Actually, better, as you have a choice of 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratios. Yes, remember being able to actually *choose* resolutions? Welcome back to CRTs, folks. 16:9 will give you an even wider FOV in games, something that's very useful especially in RTS where being able to see more may you give the advantage over an opponent (I am aware that some 16:10 LCDs may be able to display 16:9 without stretching, however). Anyway, how it's done is quite simple but I didn't get around to actually trying it until today. Firstly, add a custom resolution to the Nvidia control panel. Next, you need to adjust the vertical 'shape' on your monitor (i.e. compress the image). Many newer model 4:3 TVs do this automatically, but you need to do this manually on a CRT monitor. Use simple maths to determine by how much to compress the image to get the picture looking good. I'd only recommend doing this if you have a 21 or 22" CRT. Anything smaller and it's really not worthwile. However, with the price of 2nd hand CRTs these days, there's really no excuse. It's about time to get rid of those lousy LCDs folks.
16:9 or 16:10 aspect on a 4:3 monitor - here's how!
- Thread starter Davez621
- Start date
BlueAcolyte
Platinum Member
- Nov 19, 2007
- 2,793
- 2
- 0
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
why? WHY!
BTW, CRTS suck, they have so many issues, the jittering, the imperfect lines (there is always a little bend in the size of the pixels as you manually adjust the magnets), gah, all those problems... and you can EASILY set your LCD, of ANY size or shape, to display black bars around the top and bottom.
Oh yea, and 22 inch CRT is about 19.5 inch in LCD sizes... pass!
BTW, CRTS suck, they have so many issues, the jittering, the imperfect lines (there is always a little bend in the size of the pixels as you manually adjust the magnets), gah, all those problems... and you can EASILY set your LCD, of ANY size or shape, to display black bars around the top and bottom.
Oh yea, and 22 inch CRT is about 19.5 inch in LCD sizes... pass!
You are mistaken. Ignoring type of input (say it matches what ratio your monitor is), then a diagonal of a 4:3 screen will yield greater viewing area than the equal diagonal of a 16:9 screen. Just DO THE MATH. This is obvious since 4:3 is more square-like.
Some math.... say we have an D inch 4:3
let's find angle.. tan^-1(3/4)=0.6436
Then, height = D*sin(0.6436)
width = D*cos(0.6436)
Viewing Area = D^2 * 0.48
For 16:9 of D inch screen:
tan^-1(9/16) = 0.512
doing Same stuff.. Viewing Area = D^2 * 0.427
Just compare for yourself. Now if you have same pixel density, then 4:3 D" screen will have greater resolution and viewing area.
Now you saw how I ignored the input video ratio. If you are getting an input of 4:3 then a 4:3 monitor will be better (no real estate wasted) than using a widescreen monitor. If you have 16:9 input, then obviously the widescreen panel will be better suited.
So your statement may be correct if you are comparing a 16:9 input on a 4:3 CRT and a 16:9 LCD. But completely ignoring input ratio, an X diagonal 4:3 is superior to the same X diagonal 16:9.
I think he's refering to how crts were advertised as 2x" but that was the tube size used and but it really is <2x" viewable.
FW900 CRT is a damn nice CRT. 24inch with 22.5 viewable. I can deal with it pretty easily.
Just to say.. just because some of us are still using CRT for our viewing dosent mean we do it to be stubborn. If it wasnt for my particular monitor being available then I might have gone with a LCD.
I run 1920x1200@90hz with HDfury connected to my ps3. Looks insane. No issues. No scratches and overall extremly happy with the quality of it. For pc-gaming it rocks even more and I wouldnt replace it with a LCD if it still works. I might even get another for a spare.
There are some damn nice CRT out there. Not all are 4:3 ratio.
I honestly cannot believe this statement is coming from a platinum member as opposed to a 'noob' , but you're clueless. The Sony Trinitron (and other screens derived from the technology i.e. Mitsubishi Diamondtron) was the greatest TV / PC monitor invented - no LCD has or ever will come close. As for your size (bigger is better) argument - remember we all once got by on 14" monitors.
Look at those rich vibrant vivid colours - never in a million years would you see that on an LCD:
http://i17.ebayimg.com/03/i/000/f7/5a/37cd_3.JPG
Eh, there's no way I could ever go back to using a CRT again.
I visited my mom's office over to the weekend to have a look at her PCs. Still uses those old CRTs. I got an almost immediate headache from 1) the tiny screen size, 2) the screen refresh flickering, and 3) the distortion cause by the glass screen's bulging shape. And I don't mean the type of flicker you can only see if you look at the screen obliquely out of the corner of your eye - I was looking straight at the screen and I could still notice the constant refreshing.
As for us getting by on 14" monitors once...well we were also using Pentium MMXs and GeForce 2s once. Doesn't mean we'd like to go back to those dark ages.
Wouldn't give up my sweet 22" glossy widescreen LCD for anything.
I visited my mom's office over to the weekend to have a look at her PCs. Still uses those old CRTs. I got an almost immediate headache from 1) the tiny screen size, 2) the screen refresh flickering, and 3) the distortion cause by the glass screen's bulging shape. And I don't mean the type of flicker you can only see if you look at the screen obliquely out of the corner of your eye - I was looking straight at the screen and I could still notice the constant refreshing.
As for us getting by on 14" monitors once...well we were also using Pentium MMXs and GeForce 2s once. Doesn't mean we'd like to go back to those dark ages.
Wouldn't give up my sweet 22" glossy widescreen LCD for anything.
Oh, right, so compare a brand-new modern LCD with an old non-flat CRT. What a fair comparison there. How about looking at a crummy 15" LCD from the same era? No thanks! It's sad that you (and so many others) have somehow convinced yourselves in your mind that what you have is better. In reality you've settled for something substandard, and in the back of your minds, deep down I think you really know it. I don't know, on the other hand I guess some people don't care about (image) quality. Kind of like people who buy Fords or other American junk. More bang for your buck, right?
I've never owned an American car...Japanese all the way...so there goes that point. I find your attempted analogy ironic, btw, since LCDs have a smaller footprint and are less power hungry than CRTs.
Checking into this a bit more, this whole thread is even more ironic than I originally thought. If you look through his post history, he at one point was seriously thinking about buying an HP w2207h (which is the very same LCD monitor I own...), and he claims he was "VERY impressed by the picture quality", although he was apparently dubious about the TN panel used in those types of LCDs.
He lives in Aus btw, and that HP is apparently >$500 AUD there. The same HP is around $250 USD in US, which is pretty cheap, really. I'm guessing CRTs are cheaper in Australia?
He lives in Aus btw, and that HP is apparently >$500 AUD there. The same HP is around $250 USD in US, which is pretty cheap, really. I'm guessing CRTs are cheaper in Australia?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Intel processors crashing Unreal engine games (and others)- Started by BFG10K
- Replies: 2K
Facebook
Twitter