was talking about" and more "If I just obfuscate hard enough I don't have to admit I was wrong and what I said was stupid"
I'd, personally, be way more embarrassed to admit that I've been arguing for two days that data, while compressed, is stored in a different state than uncompressed, even if it's lossless. I'd so much rather just admit I didn't understand what everyone was saying.
Loobyluggs
Senior Member
Posts: 4769
Senior Member
Posts: 4769
Posted on: 08/17/2020 11:32 PM
You fine gentlemen can just message one another instead of trying to talk behind my back! Also, if you do not reply to me, or quote me, I'll never know you are talking about me. I do have some people banned on here, because I got tired of getting the last word with them, I don't want to add more haters
What began my comments:
And dlss is lossless upscaling...
Yeah, im gonna skip on everything that aint raw native image.
Dragam1337 is making what I think is a valid statement of preference in that they do not want anything unless it is RAW. That is their preference, and the reply came as:
Why are you even mentioning DLSS in this context?
So, Richto steps into the ring and says a valid statement, but the wording was not entirely correct, so I pushed for citation:
Better not play any computer or console games at all then because they will all have compressed graphics assets and video.
DSC has no visible picture impact.
At this point, I'm thinking "wait...that doesn't quite sound correct...I'm gonna need a citation, because AFAIK that is like two steps of image manipulation..."
Hmm, gonna need a citation on that.
Compression is compression. If you are compressing something that is already compressed...
So, the key point I made here (and I used the operative IF) is that compressing something that is already compressed (in the above spat), leads to lower quality, so if there is something in these two methods that does not lead to artefacts, I'd like to know what it is.
It was a very big
And then...dear lord...
...Then someone started talking about loseless compression, for some reason, and bifurcated the discussion - and yet, no one wanted to talk about the aspect ratio! which tbh, is the only true thing I care about in the monitor discussion...!
I ask again: is this clear enough now? Do I need to re-re-re-re-re-explain my point? Surely this is enough for you to understand now?
You fine gentlemen can just message one another instead of trying to talk behind my back! Also, if you do not reply to me, or quote me, I'll never know you are talking about me. I do have some people banned on here, because I got tired of getting the last word with them, I don't want to add more haters
What began my comments:
And dlss is lossless upscaling...
Yeah, im gonna skip on everything that aint raw native image.
Dragam1337 is making what I think is a valid statement of preference in that they do not want anything unless it is RAW. That is their preference, and the reply came as:
Why are you even mentioning DLSS in this context?
So, Richto steps into the ring and says a valid statement, but the wording was not entirely correct, so I pushed for citation:
Better not play any computer or console games at all then because they will all have compressed graphics assets and video.
DSC has no visible picture impact.
At this point, I'm thinking "wait...that doesn't quite sound correct...I'm gonna need a citation, because AFAIK that is like two steps of image manipulation..."
Hmm, gonna need a citation on that.
Compression is compression. If you are compressing something that is already compressed...
So, the key point I made here (and I used the operative IF) is that compressing something that is already compressed (in the above spat), leads to lower quality, so if there is something in these two methods that does not lead to artefacts, I'd like to know what it is.
It was a very big
IF
statement to make, and the obvious implication is that IF
'no' then my point is invalid regarding DLSS and DSC...all I wanted was a citation...and clarification on (partially) what these three gurus were actually arguing...And then...dear lord...
...Then someone started talking about loseless compression, for some reason, and bifurcated the discussion - and yet, no one wanted to talk about the aspect ratio! which tbh, is the only true thing I care about in the monitor discussion...!
I ask again: is this clear enough now? Do I need to re-re-re-re-re-explain my point? Surely this is enough for you to understand now?
pages « < 15 16 17 18
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1361
I would agree with you because it is common sense, but researchers and engineers insist, when they say loseless, it is "bit perfect" to the original with size being an irrelevant parameter to the equation. It isn't my domain of science, I cannot further talk about something I do not know.