Slashdot Mirror
Are LCD Displays Ready For Gaming?
Player issues this query: "Since the holiday season is rolling around, I've been contemplating shelling out the big bucks for a nice LCD display. I'm a die-hard gamer, with several choices of monitors in the market today, it can get a little confusing. Ghosting seemed to be a problem with intense games, but with displays reaching 8ms-16ms response time, is it really an issue anymore? Is it time for this gamer to move on to greener pastures, or stay the course with my trusty CRT?"
I've got a 17" Sony LCD w/ 16ms response time. I don't notice any problems. It's many times smaller and lighter than the 19" CRT I left at home.
In a vaguely related topic, does anybody know why DVI cables are so freakin' expensive?
This question is about a year too late.
The simple answer is yes, they are and have been ready for gaming.
I play on a 25ms response time Samsung SyncMaster 191t and I see no ghosting at all. It's just like playing in front of a CRT only your eyes don't hurt when you have a somewhat long gaming session. If you are really worried about it, get a 16ms response time CRT and you'll be fine.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
I'm not a die-hard gamer, but I play the latest RTS games with regularity and go on the occasional FPS binge. I have a Dell 2001FP 20" 16ms( or was it 20?) response time LCD. Doesn't bother me any while gameing and I don't notice any tearing or screen door effects. I think they can be had for about 620$ shipped.
The question is not "Are LCD displays ready for gaming?", it's "Are you ready to for gaming on an LCD display?"
I went home recently and decided to fire up the original Unreal on his machine. The LCD is a cheap one and I would have rather played it on a CRT, but I was really surprised that it wasn't all that bad. The game was thoroughly playable and the contrast was excellent.
I have one of these (actually got in on one of the first shipments!) and I must say it is SWEET! At first I had it hooked to a geForce 3 but that wouldn't drive the DVI at 1600x1200 (native res), so I upgraded on the cheap ($20 at the time) to a FX5200 that would. DVI made all the difference at that high of a res, I didn't notice the difference that much below it.
About a month ago I finally scored a 6800GT and I must say that I play UT2004 1600x1200 quite regularly (and some other games) and there is no ghosting at all. Halo, which is notoriously bad for, I don't notice any ghosting. I also watch movies and again, no ghosting. Very, very nice monitor.
The age is here, and the recent Dell deals have had this particular monitor down in the low 600's. If you can afford that chunk of change, as well as a video card powerful enough to drive it, life will be great. A 19" would certainly be a more modest purchase.... but since when have gamers cared about that?
It isn't just about the response time bla bla bla, but also you. Depending on your eyes, your brain, etc you may see ghosting where others do not, just like some people see the rainbow effect with certain projectors.
Your best bet is to go into a store and try them out. If the store doesn't have some games to test them with, take a demo cd or something. Additionally, buying in a store is one of the few ways to guarantee you don't get a bad pixel or ten.
For a regular lan gamer, i think that lcd is the only way to go. with response time getting down to 8ms there really is no excuse to carry that 100kg monstrocity around with you to a lan. I play on a 152x, and it is fine, I don't see any ghosting on a 25ms screen. If people say they can, i think it is just a placebo.
I have a cool set of 3D glasses (you know the LCD shutter kind).
What I want to know is: Are the new fast LCD monitors able to do that sort of thing?
I haven't even found a good fast phosphor CRT that doesn't ghost with the 3D glasses.
You can't take the sky from me
Are there any LCDs out there that allow letterboxing? I've been using a Samsung 172T which natives at 1280x1024 (not quite 4x3) and games often only list 4x3 aspect ration resolutions (800x600, 1024x786, 1152x864, 1280x960, and 1600x1200). Using the 172T works great, but everything is just a tiny bit distorted as the flat screen is a bit more square than a CRT.
I'm using an old 19" CRT at home, and I'm thinking about LCDs - this is the only thing that makes me hesitate.
For digital photography, that's another matter. I find the colours very muted and less vibrant/realistic than CRTs.
The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!
I got a dell 1800 ultrasharp series two years ago (november 2002). It is absolutely gorgeous and just fine for gaming, I hate hearing people bitch about LCD's not being ready yet, they obviously havent seen anything too recent. That wasnt referring to the article submitter, just in general.
:)
I imagine LCD's coming out today are even better than what I have. I play a lot of games, quake 3, unreal tourney 2004, tribes vengeance, etc, with a radeon 9600 pro, this LCD is absolutely fine, very vibrant colors, very sharp output, I'm in love and dont see how anyone couldnt be
Just dont go for the bottom of the barrel! Everyone I know of loves the dell ultrasharp series, that's what I have and recommend. When I bought mine two years ago it was 600 on sale, now its around 400 for the same size. Definitely worth it to me.
Joseph?
Come on people, get the terminology right. Ghosting and motion blur are not the same thing!
Ghosting is when you get a faint duplicate of the entire on-screen image, slightly offset from what it should be. I don't think this can even occur on LCDs, I think it is a CRT-only problem, but if you use crappy analogue VGA cables, then who knows?
Motion blur is what you thing ghosting is. It is caused by poor refresh times, more specifically it is caused the amount of time it takes for a pixel to become unlit, or "switch off". So LCD screens that have a poor response time often show a trail after a moving object that looks like a ghost of the object.
Understandable that you could get the two confused, but still wrong.
/mike
-- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
ut 2004 and doom3 look rather amazing on my 23" cinema display. i don't think LCDs have had issues ever since they hit 16ms (~60 fps) they work just fine for games.
- tristan
1000/60 = 16.66666
Therefore 16ms response time ~= 60 frames/second is the maximum framerate you can expect to acheive without seeing the effects of the LCD lag. That's too close for comfort in my book, especially since that 16ms number might've be kinda whacked (like, taken at a very warm temperature or some crap).
If they advertised 8ms max, and the manufacturer was reputable, I would consider it.
11*43+456^2
Plus, having an LCD makes LAN parties a whole lot easier to pack for.
A few months ago, I picked up a ViewSonic VP171b, based on reviews from Tom's Hardware and Anandtech. It was pretty expensive for a 17" LCD display, at $550 from Newegg, but I couldn't be happier with it. I haven't seen any ghosting whatsoever (20ms response time), and the picture quality is nothing short of amazing. It came with 1.5 dead pixels, but they're stuck on black and nearly impossible to notice; I basically have to put my nose to the monitor to see them, unless it's a single-color image or something. I don't use the pivot function, but I suppose it could be useful for some things. It's got nice ergonomics (height, tilt, rotate), and one digital port, as well as two analog ports. No hubs or speakers, but I wouldn't use them anyway (front-mounted USB ports on case, Creative T5400s). Oh, and the thin bezel is nice, too. I highly suggest this monitor if you're looking at 17" LCDs.
I have a Samsung 172X and a Sony SDM 17. Neither of them have any problems during gaming. I would recommend the 172X, it goes for very cheap at newegg.com considering it has DVI input. I've noticed on 19 inch LCDs that use analog input, ghosting is more apparent. The monitor in particular was a low end Samsung 910 Model. Other things to look at is how the monitor will be positioned in your setup. While the Horizontal viewing angle is generally good on most LCDs, the vertical veiwing angle can make the monitor seem not as bright. Ensuring the monitor you get will be even with your line of sight is important. Another reason Why i like the 172X - its wall mountable out of the box, so you can just have it in front of you, exactly where you need it. Good luck with your choice!
Biggest reasons I haven't switched?
1) Price vs. CRT tech, a high quality 19" CRT (18.0 viewable) is at least a few hundred dollars cheaper than a really nice 19" LCD
2) Non-native resolutions suck (I play a lot of older games that can't run at resolutions higher than 640x480 or 800x600, don't forget emulators like SNES9X, etc... look best at SNES native res to some people), and forgot about my old dos games (sniff)
I keep thinking LCD screens might get better, but going down to a computer store/Best Buy/wherever and trying one out still gives me headaches, due to motion blurring. Most people say they don't even notice it, so I guess they're fine for everyone else. Just keep selling CRTs for me, please.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
Just keep in mind that 16ms is 60Hz refresh (i.e. 1/60 = 0.016). If you're a hard core gamer with whom frames matter, you'd probably want an LCD a 12ms (~75Hz) refresh.
I use a very, very nice 21" CRT that was handed down to me by a graphic designer friend of mine. The only reason I am not eager to put this beast out to pasture is the high cost of 21" or larger LCD displays. I haven't heard my gamer friends who use LCD displays complaining about ghosting/motion blur for a while now. I think they displays on the market are up to the job.
Are you sure you're not posting here just because you want the world do know that you're a "gamer" and that you're cool and rich enough to upgrade gear without any good reason?
.. that with LCD's the viewable range is larger then the equivilant CRT. I just picked up a Samsung 172X screen which about equal to an 18'.
I game a decent amount and I must say for my LCD which is 12ms I don't have any problems with ghosting. Also, I find it's significatly easier on my eyes when I'm looking at it. I'll never be able to go back to a CRT now.
Also, most LCD's only support up to 1280x1024. You'll have to spend big bucks to get higher resolutions.
Check out Mon and Mon.cgi
I've had my LCD for almost a year now, I'm very happy with it. No ghosting at all. Superb quality. I definately recommend it. (I play games rather often, like counterstrike and assorted new games that manage to make it onto linux.)
- shazow
The only thing about the Dells is that the colors seem somewhat dull compared to some other displays. The company I work for bought about 50 Dells before we switched to Samsung, and the difference in the image is very noticable, especially if they are side by side. We used the 17", 19" and 20" Dells...
I really miss the stand on the Dell monitors though, it's simply awesome. The built in USB hub is very handy too. We'd probably still be buying them if Dell didn't try to pull a fast one on us regarding pricing ("LCD demand is going up, we have to raise our prices.." "Right, that's why the other manufacturers have dropped theirs recently?")
guess you don't know about www.tomshardware.com
and my BenQ 19" is AWESOME for FPS!
the human eye cannot see much beyond 30-50fps (movies are 25fps) so anything faster than a 20 is not noticeable the only problem is that the advertised responce times for lcd displays is the optimum and often the diplay will not have a responce time anyawre near as good a advertised for all colours most of the time when people have problems with ghosting on 20ms displays it is because it has a good peak (ie lowest) and has a crap average responce time
I only drink on 2 occasions when I'm thirsty and when I'm not!
I have a 2 year old Sony 18" LCD, probably with a 25ms refresh. It's worked great for everything from Half-Life and Doom 3 to DVD's. Personally I'm never planning on buying another CRT again (monitor, or TV), the new lightweight LCD's and rear projection TV's are the way to go.
Let me demostrate, pretending below is a seperate response. BTW, I'm not endorsing any of these companies, nor have I used their products.
Desktop LCD displays may never be fast enough for shutter glasses stereo (3D). However there are many LCD displays with glasses-free stereo features made by companies like DDD, ThreeDeep, and Deep Video Imaging. The biggest problem with most of these is that they tend to be designed for one user. Plus the models that actually work (as opposed to just being a gimmick) are usually very expensive.
From what I gather, OLED monitors will be fast enough for traditional shutter glasses and will also support Z Screen bi-polarization filters.
I've played 3D shoot-em-up games on active matrix TFT-LCDs since the high end models hit 40ms (13ms rise, 27ms fall). I noticed some "ghosting" on those LCDs, just as I notice "ghosting" on the latest wiz-bang LCDs. The Apple Studio Display and Silicon Graphics 1600SW were both excellent LCD monitors for DTP, photo, and games back in 1998.
I think there are other issues that make LCDs a turn-off to some:
Not used to LCDs. If you've been a CRT user for more than a solid year, an LCD will seem strange at first. It's hard to describe, but the image just looks a bit different, a bit, "strange".
Pixel density & fixed pixels vs multisync CRT phosphors. While there is really no perfect display for using a variety of resolutions, CRTs are still better than LCDs in this respect. A high quality 19" CRT will display 1024x768 just as nice as it will display 1280x1024 and 1600x1200. Most modern LCDs have very good interpolation circuitry to display non-native resolutions, but you can still spot the fuzzyness.
Adapting to a poor video signal. If you're using an LCD, use DVI, period. LCDs tend to be much less tolerant of a poor analog video signal (typically from a cheap gamer card and/or a poor vga cable). What looks nearly perfect on a CRT might be blurry or even flicker little "sparks" of dropped pixels on a LCD, even at native resolution.
Pixel density. I've noticed this most often on 18.1" LCDs. At 1280x1024, the native resolution for most 18" LCDs, I can usually notice the "screendoor" grid that outlines the pixels. Even with subpixel rendering (which to my eyes reminds me of the awful Apple II "almost-white" text on a color monitor days) and/or various amounts of anti-aliasing, the onscreen text just doesn't look right at first.
That said, I think monitor preference is generally based on one's time with a certain tech, be it LCD or CRT. Both can produce good quality images, both can be adjusted for color correctness. Buy whatever fits best on your desk (and/or budget) and spend a month with it.
I'm using a ViewSonic 20" display, and I couldn't be happier. It's got a 16ms response time, and I play a couple of major FPS games, no problems.
Of course, I do work on it much more than I game. For work, I prefer lots of screen real estate, and paid a premium to get an LCD with native 1600x1200. Think about that, because you won't notice interpolation in a high-motion game environment. You probably WILL notice it when you're reading your email. So: If you normally use desktop apps at 1280x1024, don't go out and get a native 1024 screen - you'll be disapointed.
I recently bought a Sony SDM-S204/B 20.1" LCD and while pretty pricey, it looks amazing both playing games and on the desktop. I did quite a bit of research on these and it seems like the response time stats given by manufacturers are pretty meaningless - they vary widely in the specification measurements.
Basically, the ISO standard measures the time taken to move a pixel from totally black to totally white (actually to within a small percentage). This ISO standard for response times is not very good and needs to be replaced - mostly because this is not a typical scenario, pixels are much more likely to be moving from some percentage on to some percentage off, or vice versa. If you have a major colour change, the voltage differential is going to be much greater so the movement will be faster. Panels are being created that manipulate the standard measurements to only improve the black to white transitions, totally ignoring the common case scenario for benchmarking performance. This anandtech article gives a pretty good (and brief) explanation on why these times are basically completely meaningless.
One other thing to be wary of is the interpolation methods some of the cheaper monitors use when not displaying in native resolutions. Try setting the desktop to 800x600 and even 640x480 in the store just to see how fuzzy things get. The sony has a native resolution of 1600x1200, but I don't often get to play games in that res - but running 3d and 2d games in 1024x768 and 800x600 even both still look fantastic. This wasn't the case with my previous (cheap) lcd, and it certainly wasn't the case with a lot of the monitors I checked out in the store.
Slightly off topic, is Apple the only ones producing cheap widescreen standalone LCDs these days? I'm thinking of upgrading my CRT, but after getting used the PowerBook's 15" widescreen, that's the kind of aspect ratio I would want. Minimum 1600 pixels horizontal resolution. Any recommendations?
I recently came across a BenQ 19" LCD monitor and the price was pretty reasonable. Call me ignorant but I haven't come across any BenQ monitors before. Is anyone out there using any of these displays and has any comments about them? So far I haven't come across any useful reviews.
I'm suprised no one's mentioned on of the big drawbacks of LCD - Contrast Ratio. You just won't get the true deep, rich black levels that you would on a CRT. What's an average CR for an LCD display, 500:1 or so? Maybe 750:1 for a high end display? Even with my 1500:1 CR DLP Projector the blacks appear a bit washed out and greyish as compared to my CRT's. CRT's are still the king of displays, eventually digital will catch up, but they are tried and true. Of course the bigger they are, the more chance you have of putting out your back ;)
You can't beat the sleekness and modern styling of the flat panels though, they do look wonderful.
I don't like how I cannot use other resolutions than its native resolution. The image looks weird especially with pixels. I also don't want those black sides. I use resolutions from 800x600 to 1280x1024 depending on games.
Price is another issue especially for a high quality LCD monitor. I am still sticking with CRTs for now.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Tom's has an interesting article on a new "8 ms" LCD. Take a look and decide for yourself if it's worth the money. IMO, it ain't!
With serious gaming, DVI is the way to go.
Since the holiday season is rolling around, I've been contemplating kicking out the big words for a nice TLA abbreviation. I'm a die-hard gamer, with several choices of grammar in the market today, it can get a little confusing. Ghosting seemed to be a problem with TLAs, but with displays reaching 8ms-16ms response time, is repeating the last word redundantly really an issue anymore? Is it time for this gamer to move on to greener pastures, or stay the course with my trusty TLA?"
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
I don't like how I cannot use other resolutions than its native resolution. The image looks weird especially with pixels. I also don't want those black sides. I use resolutions from 800x600 to 1280x1024 depending on games.
That's why Barco still sells CRT projectors, some of their clients demand that sort of contrast ratio. Even some home theater buffs shell out the money for the HT version from Runco. (A modified Barco projector and a monster image processor box, unmatched quality, but you need a fairly dark room).
but since when have gamers cared about that?
... Well, at full price that's 12 games that I could've played instead.
*raises hand*
$600
I got a good deal on a 19" Viewsonic professional line CRT (roughly $300, about 2 years ago), and I can assure you that the image quality on this thing is better than any LCD in the sub-$1000 price range. I use a 20" Viewsonic LCD at work, and aside from the portrait view, I vastly prefer my CRT.
While I can certainly understand the appeal of LCDs, I'm more than willing to trade off the desktop footprint for the several hundred extra a comparable LCD would cost me.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
No.
I've seen motion blur in Unreal Tournament 2004 on an expensive, high quality NEC Multisync 19" 1960NXi. The motion blur effect didn't exactly hamper gameplay, and it is less than noticeable in Warhammer 40,000, or Guild Wars for example. Sacred also runs well without any noticeable motion blur. I have not tried any interpolated resolutions, as the system is able to push most games at playable rates at 1280x1024 which is the LCD's native resolution. I am still in two minds about the LCD dilemma. The advantages of them being so easy on the eyes, taking up less deskspace and being easy to carry around hasn't yet outweighed the cons of Motion Blur, possible dead pixels and interpolation at lower resolutions for me. The LCDs that are rated at 8ms are also not truly 8ms under all conditions. 8ms is a best case scenario. I would say no. There's no compelling reason to replace a good CRT with an LCD, specifically for gaming.
-Gel214th
My age-old P166 laptop with various pieces falling off it will display a 640x480 screen resolution in the middle of its native 800x600 screen with black borders round it, instead of interpolating it up to 800x600 and making it unreadable.
Why isn't this an option on more LCD monitors? It's the main thing that stops me buying an LCD monitor - while I want my desktop at 1280x1024 or higher, I just plain can't run quite a few of my games at that res, despite having quite a hefty system.
Whatsup with that LCD manufacturers? Surely it can't be too hard to give that as a button-option in the menu? I'd imagine you'd sell a few more with that in place. Just a thought..
Are LCD Displays Ready For Gaming?
LCD displays? Are you going to get the money for them from an ATM machine, after entering your PIN number? Then hook up your computer to a DSL line?
Sorry, but redundant acronyms are a pet peeve of mine.
Love the Third Amendment?
In their "Graphics and Displays" they have very in depth reviews of LCDs and have whole sections of the articles discussing their gaming performance.
h tm l
So far, it seems like it's "close but no cigar" for LCD panels being perfect for gaming, although its very close.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/index.
I own a Iiyama 21" TFT (1600x1200). I love it when working on code. Ok, it's not an ultra-low-latency display...
But when I play Enemy Territory, I put it away and connect my old CTX 19" CRT. I set it to 77 Hz and configure a maximum frame rate of 77 in ET. Every frame of the game is on my CRT nearly instantly, 1:1. No buffers, no DAC/ADC troubles, no refresh rate interferences etc.
My score is always better when I use the CRT. Aiming is so much harder on my TFT. It _is_ noticable.
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
I play a lot in my office hours on a cheap (?) AOC LM720 17" TFT with no problem, and since recently my old CRT at home started to behave strangely after 6 years, I got myself a shiny new Samsung SyncMaster 710T (17" TFT, both VGA and DVI input, Pivot, 12ms response time). No problem at all with blurring whatsoever, and since I already had a TFT in my office, "getting used to it" was no problem either. And I play both slower stuff (NWN, Guild Wars) and FPS on my machine.
Slightly related: I bought this monitor due to its dual inputs,and when it came, I connected it via the DVI cable to my GeForce4 Ti 4200's DVI-out. The picture was sharp as hell, but the colors looked like it was 8 bit. No joke. I googled around a bit and only found one thread were someone had a similar problem, but they never solved it on that thread. I then used ye olde analog cable, and everything has been fine since, and (to my eye) as sharp. Anyone ever had that? Known problem with certain drivers/GeForce4 cards/certain cable types/Samsung TFTs/Win32? Defective input?
I tried the 19" Sony LCD and did not like the lack of crispness and the refresh problems. Everytime a web page is moved or anything is moving on the screen the entire screen seems to vibrate! Serious headaches!
:-)
I tried and now have an Apple 20" Cinemas Display.
I know it may not be within everyones budget but I can not recommend this monitor enough. Very crisp at 1680 x 1050! It truly is an unbelieveable monitor in every category! Wide view is especially helpful for peering around corners, etc.!
Vote Kerry... says the shivering Canadian!
wBzB
As far as I know, all 12ms displays and all but the most expensive 16ms displays use 6-bit panels.
So if you want good-looking colours, you're effectively stuck with 20ms models.
Why should you care why he's asking? Just give the best response you can with the information available and get on with your life. Even if he's just looking for an ego stroke, some of us actually are interested in the information others have to share.
lcd technology has come a long way since the days when "real" gamers still only used crt... nowadays you'll be hard pressed to see a difference... other than the extra desk real estate
Get your torrents...
You may not have realized it, but it's a well known fact among those who have invested a little time in researching displays.
l et ter2003/crt-lcd-comparison.htm
If it doesn't bother you, that's great, ignorance is bliss. If you want to spend a few minutes, I'd suggest googling "CRT vs LCD" and "Black Levels". Or check out www.avsforum.com. Or here:
http://www.vartechsystems.com/pressroom/aprnews
There's no argument, it's a well known fact that CRT's are the best, and LCD's are among the worst when it comes to display technology.
Does that mean the image is terrible? Not at all. I find they look quite nice, but technically they have a bit of catching up to do yet.
A 15'' crt weights about 14 Kg. Many people maybe does not care about this, but when you use a table with wheels it is quite a factor. The wheels tend to get stuck and finally break from supporting the bulk of the pc case + the crt. A tft wheigs about 3 kg, that's over 10 kg improvement, more than 50% of the overall pc mass. Not to mention the mass of a 17, 19 or 21'' crt, compare this to their tft counterparts.
You need to do some research. Mind you I'm not an LCD hater, I think they look very nice. But technically they still have a lot of catching up to do to reach CRT performance and saturation, black levels, you name it.
t ter2003/crt-lcd-comparison.htm
http://www.vartechsystems.com/pressroom/aprnewsle
Spend some time on Google if you must, or read one of the 1,000,000 threads on www.avsforum.com, but there's absolutely no contesting that CRT technology provides the best picture.
Figured I'd say my bit here since most of the posts keep referring to how they have a 16ms response time or 25ms response time and there is no ghosting.
First off, I own two LCD monitors, a VG175 and a VP171b. The former was from back in the day when ghosting was prevalent and the VP171b is newer and definitely nice for gaming. The VG175 was ok for gaming, but would ghost now and then.
Before I went and purchased the second LCD I did a lot more research on the area. What I found surprised me. The specification for 'Response Time' is a marketing gimmick. It has no bearing on how well the monitor performs for playing back DVDs and games. That's the kicker...
Response time is measured as the time for the monitor to goto *full black* to *full white* and back to *full black*. Which you would guess is the proper way to do it. Unfortunately, many LCDs out there optimize the hell out of the black to white switching and leave the switching between colors incredibly slow. This can lead to ghosting.
So how do you figure out which is best? Research opinions on the net, but most of all, insist that you see the monitor in action before purchasing it. It's the only way to tell. There was a tech site that I went to that detailed the spectrum analysis of the VP171b and that's what got me to buy into it. Seeing it action made it real and so I bought it. There were a few others in contention that claimed to have lower or equivalent response times, but they couldn't handle the picture as well as the VP171b.
Granted, I purchased the VP171b almost a year ago now. So it's quite likely that there's something better out there. But my advice to you is to try before you buy.
Hope this helps.
This is a distinction that many people don't even know exists, but it is an important one. When someone says LCD these days, they almost never distinguish between flat panel and rear projection (not tube-based rear projection that's been around a long time, but LCD-based rear projection which is fairly new).
I have a 50" Panasonic rear-projection HDTV that I play games on all of the time (both console and PC games). It is fucking awesome and the response times are as good as any CRT. This type of set isn't as small as a flat panel setup (nor as expensive), but it is still WAY SMALLER than old-school rear projection systems. It weighs only 90 lbs, and is only 19" deep, and is only about 8" taller than the screen. It basically looks like flat panel or plasma, but it's actually neither (it is very much like the newer DLP or LCoS TV's).
Anyway, gaming is pure heaven on these things, not to mention getting the widescreen advantage (I will be actually able to SEE MORE in Halo 2 multiplayer than most of my 4:3 brethren) -- feel my wrath you fraggers...
I've been using a laptop (Toshiba Satellite M30) for about a year now, and I find it decent enough for playing UT or other games. At first it seemed a little dark, but after a while (and having the AC on) it gets pretty sharp. Also mine has about the same format as a 16:9 screen :)
printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
-- myself
I personally prefer CRTs for gaming and multimedia applications, although a high-quality LCD is more than suitable. The problem at the moment and for the perceivable future is cost for larger LCDs, and that is without mention of costly DVI cabling. Choice is mostly about aesthetics and practicality. Response time actually refers to the time it takes a pixel on the grid to shut off and on, known as rise and fall. The listed response time is cumulative. Therefore the proper calculation is to take the higher of the two values (rise) for determing the effect on visuals. With 16 ms LCDs, this is typically 10-12 ms depending on quality, which would relate to 100 and 83. However values specified are optimistic and not always met; this also is determined by LCD quality. But for the sake of argument, for gaming purposes 60 is the ideal to avoid motion blur, so any 16 ms makes this grade and high-quality 25 ms is borderline.
Yes.
I wasn't convinced at first, then I was sent one of these gaming flat panels to review. I wept openly when the courier came to collect it, and I'm meant to be a hardened journalist type.
The 12ms response time means that it's infallible when it comes to blurring, the image remains pinsharp. Plus it weighed a whole 16 kilos less than my current gaming CRT.
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
23" LCD with 16ms response time is *amazing* 1920x1200 res.
They are unmatched for gaming.
They also support HDTV resolutions via component video.
More than a year ago, there were some reputable studies which demonstrated that the life-time TCO is lower for LCDs, even for home users.
I recently was facing an upgrade dilemma. Get two new or used flat-panels or CRTs? After evaluating all four options, I decided to try buying two Dell 21" P1110 Trinitron CRTs from AccurateIT.Com for $179 each... figuring they're refurbished so maybe only one will work well but at least these monitors have two regular video inputs each && can handle 2048x1536 no prob. Even a single refurbished equivalent quality flat-panel would be significantly more expensive than both those CRTs.
They came well packaged with no visible damage to the housing && they both have performed indistinguishably from a new monitor for like a month now. Great refresh rates, contrast, multiple resolutions without scaling, multiple inputs... yeah they're heavy or whatever but it's not like I lift them or move them every day && I have plenty of desk space so I'm totally happy with them. I'd recommend other people try this route since it worked out so well for me.
I hate LCDs due to the motion blur
Check my new graphics card - awesome DX9 motion blur feature
All I am saying is that there exists no technology to make either type of screen blacker when it is on than when it is off. A switched off monitor is as black as it can get.
Now an LCD may have more problems producing a grey near to black than a crt, so the range of tonal values produced is not be even. This could be true for crt also (unklikely but there some bad crts) but worse for LCD at this part of the tonal range. This doesn't affeect my point that black, ie rgb 0:0:0 for any monitor is the colour it is when it's switched off. And a lot of monitors are dark grey when off, which due to the way the human eye/brain combination works is seen as black. This is one of the reasons why CRT are (according to your link) not recommended for brightly lit conditions - the black appears as the grey shade it really is amongst other factors. Etc.
In a brightly lit enironment at it's native resolution using a dvi connection with an appropriate image there's absolutely no contesting that LCD technology provides the best picture.
In other situations a CRT may be the best choice, it's better not to be too dogmatic.
Those were the days! I remember my old 21" trinitron had BNC in, but I've never seen a PC equipped with BNC out.
I've never seen BNC on a PC graphics card, or even that many worstations. More common were DB15 and HD15 "VGA" connectors with three (sync on green), four (composite sync), or five (seperate H and V sync) coax cables, each with a BNC connector.
Even better, and much more handy is 13w3, a single D shell with 3 mini-coax connectors and 10 data lines. Most unix machines, including Silicon Graphics worstations used this connector for years. Even some PC cards used it. SGI only recently dropped 13w3 when they moved to DVI.
http://www.foxns.com/cables/1302.jpg
Weigh all alternatives b4 u buy. In my area (YMMV) you can buy a 3 year old 22" Mitsubishi Diamondtron CRT (superb visual quality) monitor for around $220 CDN vs the LCD i would buy, the Sceptre 19" at around $700. If money is no object, go out and get the best LCD you can find, I recommend Sceptre, Samsung, Sony etc. If the budget is limited, then you can't really beat the CRT monitor...look at it....square footage of screen real estate per dollar can't be beat. But if you choose the CRT, better have a strong desk, one of my 21" monitors is 85 lbs lol! and it doubles as a space heater for that spare bedroom in the winter...power consumption can also be a concern if you are running a lot of monitors like I do on my home LAN.
You said "black, ie rgb 0:0:0 for any monitor is the colour it is when it's switched off." I wish it were so. My Sony Trinintron Multiscan G410 CRT gets to a dark greenish gray at 0:0:0, but no darker. It's a good solid black when it's off. This is with all the brightnesses set at 0% and all the contrasts at 100% - or maybe I have brightness and contrasts reversed; I can never remember which is which.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that rgb 0:0:0 can't be blacker than a switched-off CRT.
- maxbuten@yahoo.com