To some they are but not all, I find looking at my friends Dell 2001 far harder on my eyes then looking at my NEC FE991
To some they are but not all, I find looking at my friends Dell 2001 far harder on my eyes then looking at my NEC FE991
I don't know what people are talking about when they say LCDs ghost in gaming. I game on my LCD all the time and I don't see it ghost, it's an LG studio works 880LC from 1999 so if I don't see it now, I can't imagine me buying another LCD that WOULD do it.
i am always between 85 and 120 HZ on my CRT. i just know when I look at an LCD that it is less agitating to me. it is something about the nature of the LCD light which never gets to me.
-- okay, maybe this is one of those subjective issues?
-- okay, maybe this is one of those subjective issues?
I love all these LCD bashers who base their bashing on old information. Recent LCDs come very close to CRTs in image quality....but I guess some people just love to see things black and white. You don't "NEED" a CRT for gaming unless you have some superhuman senses...and any real hardcore gamer will play just as well on a top of the line LCD as a CRT. Of course you have folks like googer who think that anyone they sneak up on in the dark must be running a crappy LCD (lol!).
This is the exact same type of debate you will have with audiophiles who think they can tell what kind of cable you are using by listening to the right music. It's all psychological.
This is the exact same type of debate you will have with audiophiles who think they can tell what kind of cable you are using by listening to the right music. It's all psychological.
I wouldn't say that. There's a lot of self-deception/placebo in any subjective debate like this, and some people prefer the images produced by one type because they haven't given their brains time to adjust to the other type (the "this speaker sounds bad, how can any of you like it" audio argument), but some people prefer one type because of genuine differences between the two (resolution issues, widescreen availability, that small difference in color reproduction).
I can't really comment on which is better, it's all up to personal preference.
But I recently got my Dell 2405FPW and I like it a lot, much better than my old cheapo 17'' CRT. I've played games and they run very nicely without any ghosting or blurring.
But I recently got my Dell 2405FPW and I like it a lot, much better than my old cheapo 17'' CRT. I've played games and they run very nicely without any ghosting or blurring.
Viewsonic eXtreme series (lame name) are 4ms LCDs. You can get a 19" for $450. That's an incredible leap considering any 19" LCD would have been $600 a year or two ago.
Right, there may be some genuine differences. But I think on a whole, most people who bash LCDs and say they can't come close to CRTs in color reproduction either A) haven't tried the latest and greatest LCDs or B) are just perceiving differences. There may indeed be some differences but they are so small nowadays you wouldn't be able to tell without tools or putting the monitors side by side. Additionally this whole ghosting / response time thing is just ridiculous. I have a 2 year old NEC LCD (17ms advertised response I think) and I play unreal tournament 2004 without any problems. To suggest that the latest LCDs, which are leaps and abounds ahead of my crappy NEC, don't referesh fast enough is purely pscyhological IMO.
Quit it with that blasphemy, OzzieGT. I have to convince myself that I need a 4ms LCD for gaming, e-penis++!!!
I have a Mitsubishi diamondplus 92 CRT and a Samsung 193P 19" TFT, and I like them both.
I only bought my 193P recently but the things I like the most about it are that I'm able to pivot it into portrait mode (great for wordprocessing and internetbrowsing) and that I don't have to adjust the geometry at all (for my CRT I had to do that for every possible resolution I use AND every possible refreshrate I might use). I experience less eyestrain (but only after I turned the brightness down alot) (And I love the design of the thing, but that's really a matter of personal choice).
O yeah, almost forgot: gained lots of deskspace too.
I'm keeping my CRT to use it with the game rig I'm planning to build after the summer.
I can't complain about the imagequality of the 193p: black is black, white is white, colors look fine (brightness is way better than my CRT (that is 4 years old)). It plays DVD movies perfectly, downloaded, lower quality movies however (that look OK on my Mitsubishi) look crappy (probably a interpolation thing).
There is ghosting on this monitor, but I don't really care cause it isn't a gamer's monitor and I didn't buy it for that purpose.
(I only notice the ghosting when scrolling up and down a document/webpage with bold text)
I only bought my 193P recently but the things I like the most about it are that I'm able to pivot it into portrait mode (great for wordprocessing and internetbrowsing) and that I don't have to adjust the geometry at all (for my CRT I had to do that for every possible resolution I use AND every possible refreshrate I might use). I experience less eyestrain (but only after I turned the brightness down alot) (And I love the design of the thing, but that's really a matter of personal choice).
O yeah, almost forgot: gained lots of deskspace too.
I'm keeping my CRT to use it with the game rig I'm planning to build after the summer.
I can't complain about the imagequality of the 193p: black is black, white is white, colors look fine (brightness is way better than my CRT (that is 4 years old)). It plays DVD movies perfectly, downloaded, lower quality movies however (that look OK on my Mitsubishi) look crappy (probably a interpolation thing).
There is ghosting on this monitor, but I don't really care cause it isn't a gamer's monitor and I didn't buy it for that purpose.
(I only notice the ghosting when scrolling up and down a document/webpage with bold text)
isnt an 8ms panel the same as = 125hz?
a 6ms the same as = 166hz?
so ummm afaik thats faster than most CRTS. I think the best CRTS can handle 120-140hz at decent resolutions.
ok here is a 19" view sonic:
1920 x 1440 / 77 Hz
1280 x 1024 / 89 Hz
1024 x 768 / 118 Hz
Now an LCD has the same response time for any resolution you use right? So does that end the controversy of whether LCDs are fast enough yet?
a 6ms the same as = 166hz?
so ummm afaik thats faster than most CRTS. I think the best CRTS can handle 120-140hz at decent resolutions.
ok here is a 19" view sonic:
1920 x 1440 / 77 Hz
1280 x 1024 / 89 Hz
1024 x 768 / 118 Hz
Now an LCD has the same response time for any resolution you use right? So does that end the controversy of whether LCDs are fast enough yet?
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
its not really directly comparable. 8ms is if you have black to white transition. shades take several times longer. but lcds refresh the entire screen at once with no fade. crts have a beam scan line by line to finish a screen, all the phosphors fading after the beam passes. but the response of phosphors is sub ms. but the flicker of refresh is not kewl and eye straining. lcd refresh is irrelevant for flicker since the pixels are iether on or off. 1hz would be perfectly flicker free, but would only change once a second. 1hz on a crt wouldbe a momentary flicker then nothing. fastest lcds right now are the over drive ones now i beileve.
CRTs are better in my opinion, Less expensive and better quality. Yes they are bulky so that is the main disadvantage. To get an LCD that performs nearly as good you need to spend alot more money. End of Chat.
Sorry but I have tried over a dozen LCD's (including the Hyundai and the Dells mentioned earlier in this post) boasting all kinds of colour depths and response times but they suck for a harcore gamer.
I tell you one reason and one reason alone....
SHADOWS.
I do know how to calibrate monitors as I have a GF who works in graphic design thus hers has to be perfect and so I do it for her.
But when it comes to shadows, or perhaps more precisely shooting a guy in shadowy environments LCD's are terrible. Thing is graphics have reached a level in gaming where the slightest movement from a shade of 000000 to 000001 is the difference between life and death.
Go play Joint Operations on an LCD while a map is going through the night-time hours... you will get utterly owned. Doom 3 on an LCD is like going up a difficulty level from playing on a CRT.
Im sorry you can argue till you are blue in the face but I know I cannot consider LCD's even though I would really like to for many of the benefits mentioned above, but having tried 6 in the last couple of months, and another 6-8 in the 6 months before between the £300 and £900 price levels I know they have a long long way to go before anyone seriously gaming could enjoy one.
The native resolution is a real pain too... great if a game can be run smoothly at 1600x1200 but what if you need to crank down? Im thinking BF2 here which by all accounts needs a 256mb card which many people don't have.
I tell you one reason and one reason alone....
SHADOWS.
I do know how to calibrate monitors as I have a GF who works in graphic design thus hers has to be perfect and so I do it for her.
But when it comes to shadows, or perhaps more precisely shooting a guy in shadowy environments LCD's are terrible. Thing is graphics have reached a level in gaming where the slightest movement from a shade of 000000 to 000001 is the difference between life and death.
Go play Joint Operations on an LCD while a map is going through the night-time hours... you will get utterly owned. Doom 3 on an LCD is like going up a difficulty level from playing on a CRT.
Im sorry you can argue till you are blue in the face but I know I cannot consider LCD's even though I would really like to for many of the benefits mentioned above, but having tried 6 in the last couple of months, and another 6-8 in the 6 months before between the £300 and £900 price levels I know they have a long long way to go before anyone seriously gaming could enjoy one.
The native resolution is a real pain too... great if a game can be run smoothly at 1600x1200 but what if you need to crank down? Im thinking BF2 here which by all accounts needs a 256mb card which many people don't have.
I dunno, I've noticed that LCD monitors with a 60HZ refresh rate seem to refresh faster than CRTs running at 60HZ. It requires me a bare minimum of either 75 or 85HZ for it to look close to an LCD's like refesh rate. I have difficulty in seeing an LCD refesh but a CRT it's fairly easy to see it refresh, so you guys boasting about 120HZ refresh rates are kinda dumb. If you make it so that 60HZ LCD equals 85HZ CRT, then it would be more like a 120HZ CRT equals a 85HZ LCD...
60Hz is 60Hz is 60Hz; 60 times per second means just that. The flickering on a CRT running at 60Hz is probably what bothers you.. it does seem to make some people feel as if they're watching a really fast slideshow. Personally, I just get a headache.
okay, so the "response time" that is publicized is B&W, but then what is the longest time it could take for 1 pixel to change (from a shade to another shade)? because if it translates to less than 100hz, thats a problem for me as a gamer. Not to mention that guy's post about dark shadows.
1. I don't run my monitor at 60Hz. Please read the entire thread of conversation before commenting.
2. More than 75Hz is not necessarly 'undetecable'. Some people can easily tell the difference between 75Hz and 85Hz, depending on how sensitive their eyes are to flickering.
your right it should be but 60HZ on an LCD and a CRT are so much different. Why should I see the refresh rate of 60FPS on one monitor but not 60FPS on another? I mean it is 60FPS right....?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter